Welcome to From Insults to Respect.
Recently, as I was eating dinner with a married couple the subject of how they deal with criticism arose. For the sake of privacy, I’ve changed their names to Sarah and Bob.
In an earlier post, I addressed the question, “Unsolicited Criticism: Good or Bad.” Sarah and Bob agree with my conclusions in that post which in summary suggested that:
Negative criticism is coming our way whether we like it or not. And within a relationship, providing it can be essential. If one of the parties is doing something that is bugging the other, keeping silent could unnecessarily lead to the relationship coming to a premature end when a constructive discussion might have easily settled the matter.
Rather then seeking to squelch criticism, we are better off learning to provide it in a wise and thoughtful manner (see post titled PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM: FIVE LEVELS OF MATURITY), and to respond to it in a wise and thoughtful manner as well (see post titled RESPONDING TO CRITICISM: FOUR LEVELS OF MATURITY).
That said, there are times when someone is providing one criticism after another and it becomes too much to process all at once. At other times, someone might provide criticism that is in a style that uses a tone of voice that is hard to bear.
Sometimes we have been recently bombarded by some type of stress, and as a result, we may not be in any mood to hear any criticism for a while. Under these sets of circumstances, it makes perfectly good sense to briefly let the person who is seeking to provide criticism know that usually we are very open to hearing criticism, but for right now, we need a little break (see blog posts SUMMARIZE AND DELAY and ANGER, STRESS, AND THE SIGNALING TO BACK-OFF TECHNIQUE). Then we can, over a period of time, regain our sense of balance and figure out how best to move forward. Moreover, it is important to learn to effectively advocate that when individuals do provide negative criticism they at least try to do so in a respectful manner.
So, Sarah and Bob in the past had agreed with me about all of this. And then at dinner one evening they revealed to me that within their relationship they have come to an agreement that when either one of them wants to provide some constructive criticism to the other they first ask for permission. They also prefer others who want to provide criticism to them do likewise. Let’s take a close look at this approach.
Negative Criticism and the “Asking for Permission Technique”
When Sarah finds that Bob has done something that she would like him to consider changing, rather than hoping Bob will at some point invite her to provide some criticism to him about that issue, she could, herself, bring the issue up to him uninvited when she thinks he might be in a receptive mood. More specifically, Sarah, before providing feedback, first checks in with herself to see if she has sufficiently calmed herself from any anger or annoyance that she has been experiencing. This is important because if she seeks to provide feedback to Bob when she is angry or annoyed, either at him, or at someone else, her tone of voice might inadvertently provoke a level of defensiveness within Bob that would be counterproductive.
Next, Sarah observes how Bob is doing. If he looks like he is in a fairly calm mood and is not in the midst of something stressful, she then makes sure they both have sufficient time to discuss the matter.
Only when all of this has been considered, will she say to Bob, “Are you open to my giving you some feedback about something?”
Bob also uses the same approach as Sarah when he wants to provide her some feedback. Both agree that this approach has been very helpful to them. Sarah explained that upon hearing the phrase, “Are you open to my giving you some feedback about something?” it gives her a few moments to check in with herself. “Am I up to having a criticism type discussion right now, or would it be better to wait for a more apt time? If I am up for hearing it, I can take a moment to prepare myself.” Bob agreed.
At this point in the conversation, I recalled that just prior to this conversation I had mentioned to Bob that his eye glass lenses looked like they had some smudges on them. He seemed to find some value in what I had said, as he looked the lenses over and cleaned them. So, I asked him if he would have preferred, when I mentioned the smudges, that I first had asked him if he was open for some feedback. He smiled, and said that in that type of situation there was no need for asking for permission.
I then asked them, “As soon as you are asked permission, aren’t you so curious about what the issue is all about that you would just want to know?”
“This happens,” Sarah replied, “but not always. And besides, it’s nice to be given the choice, and, as I already mentioned, it does provide that moment or two to prepare myself.”
The conversation about this topic ended at this point, but a day or two later, we got back into it. In attempting to clarify in my own mind how the Sarah and Bob approach would work in a variety of situations, I asked Bob, “If you accidentally left your fly open, would it be okay if I just whispered to you in private that you needed to zipper up, or would you prefer that in that kind of situation I first ask if you were open to hearing some feedback?” He said that with that type of situation coming right to the issue would be fine, though it would be helpful if I said it in a non-putdown manner, perhaps pointing out that we all goof up like that from time to time.
