Jeffrey Rubin grew up in Brooklyn and received his PhD from the University of Minnesota. In his earlier life, he worked in clinical settings, schools, and a juvenile correctional facility. More recently, he authored three novels, A Hero Grows in Brooklyn, Fights in the Streets, Tears in the Sand, and Love, Sex, and Respect (information about these novels can be found at http://www.frominsultstorespect.com/novels/). Currently, he writes a blog titled “From Insults to Respect” that features suggestions for working through conflict, dealing with anger, and supporting respectful relationships.
As some of you may know, Bob Dylan has a show called “Theme Time Radio Hour.” As the title suggests, each episode is centered on a theme. He begins his episode on madness as follows:
“Let me ask you a few questions, friends. Are you disinterested in work or family life? Do you suffer from sleep disruption? Have you had significant changes in appetite? Have you had paranoid thoughts? Thoughts of grandeur or invincibility? Any feelings of persistent anxiety or perhaps panic attacks? Are you hearing voices or seeing people who are not there? Do you have thoughts of dying? Do you exhibit strong or violent anger? Do you have the inability to pursue a normal life, normal activities or normal relationships? Well, I’m no doctor, but perhaps you’re mad as a hatter; crazy as a loon. Have you lost your morals? Are your bats in the belfry? Maybe you’re nutty as a fruitcake? Crazy as a coot? Taxed in the head? Bunkers? Bananas? Deranged? Are you crackers or daffy? Unhinged or loco? Not all there or all around the bend? Maybe you’re cuckoo or buggy or simply non compos mentis? Do you talk to yourself? Do you ever binge out on food? Do you swing suddenly from one mood to another? Do vague acquaintances treat you as though they know you far better than you would expect?
Allan Ginsberg
“Allan Ginsberg once said that he had seen the best minds of his generation destroyed by madness. Now for the next hour we’ll be providing the sound track. We’re going to look at madness, insanity, and craziness.”
Introducing his theme in this way may seem like quite a mouthful for Bob, but he manages to carry it off rather well. There is deep, dungeon-like music in the background, and he varies his voice in a manner that is full of concern and dramatic interest. Besides, if you think Bob’s description of his theme is lengthy, take a gander at the latest American Psychiatric Association’s description of a related topic. In its book titledDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition,over 900 pages are consumed describing various “mental disorders.”
The theme of “madness” is relevant to this blog’s theme because when people seek to insult others, we commonly hear words like, “You’re mad,” “You’re crazy,” “You have a mental disorder,” and “You’re mentally ill.” Negative consequences often flow from such name calling. Individuals flinging these efforts to insult often become less respected by those who are their targets. Those who are their targets sometimes end up having less respect for themselves. From here, conflicts can escalate, leading to losing friends, problems at work, and even violence.
Dylan’s First Madness Song
Bob introduces the first song for his show on madness as follows:
“If craziness was a country, this would be the national anthem. Here’s Patsy Cline in a little number written by Willie Nelson–“Crazy.”
Patsy Cline
Patsy’s beautiful voice, accompanied by gentle piano riffs, drifts into its melancholy words–“I’m crazy, I’m crazy, for being so lonely. I’m crazy, I’m crazy for being so blue.”
The song goes on from here to weave the sad story of a woman calling herself crazy for loving a man whom she knows will soon be leaving her. She feels she’s crazy for worrying when he’ll leave, and crazy for trying, and crazy for crying, and crazy for loving this man.
Here we learn of just one type of experience that falls under the enormous umbrella of madness.
Connecting Madness With Genius
As the song phases out, Bob begins to tell us that according to Aristotle, “No excellent mind is without a tincture of madness,” a position with which Bob heartily agrees. He declares that “There is a thin line between genius and madness.” Defending this, he introduces us to several individuals who had been declared mad by some, and yet achieved at impressive levels in many valued fields. Thus, he tells us about the brilliant writer, Ernest Hemingway:
Earnest Hemingway
“Ernest Hemingway, for example, was convinced that people were out to assassinate him. His wife, Mary, tricked him into a mental hospital by telling him it was to treat his high blood pressure. He got shock therapy and maybe a dozen other treatments. It didn’t help. It left him more paranoid, delusional and depressed. He was afraid that his wife would put him away again, which many people believe is what led him to take his own life with a shotgun in July of ’61.”
Bob then tells us about the great jazz musician, Charlie Mingus:
Charlie Mingus
“Charlie Mingus spent some time away, although he later claimed he only had gone in to get papers declaring he was incompetent to get out of a contract with the gangster, Joey Gallo. Whatever the reason, he spent some time in Bellevue and was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic.”
After this, Bob tells us the story of two more jazz greats–Bud Powell and Charlie Parker. Both at times were troubled by demons.
Then there was a comic writer:
One man that was no stranger to madness was Bill Gates. He was the editor of E. C. Comics. He had a series of horror comics in the ’50s, but then he was targeted by the government who said that his comics were ruining the morals of America’s young people. He was supposed to water down all of his books. He had one humor comic he called “Mad.” He changed it to a magazine so it wouldn’t be subjected to the comics’ code of authority. It became a huge hit and generations of kids got their first lessons on comedy from the usual gang of idiots that he assembled. He never sold advertising in the magazine while he was alive and there were no sacred cows. Bill Gates, madman of free speech.”
Bob soon moves on to the story of a hell of a fine baseball player:
“One guy that was accused of cracking up was Jimmy Piersall. He became a professional baseball player at 18, signing with the Boston Red Sox in ’48. On May 24, 1952, just before the game against the New York Yankees, he got into a fist fight with Yankee infielder, Billy Martin. After that, he scuffled with his teammate, Mickey McDermott. The final straw came when Jimmy Piersall spanked the four-year old son of his teammate, Burnt Stevens during a game in the Red Sox clubhouse. The four-year old had tried to tweek his nose and poured lemonade down his shirt. You can see Jimmy’s position–Boy, you need a spanking. There were a number of incidences like this and he was sent down to the minor leagues. He got into a lot of trouble down in the minor leagues, and spent some time in the West Borough State Hospital. He was diagnosed with manic depression, but he still returned to baseball by the opening of the ’53 season. And get this, he finished ninth in the voting for the MVP award, and the next year he was the Sox’s regular center fielder.”