I then asked Sarah, “Let’s say we’re in a restaurant together. You go to the bathroom, and when you come out I notice you are dragging some toilet paper behind you that is stuck to the bottom of your heel. Would you want me to come straight out and tell you, or would it be better to first ask for permission to give you feedback?” She didn’t hesitate, indicating that in that type of situation there would be no need to first request permission.
So, my next question was, “How do you two distinguish between those types of situations in which you ask for permission to give feedback from when you come right out and tell the person what’s on your mind?” Their main criteria was basically asking yourself, “For the kind of criticism I want to give, if someone was to provide a similar type of criticism to me, would I want to be asked for permission prior to receiving it?” If yes, then you ask for permission. For Sarah and Bob, the types of criticism that they would want to be asked permission before hearing it typically involve particularly sensitive issues for them, something you noticed was particularly sensitive in the past for the other person, or when it involves a person’s creative work.
My Thoughts
That said, for me, personally, I’d rather make it clear to those whom I know that I always want to hear any negative criticism they want to share with me, and there is no need to first ask for permission. If I happen to be in a somewhat fragile state, for whatever reason, it is up to me, after hearing what the general issue is about, to quickly summarize what I heard, and then assert in a friendly way that I’ll need some time to consider the matter when I am in a better frame of mind.
It seems to me that if I were to inform people I know that before they provide me with any feedback they first use the “Asking For Permission Technique” it might discourage people from being as open about the concerns they would like to share with me. Said another way, if I were to request to people I know that before they provide me any negative criticism they first ask me for permission, it might signal to them that I am sensitive about such criticism. With that in mind, how much would they keep secret from me to avoid hurting my feelings?
Yes, there are times when I do feel within me some sensitive feelings upon hearing some negative feedback. Nevertheless, I’d rather deal with that than discourage anyone from letting me know, straight out, what they think I can do to improve. Moreover, I am confident that I have the skills to use those sensitive feelings in a constructive, creative manner. I also wonder if people might respect me more for being the type of person they can be straight and honest with, who gracefully welcomes criticism, and really takes the time to seriously consider what someone has to say.
At this point, I think it’s crucial that I make it clear that I’m not trying to imply that my personal preference is the “right” choice for everyone. Moreover, I very much doubt that people who prefer to be asked for permission before receiving criticism, are likely to lose any friends because they informed them of this preference. And, really, how much respect someone has for another is unlikely to significantly turn on this one issue since there are so many other aspects of anyone’s character.
Interestingly, although I try to make it clear to people I know that I’m pretty much always open to hear their criticism, there are times when I want to provide others with some feedback and I, myself, ask for permission. I’m most likely to do this when they have been working on something creative. At such time, I typically find myself asking, “Are you open to hearing my impressions?”
Finally, as Sarah, Bob and I moved toward finishing up our conversation, Sarah made one other point. She told us about a friend of hers who, when requesting feedback about something particularly close to her heart, asks that it be worded something like, “What if (or I wonder if) you changed…?” rather than, “I think something you did would be better if you did….” I think there are situations in which we would be wise to heed this suggestion.
So, there are some thoughts for all us to consider as we continue our journey from insults to respect.
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional and social intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Samantha Bee, who, on her cable comedy TV show “Full Frontal,” called first daughter Ivanka Trump a “feckless c*nt,”using a vulgar reference to the female anatomy. Samantha tore into Ivanka after the first daughter had posted a beautiful photo depicting her and her child treasuring their mother-child relationship. This post occurred at the same time the press was showing disturbing images of children of illegal immigrants being torn from their mother’s arms and then sent to separate places, perhaps permanently.
Like Roseanne, Samantha quickly apologized, saying, “I would like to sincerely apologize to Ivanka Trump and to my viewers for using an expletive on my show to describe her last night. It was inappropriate and inexcusable. I crossed a line, and I deeply regret it.”
Many have expressed anger believing that it’s not fair that Roseanne got fired while Samantha didn’t. These people tend to support this position by saying that both did the same thing, insulting a political figure in a vile manner and using discriminatory language.
First of all, I don’t watch a great deal of TV, so I’m not all that familiar with either Roseanne or Samantha’s various performances. Whenever I have had glimpses of Roseanne doing her shtick, I occasionally found it pleasantly humorous.
Upon hearing that she was going to star in an updated version of her old show, many were hopeful because it was going to depict family and friends with different political views interacting. If the discussions on the show were done in a loving thoughtful manner it might prove to be a great opportunity for Americans to positively self reflect. As it sadly turned out, I feel for the many fine people who were engaged in creating the show who themselves had done nothing wrong. They now must face the incredible turmoil that the kind of hateful language that Roseanne used tends to breed.
As for Samantha, there were times I caught her performances on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and found her satire insightful, but she too often came across as just being mean to those whom she was being critical of. My wife, who has been watching her since she has had her own show, tells me that her commentaries are often spot on.
As a parent myself, I found myself imagining how he might have felt upon hearing someone use such language against his daughter. But then it came to my attention that from his lips not a single word was uttered opposing what Roseanne had said that denigrated so many. Where was his outrage over how their parents felt upon hearing Roseanne’s hateful comments? It occurred to me that Roseanne is a high profile person who supports him.
When Megan Kelly, during one of the last presidential debates, had asked Trump some challenging questions, he attacked her, saying she must have had blood coming out of…wherever. This struck me and many others as obviously sexist. Trump apparently had no sympathy for Megan or her father.
As I thought more about this, it seemed to me that most of the people who felt Samantha should have been fired are supporters of Trump. These are the same people that had heard how he had bragged about grabbing women, heard women testifying that he had done so, and heard his comment about Megan Kelly. They, nevertheless, have not been calling for his firing, and instead, they went out and voted for him, thereby recommending that rather than be fired, he be hired to serve as the president of the United States. So, their arguments for why Samantha should be fired ended up ringing off key to my ears.
As I questioned him, it became clear that in his opinion both of the performers’ comments were equally bad because they were very insulting. Moreover, both were discriminatory–Roseanne’s comment being discriminatory in it being racist and anti-muslim; Samantha’s comment being sexist.
In contrast, Samantha, who is a woman, made a sexist comment that offends women. She had not done anything similar in the past. Moreover, she made it clear that she was seeking to insult just one person and for something specifically not being done by that person. Unlike what Roseanne had done, Samantha’s comment did not directly insult her boss; in fact, her boss very likely agreed with the point Samantha had tried to make. These are very clear differences to me.
This is not to say that there isn’t a very helpful place for providing criticism to those with whom we disagree. But to me there are destructive and constructive ways to go about this.
Welcome to From Insults to Respect.
A mock funeral mourning those lost to psychiatry or who have had their spirits broken and struggle to survive is to be held as protesters deliver a public message to psychiatrists at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association on Sunday, May 6, 2018. “First, Do No Harm” is the message that protesters hope will go viral and get people to think twice before getting involved with psychiatry.
I became interested in the conflict about the use of psychiatric drugs very early in my career as a psychologist. I began to discuss the issues with psychiatrists as well as those who objected to this form of treatment. A broad outline of what I heard follows:
In contrast, critics of psychiatric drugs have made the following counter claims: The use of psychiatric drugs has unleashed the worst medically induced disaster in history. They have caused millions of people to become addicted to them, suffering debilitating, life threatening side effects. Rather than promoting mental health, these drugs are being used to promote social control and conformity. Reduction in hospitalization, moreover, occurred not because of the use of these drugs, but because of a deinstitutionalization policy that became known as “dumping.” Problems now being handled with psychiatric drugs can be more effectively, safely, and humanely handled with a variety of social support systems, counseling, mindfulness, healthy diet, and physical exercise techniques.
As I heard these conflicting claims, I initially thought that psychiatrists had principles of science on their side. With my graduate training in research methods and statistics, I thought that by doing a thorough job finding out the scientific research that backs up the psychiatric drug supporters I could explain in an easy to understand language why psychiatric drugs are necessary. With such an explanation, perhaps the conflict would be resolved.
I began with researching Ritalin because I was working in Rochester, NY’s school system. This was from 1974 to 1979. It was a time when drugs were just beginning to be prescribed more and more to treat students who had teachers dissatisfied with their activity level or ability to pay attention. I had witnessed a time when schools managed to deal with such problems without the use of this drug and life went on reasonably well. With the rise in its use, some thought it was a wonderful advancement, while others were expressing great discomfort at this new trend.