Feeling That We Are Crazy Is A Common Experience
In addition to describing these individuals who were thought to be mad by some and yet achieved greatness in various valued arenas, Bob provides diverse examples of regular Joes and Jills who displayed behaviors that were viewed as crazy by either themselves or others. These examples touch a chord in the listener because they illustrate experiences that are pretty close to what we have all experienced at different points in our lives.
Thus, the show’s take away lesson, as I see it, is that if you catch yourself calling yourself names such as “crazy” note that many of the most talented people have had similar experiences. Note, as well, that such criticism is too vague to be helpful. Learn to become more aware of these thoughts, to stand back and simply observe them passing through your mind–“Oh, there I go again calling myself mad.’ In time, you will come to a point at which you will formulate some more specific approach to make improvements in your life. The practice of meditation can help you to learn this skill.
If you are tempted to call someone else these types of names, remember that such names are way too vague, encompassing thousands of unusual and usual experiences. For criticism to be truly helpful, it is usually best to craft a statement that avoids name calling and statements about what someone did wrong, and instead provides specific suggestions for what the target of the criticism can do to improve. If you can not come up with such a statement right away, perhaps it would be best to delay the criticism until you have some time for your creative impulses to come up with something better than “You’re a crazy, mentally ill fool!”
Although these are my take away lessons for today’s post, let’s end with how the more poetic Bob Dylan ends his madness show:
“Time flies when you’re talking crazy, and we gotta get out of here. But before we do I want to leave you with the words of the man who is the voice of the barroom, poet of the gutter, and Shakespeare of the alleyway. Here’s a poem by Charles Bukowski called “Some People.”
some people never go crazy.
me, sometimes I’ll lie down behind the couch
for 3 or 4 days.
they’ll find me there.
it’s Cherub, they’ll say, and
they pour wine down my throat
rub my chest
sprinkle me with oils.
then, I’ll rise with a roar,
rant, rage –
curse them and the universe
as I send them scattering over the
lawn.
I’ll feel much better,
sit down to toast and eggs,
hum a little tune,
suddenly become as lovable as a
pink
overfed whale.
some people never go crazy.
what truly horrible lives
they must lead.”
——————————-
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 intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can clickHERE.
“I’m very interested in your point of view, Judy. Please tell me more specifically about what you disagree with in those posts.”
John Stewart Mill
“Well, you talk about this John Stuart Mill. According to him, if people criticize us, even for holding an opinion we are very sure of, we should thank them for it, open our minds to listen to them, and rejoice. That’s ridiculous! If you don’t have something nice to say to somebody you should keep your stupid mouth shut! And, as far as I’m concerned, unless I give someone permission to criticize me, that person has no right to inflict it upon me!”
The rest of that post provides my response to Judy. As brilliant as that response is, it is my considered opinion that my readers and I benefit from hearing a variety of views on these types of issues. And so, with that in mind, I went about seeking these views by introducing the post to the Facebook groups that I belong to. Thus, I wrote for each group the following:
Some say that unless you are invited to provide criticism, you should keep your mouth shut. How wise is that?
Then I provided the link to my post. It led to quite a few excellent insightful discussions. My favorite happened to appear on the wonderful group, The Brain Cafe. To our good fortune, several of its participants graciously granted permission to use their comments for the current post. These permissions do not mean they are providing a blanket endorsement of this blog or its writers. And, with that, let’s take a look at the discussion that had taken place.
The Brain Cafe Discussion
Brad Esau, prior to reading my blog post wrote: Uninvited “advice” makes me go thermo nuclear. Uninvited criticism is courting death. Perhaps I should read this.
I, Jeffrey Rubin, replied: Please do read it, Brad Esau, and then let me know what you think.
Barry Kort: I suppose the context matters. As a retired academic, I hang out in Internet venues where my fellow academics schmooze with each other and with interested lay people who are arm-chair aficionados of the subjects on the table. In academia, we have a scholarly culture such that we routinely peer-review each other’s work in a collegial and congenial manner. I view this culture as being characterized by an informal tacit social contract that defines a scholarly culture.
There is, on the other hand, the unscientific (or non-scientific) political culture which has its own inscrutable ground rules which admit of some rather dicey and sleazy practices.
What is the lay person to do in these Social Networks? Clearly we find a mix of behavior that spans the spectrum.
I don’t mind conscientious scholarly criticism of the sort one would expect in academia. I’m not fond of the kind of snarky or mean-spirited dismissals that one finds in our ofttimes toxic political culture….
Brad Esau: This seems to be a cultural thing. I’ve noticed Americans (I’m Canadian) seem to have this notion that they have the “right” to speak out about anything at any time. This is much different than most cultures.
I happen to believe a) I – or anyone – absolutely has the right to deny anyone’s “right” to offer “criticism” or “input” and b) through much, much, much hard won experience, I learned that most people’s “criticism” was largely invalid and of poor construct. In other words, they had no idea what they were talking about.
I am very, very open to critique – if it’s from someone whose expertise or experience I trust and they’ve *earned* my trust. Otherwise, I have no time to waste on most people’s hot air.
So while I think your approach is valid for within American culture, it should be limited to that.
E. C.: Well said Brad! (also a “fellow” Canadian). Love your courage for taking this on Jeffrey. And Brad, you make me THINK
Brad Esau: Thanks, E. C. After growing up in polite Canada and spending a decade and a half around Asians (Japanese, Taiwanese and Chinese) where this kind of “right” to openly criticize is unthinkable, I still find this jarring. Most of my online exchanges are with our friends south of the 49th. Just could never get used to their unrestrained forwardness.
And thank you for the compliment.
Barry Kort: What stood out for me in that vignette was that Judy was enacting a practice that she abhorred when the roles were reversed. About the only scenario where that’s kosher is in scripted psychodrama as a theatrical performance.
Brad Esau: Thinking on this further, I think unsolicited criticism is warranted in cases where intervention is needed. Somebody is clearly going about things in ways that will harm their future or… their chances at their goals, and then I think it’s quite correct to voice some well founded constructive criticism….
The thing with most people, they’re not nearly as “smart” or “wise” or “expert” as they believe themselves to be and most of their “criticism” or “advice” is nothing more than egotistical bluster and hot air.
After some time had passed, Brad added: I now just sort of have this iron clad rule for when anyone – and I mean anyone – offers “advice” or “criticism” I ask for or dig into their credentials and poke into what their motivation might be. 98% of people don’t pass those simple tests.
Of course the trick then is to learn to check one’s own premises and to see if whatever criticism or feedback they might have had to offer was warranted.
There are so many variables at work here!
I could fill a city with people crippled by the criticism they received all their lives from their mothers. Hell, maybe a whole continent. I’d have to say raising motherly criticism is invalid.
Judges are different – you purposely go there to be judged. The topic here is *unsolicited* criticism and how to deal with it.
E. C.: No one wants or needs to hear “bad things” about themselves. That is not constructive criticism. What is helpful is solicited advice on how I can improve on something. That is entirely different, and it requires the “advice giver” to have to actively listen to what it is I am asking and what information I am giving as far as what I need advice or help with.
Lyra Alves: I agree that it is highly determined by our cultural background, but we surely can work our way out of having it as “taboo” and adapt to it. I find criticism, from whatever source it comes, from people who know me or not, who have something interesting to say or not, an incredible gift for my personal growth. I trust much more people who are straight forward than those who are over-polite. I also tend to feel that often those who resist to criticism or those who only accept it if it comes from certain “certified” sources may have self-confidence issues, some hidden insecurities to be sorted out. Every chance we receive some criticism is a chance we have to review various concepts we have about ourselves, about what is the best or not. I think it is always a valuable chance to expand our view on the world and increase our ability to empathize.
Susan Clemens:I have a Facebook rule: Your wall; your opinion. Other than that, constructive criticism can be offered if you have a relationship with the person, if the person is otherwise at risk of injury, or if you are approaching a business from the customer perspective. “Pat them-poke them-pat them” works best. I have a few friends who welcome criticism and others who can’t stand it. I try to respect them and vice versa.
Brad Esau<irony>
I’ve recently posted a piece critical of America and Americans along with my own well founded views.
Going by the universal angry responses and denial I’ve gotten so far, it seems like the people who enjoy criticizing the most and defend their “right” to do so, are most uncomfortable with criticism of themselves.
</irony>
Jeffrey Rubin:Brad Esau, I’ve noticed the same thing–that many people who hate to be criticized are among the quickest to criticize, and often are the ones who are the nastiest criticizers as well.
E. C.:I wonder, am I the only one who kind of “bristles” at the word “Criticism?” I am all for constructive feedback but for some reason framing it as “criticism” feels far less helpful and like others have said does become more about the person giving it than about the person needing it. Jeffrey Rubin – do you see a difference? If so, why or why not?
Jeffrey Rubin:Hi E. C. I see the difference that you are trying to make, and it is an important and worthwhile distinction to make. I don’t see that that difference has to be made by using the word “feedback” for one and “criticism” for the other. However, if I am in a conversation just with you, I wouldn’t object to an understanding that we would use the words to mean whatever you would like.
That said, people have a variety of conceptions of these two words (criticism and feedback) and therefore typically it is a good idea to use more than just those words to explain what we mean. Defining our terms beforehand is a good strategy.
For future reference, to me and Daniel Webster, criticism is an evaluation. If you have evaluated something, then you have formulated a criticism of it; and if you tell someone your evaluation, you are providing the person criticism or a critique of something. It can be done in a way so that it is designed to be helpful to someone. Sometimes it is expressed in a manner that is designed to punish someone, or to just hurt someone for a variety of reasons, e.g., because of jealousy or because the person is stressed and irritable.
Concluding Comment
Well, I hope you enjoyed this discussion as much as I did. I hate to end it here, for there is so much more to say, but rest assured that there will be more on this emotionally packed conversation in coming weeks. Until then, here’s hoping that kindness accompanies all of the criticisms that come our way.
——————————-
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 intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Many mental health service providers well know that there are serious problems with the jargon that is used in their profession. In a recent post titled “Psychiatric Name Calling: Is It Time To Put A Stop To It?” I outline some of the most glaring ones. In a subsequent post titled “Psychiatric Name Calling: Is There An Alternative?” I describe a plan for professionals who have an interest in eliminating the problems inherent in the current psychiatric pathologizing approach. This plan would allow professionals to replace the old model with one that would be practical, more consistent with principles of science, and far less stigmatizing.
As I have been seeking ways to promote these ideas, it has become more and more apparent that the gears of the mental health service provider professional organizations grind slowly. Until the necessary changes occur, what can the average English speaking person do when faced with terms like mental illness, major depressive disorder, psychosis, schizophrenia, etc.?
Three Principles That Can Be Used When Psychiatric Pathology Terms Are Employed by Others So That The Negative Effects Associated With Their Usage Can Be Reduced
Even people who are not mental health service providers will regularly use psychiatric jargon. Thus, a French writer once wrote:
My sadness was without limit, and having got possession of me, it filled my life from the most indifferent external acts to the most secret thoughts, and corrupted at their source my feelings, my judgment, and my happiness. It was then that I saw that to expect to put a stop to this disorder by my reason and by my will, which were themselves diseased, would be to act like a blind man who should pretend to correct one of his eyes by the aid of the other equally blind one.
In this quote, the French writer, to describe some concerns he had about his sad mood and how it was affecting his feelings, judgments, and happiness, uses the words “disorder” and “disease.” This is the type of language most mental health service providers throw around. What is the writer attempting to convey by their use?
Sometimes when these words will be employed, their context will make it clear what meaning the author intends. In this example, the author does provide some context. He clearly indicates he was much sadder than he wished to be, and he believed he was unable to do anything about it. He also expressed a concern about his feelings, judgments, and happiness, but he was less clear about what he meant by this.
When someone begins to use pathologizing language and we simply don’t know what is intended, we might end up with misleading, simplistic associations. And so, here are three principles that can be used when psychiatric pathology terms are employed so that we can avoid unnecessary confusion.