Not all of the findings were supportive. At the time I initially did my research, there was only one study that looked at the long-term results of Ritalin use. It compared children placed on methylphenidate, the generic version of Ritalin, with those who received no treatment. The children in the two groups were matched with respect to age, IQ, socioeconomic class and sex. After 3 to 5 years, no statistically significant differences were found between the two groups on the following outcome measures: emotion maladjustment, delinquency, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Bender gestalt visual-motor test, and academic performance.
Perhaps most troubling of all was the recognition that the safety of long term use of Ritalin had not been established despite many students being treated for years.
In the end, I discovered that although the approval process of the FDA had in its documents the available scientific evidence in making its decision to approve Ritalin, the reviewers’ decision nevertheless relied more on their personal values. It seemed to me, and it still does, that different people looking over the same scientific evidence could, depending on their values, come to completely different conclusions about whether or not the drug should be approved.
For example, Marcia Angell, M.D., is a former editor in chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, and now is a member of Harvard’s Medical School. In her insightful book, The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, she writes, “Is there some way companies can rig clinical trials to make their drugs look better than they are? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Trials can be rigged in a dozen ways, and it happens all the time” (p. 95).
Civil rights activists worked for generations to make some progress in achieving their goals. Among the most successful of these advocates was Martin Luther King, Jr. When advocating for civil rights, he avoided throwing insults at those who resisted the changes he was after. Instead, he focussed on painting his dream in beautiful, hopeful phrases and demonstrating in nonviolent, but impossible to ignore, peaceful resistance.
Welcome to
More people indicated they dislike the new tax plan than like it for three basic reasons: They think the new law favors the wealthy over the middle and working class. They’re suspicious that tax cuts for businesses are permanent but tax cuts for individuals are temporary. And they think it’s irresponsible to finance the tax cuts with debt that future workers will have to shoulder.
There is an estimated 1 trillion dollars per year of new debt the US government will have due to the tax cuts. “The small amount most get,” said one concerned citizen, “will be eaten up by the massive debt we’re adding but not benefitting from.”
“The new tax policy would deliver more than 50 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent, according to an 
For example, the fracking industry utilizes such heavy equipment that transporting it breaks down the highways in the areas that they operate more quickly than average utilizers. The added cost to maintain the highways would be paid for by a fee.
The US government has long supported a tax plan that encourages its citizens to purchase their own home by offering a reduction in taxes for those who have a mortgage. To continue this encouragement of home ownership, the tax proposal I am advocating for would make the first $100,000 of a home purchase tax free.
What are the benefits of this plan’s elimination of taxes on earnings of businesses and corporations? To begin with, as soon as a government begins to seek taxes from the earnings of organizations such as businesses and corporations, the organizations’ self interests lead to actions taken by incredibly well financed lobbyists. This consumes an enormous amount of our government representatives’ time. The plan I support would free up our representatives so they can work directly on doing what’s right for we, the people.
In manipulating the system, corporate lobbyists manage to embed incredibly complex formulas into the tax code to hide the various benefits to their organizations. Manipulations, such as establishing offshore companies, manage to successfully hide from the tax collectors. Savvy tax lawyers find one loophole after another. All of these efforts are financially costly to corporations and other businesses, wasting their resources, while having a negative effect on our economy as a whole.
Let me add that many people are under the misconception that corporations pay a huge percentage of the needed federal revenues. With that impression, these people think that if we end taxes on corporate profits, individual citizens’ taxes would have to skyrocket. However, as the chart on the right indicates, prior to the new tax overhaul, corporate taxes covered about ten percent of all federal revenues. Now that that overall has been passed, it’s percent of all federal revenues is significantly less. Because my tax plan would have corporations paying a new federal sales tax on the goods and services that they purchase, plus the rich paying an increase in their income tax, there would be no loss in federal revenues from the elimination of taxing corporate profits.
Another benefit of my proposed tax plan is that the majority of citizens would find that figuring out their income tax burden would be enormously simplified. Once a year they would merely add up their income, notify the IRS what that amount is, and as long as it is not more than $100,000, they would be done. No more hiring a tax preparer, or spending hours pouring over tax receipts to figure out what can be written off and what can’t.
Well, first I was influenced to some degree by Warren Buffett’s rule. The Buffett Rule is named after American investor 
After considering what Buffett has said on this topic, I then read Capital in the Twenty-First Century by economist
Piketty”s careful analysis argues that a progressive tax on both income and inheritance reaching a maximum of 80% would be required to adequately reduce inequality. At the same time, he recognizes the political difficulties of achieving this. I chose 50% as a number that perhaps is more reasonably achievable in the not too distant future.
Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize–winning economist, disagrees with Ryan’s assessment. Thus, he stated that “the economic record certainly doesn’t support the notion that [the current] superlow taxes on the superrich are the key to prosperity.” He backs this up with evidence like the fact that the U.S. economy added 11.5 million jobs during President Bill Clinton’s first term, when the capital gains tax rate was over 29 percent.
Moving on, what about the concern expressed in the Yahoo poll about the new tax overhaul increasing the national debt? In my proposal, the sales tax would be set at a level that would be just high enough so all of the current government programs would be adequately funded while slowly reducing the national debt. How high a sales tax would that be?
As long as there is real competition in the marketplace, corporations will be forced to pass on at least some of their 21% savings in taxes to their customers, thereby leading to citizens ending up paying a total amount that is less per sale even with an 8% sales tax.
And many middle class folks have, because of the resentment they feel, been talking about the rich in the most disrespectful manner, while passing around on the internet images of them being big fat greedy folks.
No doubt you have all noticed the recent commotion over the new US White House policy of raising tariffs on some manufactured goods. There are those who are enthusiastically supporting this, while others are vehemently arguing that we would be far better off sticking to the previous policy. Well, from my way of thinking, both policies have serious drawbacks. So, in today’s post I would like you all to consider a far wiser alternative, one that I call a “Regional Manufacturing Policy.” Before I explain this alternative, and why it would be so much better, particularly for respecting the environment, let’s review the current commotion as it stands now.
Countries that have established trade policies with the US after long and hard negotiations see this move by the Trump administration as a violation of trust and some are threatening retaliation. When the US administration said it might exempt Canada and Mexico, this led to other countries expressing that they are being treated disrespectfully for they have been US allies for years.
The reasons some support the raising of tariffs are several. The US has the knowhow to produce any of the goods that would be considered for a tariff increase. US workers are eager to do the job as long as it pays at least a living wage; that is, a wage that permits a person working 40 hours a week, with no additional income, to afford the basics for a modest but decent life, such as, food, shelter, utilities, transport, health care, and child care. Although other countries have workers who are willing to do the job for lower salaries, there are several benefits to the US if it sticks to having US citizens do jobs that can competently be done by them. Though prices may go up a few dollars per item if the US keeps manufacturing jobs in the US, people earning the money in the US will spend their earnings in the US, helping the national economy. Fewer US citizens will need to be drawing on welfare programs. There is a pride that goes along with having local workers being part of what keeps the country rolling along.
Complicating all of this is the fact that other countries buy some of the manufactured goods made in the US. If the US reduces foreign product purchases because tariffs make them too costly, foreign countries may raise tariffs on US products leading to making them so costly fewer foreigners will buy those products. Then those corporations’ employees in the US that are manufacturing these products will lose their jobs. Pennsylvania workers could end up with an improved job situation while other states will end up with a worse job situation. The complexities in this type of trade war make it extremely difficult to predict what the final outcomes will be.
The corporations may make this decision because Chinese workers are paid sufficiently less and the power plants that are used can be run at less expense because there are less pollution control requirements. The result is more profits by maintaining the current policy than if a decision was made to manufacture all manufactured goods within the region those goods are to be sold.
According to an investigative report form the UK newspaper the Daily Mail, the 16 biggest ships in the world produce more pollution than all the world’s cars. This is because of the higher levels of sulphur oxides and nitrous oxides that large container vessels produce when compared to cars.
The alternative, raising tariffs plan, offers no real significant improvement in protecting the environment. Prior to Trump announcing his policy to raise tariffs, there were already numerous tariffs in place that were negotiated by all the concerned stakeholders. Despite that, millions and millions of miles of needless transportation was still going on. Meanwhile, the increase of tariffs lead to allies becoming enraged, lawsuits are already being filed, and final consequences of all of the stirred up ill will are unlikely to lead to benefits for all but a very few.