Each Time Someone Uses A Psychopathologizing Term, Ask The User Of The Term For A More Specific Description Of What Is Meant By It
In the example that I provided above, there was some lack of clarity about what the French writer meant about his judgments. We know that he felt that it was disordered and diseased. That really tells us nothing more than he was dissatisfied with his judgments. To clarify, we could ask for some specific examples of when his judgment proved to him unsatisfactory.
As another example, suppose you hear Alice saying that John Doe is “mentally ill.” If you want to use this first principle, you would ask Alice what, specifically, does “mentally ill” mean to her and what has John done specifically that led to her calling John this name. These questions typically lead to further constructive discussions and ends up clarifying the nature of many fascinating experiences.
When Psychopathologizing Terms Are Employed, Express A Concern That This Terminology Simplistically Devalues An Experience
Terms like “mental disorders,” “mental illness” and “psychosis,” even when used by professionals, implies that there is something wrong with the person being described. However, as I described in my post “Are Mental Illnesses Really Potentially Helpful Tools?” there are numerous examples of the types of experiences that tend to be labelled mental disorders that end up being enormously helpful. Moreover, in cultures that recognize this possibility the outcomes for those people undergoing these challenging experiences are distinctly better.
And so, as you begin to use the first principle, asking for the user of pathologizing terminology for more specifics, if he or she seems to be suggesting that the experience is bad, you might wish to point out this well documented observation. At such times, I often say, “Many people with artistic temperaments have these types of experiences. Such people have given the world some of its most valued achievements.”
Instead Of Using The Concept of “Disease” And “Illness” To Encourage Humane Responding Toward Individuals Undergoing Challenging Experiences, Emphasize Rights, Kindness, And Practical Reasons
In seeking to encourage people who are using pathologizing terminology to be more specific, it is not uncommon to find that one reason they use these terms is that they hope it will encourage people to be more humane toward those who have certain challenging experiences. They usually mean well by this, but this approach has been used for centuries and history documents that despite such efforts, people who are being given these labels have often ended up in some of the most horrible, degrading treatment facilities.
Instead of using the concept of “disease” to encourage humane responding toward individuals undergoing the experiences that get labelled with pathological terms, an alternative is to emphasize human rights, kindness, and practical reasons.
Note that when people in a town are hit with a hurricane, we don’t have to resort to calling them ill to encourage some help. Instead, we have set up laws that entitle people to certain rights from the government when emergencies occur. Moreover, as word gets out about what is occurring to those who are suffering, out of kindness, people make donations or join their hands to provide direct assistance in a variety of ways. And lest we forget, there are practical reasons to lend a hand. By doing so, we model for people just what kindness is all about.
Any of us can find ourselves in an emergency situation. The more we promote acts of kindness, the more likely we may find that others will treat us with kindness if we are ever to find ourselves in a very unfortunate set of circumstances.
Using the Three Principles
William James, in his grand book, The Varieties of Religious Experience, tellsus ofsome people who have mystical experiences that tend to be called “mental disorders.” James begins to use the three principles when he seeks out descriptions of the various mystical experiences that go well beyond the simplistic psychopathological descriptions. He then states that these mystical states have the right to be absolutely authoritative over the individuals to whom they come.
It is vain for rationalism to grumble about this. If the mystical truth that comes to a man proves to be a force that he can live by, what mandate have we of the majority to order him to live in another way? We can throw him into a prison or a madhouse, but we cannot change his mind-we commonly attach it only the more stubbornly to its beliefs.
It mocks our utmost efforts, as a matter of fact, and in point of logicit absolutely escapes our jurisdiction. Our own more “rational” beliefs are based on evidence exactly similar in nature to that which mystics quote for theirs. Our senses, namely, have assured us of certain states of fact; but mystical experiences are as direct perceptions of fact for those who have them as any sensations ever were for us…. The mystic is, in short, invulnerable, and must be left, whether we relish it or not, in undisturbed enjoyment of his creed.
In this quote, we find no plea from James that we should treat mystics humanely because they have a mental disease. Instead, James puts forth “rights” and “pragmatic” considerations. He argues that just like we in the majority would not like to be ordered to live in a particular way, these mystics have the right to live their way. And pragmatically, if we do use heavy-handed approaches to try to change them, such as throwing them in a madhouse, they will become more stubborn in their beliefs.
James proceeds from here to state that mystics have no right to claim that “we ought to accept the deliverance of their peculiar experiences, if we are ourselves outsiders, and feel no private call thereto.” His theme is tolerance for both the majority toward the minority and vice versa.
Returning to pragmatic arguments, James tells us in his chapter on mysticism that some have found that their mystical experiences have led to wonderful fruits that they highly valued. Some, for example, suffered for a great period of time and after their mystical experience felt wondrously free from their pain and found in its place increased energy and happiness.
James well realizes that the fruits from mystical experiences are not always positive, but he asks us, at the very least, to realize that they have the potential to “be indispensable stages in our approach to the final fullness of the truth.” Thus, we see that “rights” and “pragmatic arguments” can be used instead of a disease concept to promote humane, kind responses toward those who have the types of experiences that tend to be called mental disorders.
——————————-
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 intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
William James, psychologist and philosopher, passed away over a century ago. Nevertheless, his remarkable body of work remains as fresh as fruit plucked from its tree but moments ago.
His views about his personal bout with a challenging experience developed over many years. Today I think it will be instructive if we spent a little time reviewing what he learned.
A Glimpse at James’s Early Views on Mental Disorders
We begin in April of 1867. James is 25-years old. Suddenly, he interrupts his medical education and flees to Europe.
Later, on describing the feelings that led to his departure, James wrote “it was as if something hitherto solid within my breast gave way entirely, and I became a mass of quivering fear. . . . I awoke morning after morning with a horrible dread in the pit of my stomach.”
William and Henry James’s Father, with Young Henry on the right
Several years went by and then, gradually, James’s spirits lifted. His father, noticing the difference in him, asked about it, and then relayed the news by letter to another son, Henry, in March, 1873:
He came in here the other afternoon when I was sitting alone, and after walking the floor in an animated way for a moment, exclaimed “Dear me! What a difference there is between me now and me last spring this time: then so hypochondriacal” (he used that word, though perhaps in substantive form) “and now feeling my mind so cleared up and restored to sanity. It is the difference between life and death.” He had a great effusion. I was afraid of interfering with it, or possibly checking it, but I ventured to ask what especially in his opinion had promoted the change. He said several things: the reading of Renouvier (specially his vindication of the freedom of the will) and Wordsworth, whom he has been feeding on now for a good while; but especially his having given up the notion that all mental disorder is required to have a physical basis. This had become perfectly untrue to him. He saw that the mind did act irrespectively of material coercion, and could be dealt with therefore at first-hand, and this was health to his bones.
We see in the above that at this time James viewed his experience that led to his departure from medical school as a “mental disorder.” Moreover, his conceptualization of it had begun to develop from a physiological pathology model to one that gives at least some freedom to the will. In time, his views begin to develop even further.
Letter to Henry James, 1885
The two brothers. Henry is on the left and Professor William James is on the right
William James and his younger brother, Henry, shared an especially close fraternal bond. Historians have greatly benefited from this because the letters that the two brilliant men shared reveal insights about their deepest concerns.
In 1885, now a medical school graduate and teacher at Harvard, James writes to Henry:
To suggest personal will and effort to one “all sicklied o’er” with the sense of weakness, of helpless failure, and of fear, is to suggest the most horrible of things to him. What he craves is to be consoled in his very impotence, to feel the Powers of the Universe recognize and secure him, all passive and failing as he is.
In James’s letter to his brother, we see he has discovered that in marked contrast to his own favorable reaction to suggestions about the effectiveness of will and effort, some people react with horror. Such people view themselves as helpless, weak, passive, and failing. Rather than looking to a creative force within themselves, they look for the Powers of the Universe to fix them.
The Mature James
Toward the end of James’s career, he adds a new way of viewing the types of concerns that affected him so profoundly when he was young. We begin to see this new way when James discusses individuals who view themselves as “healthy-minded.” These individuals believe that those who worry are “morbid-minded” and “diseased.”
James responds to this name calling by stating that those referred to as morbid-minded have argued that “the world’s meaning most comes home to us when we lay them most to heart.”
After describing the argument between the so-called “healthy-minded” and the “morbid-minded,” James then states:
In our attitude, not yet abandoned, of impartial onlookers, what are we to say of this quarrel? It seems to me that we are bound to say that morbid-mindedness ranges over the wider scale of experience, and that its survey is the one that overlaps. The method of averting one’s attention from evil, and living in the light of good is splendid as long as it will work. It will work with many persons; it will work far more generally than most of us are ready to suppose; and within the sphere of its successful operation there is nothing to be said against it as a religious solution. But it breaks down importantly as soon as melancholy comes; and even though one be quite free from melancholy one’s self, there is no doubt that healthy-mindedness is inadequate as a philosophical doctrine, because the evil facts which it refuses positively to account for are a genuine portion of reality; and may after all be the best key to life’s significance, and possibly the only openers of our eyes to the deepest levels of truth.
To James, people confront events daily that create feelings of helplessness, pain, sadness, horror, and dread. James argued that the feelings that go along with these kinds of events can lead toward truth. Thus, he counteracts any tendency to assume that those referred to as morbid-minded are automatically inferior to those referred to as “mentally healthy.”
The Development of James’s Views About Mental Health Concerns
And so, starting from James’s own bout with a challenging experience, we see that his views develop over the years. Initially, mental health concerns are “mental disorders” which require a physical basis. He then changes his mind, coming to believe these experiences are not completely controlled by one’s physiology, and therefore they could be dealt with through philosophical and poetic means.
It then occurs to him that in contrast to the benefits that his new perspective had for him, others prefer, even crave, to believe they are helpless in the face of these types of experiences. Finally, James comes to believe that some people can derive benefits from the kinds of challenging experiences that, to many, are properly viewed as symptoms of a diseased mind.
Like James, I have undergone a similar developmental trajectory. As I have dealt with my own challenging experiences, I have, over a good many years, learned to greet them as old friends who have valuable messages to share with me. Sometimes they stay a little longer than I would like, and I may find it frustrating that they don’t always come right out and tell me what these messages are. But my patience, through meditation and the maturity that sometimes comes in the course of passing years, has been steadily improving.
Well, I hope this discussion has deepened the reader’s views of the nature of experiences that lead to people expressing concerns to mental health professionals. Until next time, may all of your concerns be addressed with wisdom, love, and kindness.
——————————-
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 intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
In these critical posts, I have touched upon what I believe would be a distinctly better alternative to the DSM and argued that its creation, in breaking up this monopoly, would stimulate through creative competition, improved mental health services. Today, let’s take a closer look at this.
The Classification and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Concerns (CSM)
I called this proposed alternative manual, the CSM, and you can find a much fuller description of it in a peer reviewed journal HERE. In brief, its first chapter would begin by stating that the developed of the CSM fully recognize that individuality outruns any classification system. It is for this reason that the CSM does not seek to classify anyone. Instead, it classifies the expressed concerns of individuals seeking to have their concerns addressed by a mental health service provider.
The CSM begins from the perspective of the person seeking services. Because the expression of a mental health concern is a clearly observable event, by making it the event being classified in the CSM it solves the reliability problems that have been plaguing the DSM’s far more abstract concept of “mental disorders.”
After this statement, the CSM would clearly define its main construct:
A mental health concern occurs when a person seeking mental health services expresses to a mental health service provider a concern about any of these topics: behavior, emotion, mood, meaning of life, managing chronic pain, work, relationships, education, eating, cognition, sleep and challenging life situations.
Each of these topics would have separate major sections in the second chapter, and under each section would be a list of more specific concerns.
This second chapter would be devoted to listing all of the concerns that professionals tend to hear from those seeking their services. Each concern would be given a code that would be used for various administrative purposes such as insurance forms and computer filing systems. And then there would be, for each concern, a list of related search terms that can be used to assist people who want to utilize a search engine to find all the relevant literature regarding that particular concern.