Imagine the United Nations coming to an agreement about a policy that is in the interest of protecting the environment. This policy calls for a three-year transition period that leads to all manufactured goods that are sold in a region being fully manufactured in that region, with the workers getting paid at least a living wage.
To further envision what a RMP would require, imagine North America being divided into 5 or 6 regions, Europe divided into 2 or 3 regions, and so on. If Apple intends to sell its iPhones in each of these regions, it would be required by RMP to create manufacturing plants in each of these regions, thus dramatically reducing miles of transportation, along with the pollution that goes with it.
The article goes on to say, “The Trump administration, handing automakers a victory, is preparing to announce an effort to weaken strict Obama-era pollution standards.”
“12% of patients will benefit from the treatment, while the remaining 88% will suffer the adverse effects of treatment without any additional therapeutic benefit beyond placebo. Those are the odds that a person contemplating taking an antidepressant drug might want to know.”
Whenever we learn of a mass shootings, we hear people unfairly connecting the horrendous murderous acts to people who have been classified as having a mental illness. 
For example, at one point immediately after one such tragic event, Paul Ryan, the former speaker of the House, announced, “People with mental illness are getting guns and committing these mass shootings.” Such statements connect in the minds of the public the notion that people who have been labelled mentally ill are dangerous, thereby promoting the stigmatizing of a group of people, the vast majority of whom are no more violent than average citizens.
In one series of studies we find that violence involvement during adolescence is also a potent risk factor for ongoing violence involvement well into young adulthood (
People who have been labelled mentally ill come from a full range of social and economic conditions. At the same time, such labelled people are somewhat more likely to be exposed to social and economic risk factors such as poverty, crime victimization, involvement with illegal drugs and drug markets, early life trauma exposure, and ambient neighborhood crime. Perhaps it is this exposure, rather than the vague notion of mental illness, that leads to the statistical increased risk of violence among mentally ill labelled people. Examining this possibility, Swanson et al. (see 
The mental illness explanation for the school atrocities is far too simplistic, unfairly stigmatizes an enormous number of nonviolent individuals, and diverts our attention from coming to understand the real factors that are involved.
This week I happened to be listening to the old Graham Parker song, “Nobody Hurts You.” As I interpret the lyrics and how they are sung, it seems to me that they are a useful jumping off point for a discussion about so many of us being, at times, so disrespectful to ourselves.
Hey baby, I’m out of favor
Suffocating in suburbia
One of the most common way that we begin to hurtfully treat ourselves is when we perceive someone is treating us disrespectfully. Apparently, some people are less likely to succumb to this pattern. I came upon a great example of someone who utilized an alternative pattern while reading Ron Chernow’s best selling biography of Ulysses S. Grant.
Grant was widely respected in his day, not only for his leadership during the Civil War, but also for his tenure as US President, serving a full two terms. Sure, he had his flaws, as all human beings do. Nevertheless, his pattern of dealing with perceptions of disrespect does suggest the possibility that it is possible to achieve respect with the use of his pattern.
If you can keep your head when all about you 
It may be true that some of us are born with a calmer, more supportive way to react to perceptions of disrespect. If you believe this, you may come to believe that there is nothing you can do to change your innate pattern. However, I, and many others as well, have found that if we come to realize lashing out at others and ourselves at such times is less than ideal, there are some very useful skills that can be learned over a period of time despite innate tendencies.
Now, a major reason people become discouraged from taking helpful action to learn such skills is that they read on this topic, became convinced that the skills make sense, but end up finding that this understanding led to no change in their own behavior. “Oh, I know all about such skills,” they say to themselves, “but with my temperament, I can’t really do anything about this.”
Learning skills that are helpful to respond to perceptions of disrespect is similar in many ways. To learn them, you have to apply what you have heard or read by first doing them under relatively safe circumstances, make mistakes, and try again and again until you get smooth at coordinating the skills even in very challenging circumstances.
Some counselors and psychotherapists will also encourage you to learn to meditate and utilize other mindfulness techniques. Here you practice observing your physical sensations when you are dealing with the disrespectful perceptions. In time, the disrespectful words that you tend to direct at yourself come to lose their disturbing nature. For a period of time these words still come, but you end up smiling at them as you realize they are not matching reality. In time, they may completely fade away.