The list of concerns would be identified by two types of surveys. First, a large sample of mental health service providers would be asked to list the various concerns that they are asked to address in their practice without couching them in pathological language and to stick as closely as possible to the language used by those seeking their services. So, a concern about feeling blue might simply be classified “feeling blue,” rather than the DSM’s “Major Depressive Disorder;” a concern about a child’s above average activity level might simply be classified as “above average activity level” rather than the DSM’s “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.” The second type of survey that would be used to generate the list of concerns that would appear in the CSM, would ask the membership of mental health service user organizations to list the various concerns that led them to seek mental health services. They, too, would be asked to avoid pathological terminology. For a number of practical reasons, a maximum of four words would be used for classifying each expressed concern in this chapter.
The final chapter of the CSM would be devoted to describing good practice guidelines for the use of psychological formulation, which is an assessment approach that is consistent with the CSM’s philosophy of not pathologizing individuals. Psychological formulation provides an approach that expands on the brief expressed concerns of individuals by developing a narrative of several paragraphs. It can be defined as the process involving a mental health service user and a mental health service provider co-constructing a hypothesis or ‘best guess’ about the origins of the mental health service user’s concerns in the context of his or her relationships, social circumstances, life events, and the sense that he or she has made of them. Once it has been established what the concerns are, the immediate next question is, ‘How do we jointly understand these experiences, why they arose, and how we might be able to address them?’
Unlike diagnosis, this type of psychological formulation is not about making an expert judgement, but about working closely with the individual to develop a shared understanding which will evolve over time. And, unlike diagnosis, it draws attention to the service user’s resources and strengths in surviving what are nearly always very challenging life situations.
Defending the CSM Approach
Now, some believe that the psychological formulation is all that is needed as an alternative to the DSM and that there is no need to join it with any classification manual such as the CSM. But keep in mind that currently the DSM is used by insurance companies and other third party payers such as Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Insurance companies and these other third party payers have a form that must be filled out whenever someone seeks mental health services under their plan. This form has a little box that currently says, “Diagnosis.” In that box, mental health professionals must fill in the DSM code that corresponds to their so-called diagnosis of the person seeking services.
With the CSM proposal, all that we would be asking insurance companies to do differently in order to add value for their customers, is to slightly change that little box. Instead of just saying “Diagnosis” as it currently says, that box would add two little words, so it would end up saying “Diagnosis or Concern.” Then, when mental health professionals fill in the box, they would be given the choice to either write in the letters “DSM” and its code number that corresponds to its so-called diagnosis, or they would write the letters CSM and its code number that corresponds to the expressed concern. Mental health consumers would be given the choice to go to pathologizing mental health service providers or those using the CSM approach.
That’s all the change that would be required in order to increase value for insurance customers as well as other third party payers. And a major goal that all third party payers have is to increase value for their customers. The cost and effort for these payers would be minimum and we would have numerous testimonials from customers that documents that this change would be viewed as a significant improvement.
A psychological formulation approach, which requires several paragraphs to be completed, would be far too cumbersome for these payers to incorporate into their bureaucratic system. Moreover, a short word or phrase that could replace terms like “Major Depressive Disorder” or “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder” is necessary for other practical forms of communication. For example, if I want to write a title for a research article, it would not be practical to insert into it several paragraphs. The psychological formulation approach would become far more widely used if it has some practical way of providing some short terms that are consistent with its non-pathologizing approach to conceptualizing an individual’s mental health concerns.
Some may argue that if everyone could go to a mental health professional merely to have their concerns addressed, then the system would soon be overloaded with clients and insurance policy costs would soar. Since insurance companies only cover people with more serious conditions known as “mental disorders,” so the argument goes, this limits the amount of people who can get to see a mental health professional.
Insurance and other third party payer executives are not stupid. They would readily understand, with a little explaining, that mental health service providers now using the current DSM do not turn anyone with a mental health insurance policy away who comes to their office expressing what I refer to as a mental health concern. Professionals are in the business of increasing their clients. Let’s be honest here; there are “close enough” matches throughout the DSM for anyone with mental health insurance coverage who currently wants mental health services to get it.
Here’s another reason why the CSM would improve the psychological formulation approach. In pretty much any of the advanced countries in the world, there is a rather large segment of the population that believes science has been an enormous help advancing our knowledge. The CSM, as already mentioned, is even more consistent with principles of science than the DSM because it solves the problem of reliability that has been a mess with the DSM. And for science minded people, each branch of science must have a system of classification that helps to organize concepts, to retrieve relevant research, and to be useful in formulating programs of research. In my view, the pairing of psychological formulation with the CSM’s list of brief descriptors of mental health concerns will fit well with this worldview.
And so, these are some of my arguments for uniting in the CSM proposal a classification system and the psychological formulation proposal. Together, both can clearly improve value for consumers of mental health services by providing a new choice, but only if consumers of mental health services role up their sleeves, organize, and effectively advocate for this type of change.
In summary then, the CSM is more consistent with principles of science. It is close enough to the worldview and administrative requirements of all of the stakeholders in the mental health field, thus reducing resistance that often comes with proposed changes. And the creation of the CSM would break up the DSM monopoly, thereby spurring creative approaches for understanding the nature of anguish, sadness and tears.
——————————-
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.
If your behavior, thoughts, or feelings become a concern, for a fee, many psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers are eager to translate your experiences into a language of symptoms, diagnoses, psychopathology, and mental illness. In an earlier post I provided negative criticism about this type of name-calling (see here). Today, we focus in on an additional problem with the pathologizing approach.
Psychiatric Name-Calling Simplistically Devalues What William James Referred to as “Exceptional Experiences”
Tools can be used for good or evil. A hammer can be used to drive in nails in the construction of a life-preserving shelter or to bludgeon an innocent person to death. A car can be used to rush a child to an emergency room so that life-preserving treatment can be administered, or it can be used to tragically end a prom night. Are experiences that are oftentimes referred to as pathological really tools, and is it up to each one of us to use them either for good or evil?
William James
The first time I came across this question occurred while reading about William James’s 1896 series of lectures on “Exceptional Mental States.” Harvard psychologist, Eugene Taylor, had reconstructed these lectures from James’s original handwritten lecture notes, newspaper reports, letters, and a variety of other sources.
At the very beginning of the lectures, James argues that experiences that are commonly viewed as unhealthy or morbid are really “an essential part of every character,” and give life “a truer sense of values.” To support his contention, James first provides three examples of famous individuals who suffered from melancholy, a term that corresponds closely with what modern pathologizers call “major depressive disorder.” St. Paul, the religious figure of the New Testament, Cesare Lombrosa, a late 19th-century Italian criminologist, and Immanual Kant, the 18th-century German philosopher, became, according to their histories, better as a result of their troubling experiences.
Not only is melancholy far more normal and potentially beneficial than the pathologizers would like us to believe, so too, James argues, are delusions and hallucinations. James tells us that the belief in the possession by demons, which is often viewed as a delusion by pathologizers, is remarkably common. “[It] is the one most articulately expressed doctrine of both Testaments, and . . . reined for seventeen hundred years, hardly challenged in churches.”
James then goes on to tell his audience about Buddhist sects in Japan that have priests who believe they can put themselves into a trance so that a god can speak through them. These people seek to cultivate these experiences, apparently believing that they provide some benefits to their sect.
Although hallucinations can be construed as a symptom of mental illness to some, James presents the case of Socrates who “once stood motionless for many hours in the cold and spoke of having a guiding demon.” Attempting to counter the association between pathologies and hallucinations, James states,
Even if this demon [of Socrates] were really meant hallucinations of hearing, we know now that one in eight or ten of the population has had such an experience and that for insanity we must resort to other tests than these.
Like melancholy, delusions, and hallucinations, the “symptoms” of obsessions and manias are treated in James’s lectures as experiences that are normal and potentially beneficial. Thus, James states that there is no end to the possible types of obsessions that we see all around us. And what about “the anti-slavery mania?” Is this to be viewed as pathological? What benefit can such experiences have? James tells his audience about Henry Borg, founder of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; Charles Henry Parkhurst, a Presbyterian clergyman and reformer who launched a furious attack on organized crime in state government that led to an official investigation; Dorothea Dix, a mid-19th-century humanitarian who visited the insane asylums and successfully advocated for legislation to improve the care for those now labeled mentally ill; General Booth, founder of the Salvation Army; Frances Willard, a suffragette; and others. “These persons,” said James, “are not insane, not maniacs, not melancholics, not deluded.”
Later, he states, “Individuals are types of themselves and enslavement to conventional names and their associations is only too apt to blind the student to the facts before him.”
As Taylor (1984) closes his reconstruction of the lecture series, he quotes James as follows:
There is a strong tendency among these pathological writers I have cited… to represent the line of mental health as a very narrow crack, which one must tread with bated breath, between foul friends on the one side and gulfs of despair on the other. Now health is a term of subjective appreciation, not of objective description….There is no purely objective standard of sound health. Any peculiarity that is of use to a man is a point of soundness in him, and what makes a man sound for one function may make him unsound for another…. The trouble is that such writers . . . use the descriptive names of symptoms merely as an artifice for giving objective authority to their personal dislikes. The medical terms become mere appreciative clubs to knock a man down with. . . . The only sort of being, in fact, who can remain as the typical normal man, after all the individuals with degenerative symptoms have been rejected, must be a perfect nullity . . . Who shall absolutely say that the morbid has no revelations about the meaning of life? That the healthy minded view so-called is all?
The Review of the Evidence
Robert Whitaker
It may seem a fanciful theory that the experiences now referred to as mental illnesses can be potentially helpful. However, in 2010, Robert Whitaker published a book titled Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness. To write the book, he pored through the scientific literature for the past 50 years and found a dramatic increase in the number of people who are pathologized, which led to an astonishing increase in psychiatric drug consumption. And more people then ever before became disabled for longer and longer periods of time.
Here is just one of many such studies that Whitaker describes.
In the 1980s, Martin Harrow, a psychologist at the University of Illinois, began a long-term study of 64 newly diagnosed schizophrenia patients. Every few years, he assessed how they were doing. Were they symptomatic? In recovery? Employed? Were they taking antipsychotic medications? The collective fate of the off-med and medicated patients began to diverge after two years, and by the end of 4.5 years, it was the off-medication group that was doing much better. Nearly 40% of the off-med group were “in recovery” and more than 60% were working, whereas only 6% of the medicated patients were “in recovery” and few were working. This divergence in outcomes remained throughout the next ten years, such that at the 15-year follow-up, 40% of those off drugs were in recovery, versus 5% of the medicated group.
Whitaker also found studies that compared cultures, like our own, that employed the pathologizing model with cultures that framed exceptional experiences as potentially beneficial. Countries infected with the pathologizing approach had outcomes significantly poorer.
These findings lead me to conclude that it is time to have a reasonable discussion about embracing other models of care.
——————————-
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.
Many of my posts leave some feeling like I insulted them. In one post, for example, I took the position that when it comes to responding to criticism there are four levels of maturity (see HERE). Some people who respond to criticism in a way that matches the description of the immature levels let me know that they felt I had insulted them. In another post (see HERE), I took the position that psychiatrists do not really diagnose people with mental disorders; instead, they merely convert the expressed concerns of people into psychiatric jargon. Here again, I heard from people who complained that I had insulted them.
And so, when I published last week’s post titled “Insults By Jews As Works Of Art,” the negative reaction of some people had not surprised me. What was a surprise is that the discussion that came out of these reactions proved to clarify and deepen my own understanding of the nature of insults. In the hope that this may do the same for my readers, let’s take a look at what transpired. Names and a few minor details have been changed to protect privacy issues.
The Exchange
Matt said that my “Insults By Jews As Works Of Art” post is inappropriate, and he suggested to the person who moderates one of the groups that we belong to that I be removed immediately.
I replied:
“In my opinion, the topic of insults is very appropriate. Everywhere we look, whether at schools, the workplace, family gatherings or watching TV, insults occur, and sometimes this is just playful stuff, but too often it escalates a conflict, a fight breaks out, and occasionally someone needs medical attention. On other occasions, the insults cross the line into bullying, people become depressed and some become suicidal.