In the study, primatologists Sarah F. Brosnan and Frans B.M. de Waal trained capuchin monkeys to perform a certain task for which they receive, as a reward, cucumber slices. The monkeys performed the task just fine until they were permitted to see another monkey being rewarded with grapes, a higher-value payment. Suddenly many of the cucumber-receivers refused the cucumber, sometimes even throwing those measly, unfair cucumber payments at the experimenter who was giving out the reward. In a delightful YouTube video that you can access for free 
The new tax policy would deliver more than 50 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent, according to an 
Trickle-down economics, also referred to as trickle-down theory, is an economic theory that advocates reducing taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term. For those who want to see how much support there is for this theory, I suggest placing the following words into your search engine–Trickle-down theory, evidence for support. By doing so, you will find that the theory has been a dismal failure. For a brief summary of these findings, I recommend Wikipedia’s entry on this topic. Here are some quotes:
The term trickle-down originated as a joke by humorist 
Representative Ro Khanna 
There are a few definitions of capital. Here, whenever I use the word, I am referring to property such as money, land, housing, and tools that people own that they do not require for their basic needs such as food, shelter, healthcare, and transportation to and from work. In our society this type of capital can be uniquely used to earn more capital without the necessity to do any labor. Rather than labor, capital earns more capital via rental properties and interests from other investments. The way our society is structured, it is only the rich that have a significant amount of capital.
Those who are in a significant portion of the middle class actually have to supplement their labor earnings by taking out loans to pay for their homes, cars, and post high school education. The interest that they pay on these loans go to financial institutions that the rich benefit by having investments in them.
The phenomenon of capital eliminates the requirement for rich people to labor in order to earn their basic needs. In fact, without labor, their capital most often keeps increasing, which is referred to as capital gains. So, even when the rich pay higher taxes then the middle class, they tend to live far more lavishly, only work if and when they want, and their capital continues to increase at no pains taken by them.
So, for those middle class folks who support the new US tax policy, I suggest that they take a good look at the YouTube video of the capuchin monkey who is throwing cucumber slices at the experimenter. Perhaps these middle class people can learn from the monkey a basic principle of fairness and equity.
Today, let’s see if we can tie together some of the loose threads of my
We also discussed that in contrast to Joni’s position is the medical model, which views people who experience depression as having an illness that requires, as the first line of treatment, taking pills that are called “antidepressants.” Many who hold this view have absolutely no respect for people who hold the view expressed by Joni.
Tolstoy goes on to explain how his melancholy stimulated a gnawing questioning that eventually led to one insight after another. His trouble had not been with life in general, not with the common life of common men, but with the life of the upper, intellectual, artistic classes, the life that he had personally always led, the cerebral life, the life of conventionality, artificiality, and personal ambition. He had lived wrongly and had to change.
Then, one day in early spring, while he was alone in the forest listening to its mysterious noises, he was filled with a sense of deeper meaning. “After that,” he wrote, “things cleared up within me and about me better than ever, and the light has never wholly died away.” According to Tolstoy, his suicidal feelings disappeared, and he went on to live a productive life until he passed away at the age of 82 of natural causes.
The great psychologist and philosopher William James was someone who viewed the pathologizing of human experience as simple minded and nothing more than superficial medical talk. Rather than resorting to mentally ill jargon, the good professor explained in his monumental book, Varieties of Religious Experience, his view of Tolstoy’s experience:
Tolstoy’s anguishing experience appeared at first to come on him as if out of the blue. Later, Tolstoy came to understand it as having been due to living wrongly. Only by questioning deeply and repeatedly the meaning of his despair did he come to this understanding.
In my previous post, we saw that Joni Mitchell was not only experiencing the physical sensations of depression. Fully part of her experiences was to delve deeply into several concerns– “How am I going to get back in the saddle? And what about the audience? Would you still love me if you knew what I was really like?” She sought help from a psychotherapist.
He selected learning to meditate, and to get more exercise in order to work off his anger in a positive, healthy manner. He learned the value of saying more supportive things to people he met, and to himself as well. He came to realize the value of minimizing the negative criticism that he provided, and when he did criticize, to do so in a far more charming manner. In the end, he made a new group of friends, joined AA, and was in a far more healthy state when my services came to an end.