“With regards to Matt suggesting that I be removed from this group because of my recent post on insults, hmmm, maybe a curse would here be an appropriate response, something like:
“Matt, may you wake up tomorrow and find you’re stuck in a country where freedom to express opposing views is banned.
“I hope this is recognized as an attempt at a humorous quip. I have no ill will toward Matt, although I do disagree with him on this issue.
“Rather than suggesting that I be removed from the group, I think it would have been much more helpful if he, and others who disagreed with what I had written, rewrote the sentence that is viewed as most objectionable so that it would be at least a little less objectionable. Alternatively, or additionally, writing a brand new sentence that could be inserted into some specific place in the post would be far more helpful than a one-sentence criticism stating the post was not appropriate. It is not too late to do this, and I encourage group members to do so.”
One group member seeking to defend me, wrote:
“Your post was interesting as a sociological examination of a prominent ethnic group, its stereotypes, and its communal self-concept.”
Another wrote,
“This made my day Jeffrey, and made me laugh – thank you! Made me have a think about my roots as well!”
A couple of people disagreed with the idea that I should be removed from the group:
“What I like about it [your post] is that it is not vulgar. Just benign insults that are insults. It is like the Egyptian insult, “May you live in interesting times.” When these are translated to English, they kinda lose their meaning. Most of the Jewish insults feel like they were translated from Yiddish; they have that flow.
“It can show students and adults that insults can be sophisticated and not vulgar, and with any luck, aren’t even recognized as insults until later.”
A person that we will here call Nick wrote in part,
“I do believe you had good intentions behind your piece and would have not published it if you knew so many people would have taken it negatively. In other words, while I do not agree with you all the time I am not for banning you from this group. However, I do say all of this praying that you do understand why what you did is offensive and you are apologetic rather than trying to defend.”
I replied to Nick in part as follows:
“Just to clarify, I believe my intentions were good, and I certainly did not intend to offend anyone. However, I well knew that it would indeed offend some. Since it is Black History Month, I’ll point out that Martin Luther King, whenever he wrote his speeches, had good intentions, did not seek to offend, but well knew his speeches were going to offend. Mark Twain had his books banned, George Barnard Shaw was hated in many circles, and Salman Rushdie had people calling for his murder.
“There are two Yiddish sayings that might capture a little of what I’m trying to communicate. The first is, ‘If you want people to respect you for your wisdom, just agree with everything they tell you.’ The second states that ‘A Rabbi that has not been thrown out of a congregation because of offending them is no Rabbi.’
“If you write opinion pieces, some will agree with you, some will disagree but appreciate hearing a different view of an issue, and some become offended. That goes with the territory. Living up to a principle that one should never express an opinion that has any chance to offend means never expressing an opinion.
“Moreover, when in my last post I referred to some insults as works of art, what I meant to convey is this, true works of art are not just meant to be merely decorative. Rather, they are meant to stir up, prod, challenge the thinking, and deepen the thinking of society. I think great comedy is part of art, and I think Jews, Italians, Blacks, Methodists, and all other groups of people have some comedians who artfully express this form of art. I happen to be Jewish, therefore, I know far more about Jewish humor than that of other groups, so I used that as an example.”
Another person wrote:
“Keep in mind that ALL humor is aggressive and hurtful in some way. There is not one “belly-laugh” joke that does not attempt to hurt or belittle someone or something. No, puns don’t count – you don’t laugh, you groan. I do not intend to live in a world without laughter, and we laugh when someone or something hurts!!!”
To this, another group member wrote that he felt this statement overgeneralized. Among my friends, when we insult one another in a playful way, I think most of the time no one is getting hurt, and much laughter comes from this. But there is an edge to many comedians who are seeking something beyond pure laughter.
Jon wrote,
“The Jewish cultural DNA is at least one part philosopher, one part cynic and one part humorist, among much else, of course.”
Jon did find my title offensive, and proposed, as an alternative, “The Art and Abuse of Insults and Teasing – A Cultural and Historical Perspective.” He pointed out that “This would highlight the universality, celebrate the creativity in humor, and hit us square between the eyes with the destructive power as we slide along that slippery slope.”
Nice. Although I decided not to change the title, I do agree his was conceptually distinctly better than mine. I had already published the post under the original title and to change it a week later could be confusing. And I wondered if Jon’s title may come across as a bit too academic for the larger audience that the post seeks to interest and to do justice to the title would require a much longer piece that my post tended to be. I did take part of Jon’s suggested title for this post. Moreover, in order to demonstrate a little more of the universality of humor in the form of insults I now offer some non-Jewish examples.
Last week I mentioned that Rodney Dangerfield, a Jew, was a master at insulting himself. Here’s Abraham Lincoln, a non-Jew, offering humor in a similar manner.
Last week’s post pointed out that Don Rickles, a Jew, was a master at insulting people who were insulting him. Here’s Winston Churchill, a non-Jew, at the same game:
I, for one, don’t like this Churchill comeback. It strikes me as mean. Yet I know someone who brought it to my attention and he thought it was very funny. It is strange how two people can have such different reactions to such comments.
Here are a couple other insults demonstrating that the art is indeed universal:
Sally wrote:
“It [my post] conflates deliberate personal insults, deliberate wishes of harm to another, consensual teasing, and comedic performance, and ties it up with an anti-Semitic bow.”
I replied:
“Sally, I love your turn of phrase. At the same time, I disagree with you that I conflated deliberate wishes of harm to another from consensual teasing. I made in my last post a distinct point of separating that issue as we move toward the end of the post. Nevertheless, I will think about using in any future writings on this issue the part of your sentence that points to the need to avoiding conflating deliberate personal insults, deliberate wishes of harm to another, consensual teasing, and comedic performance. This is very well said, makes the point I had wished to make clearer, and I thank you for this feedback.
“I didn’t mean to write in a way that suggested anything that could be interpreted as anti-Semitic.”
Well, those are some thoughts from the feedback. I hope that we can keep the dialogue going, particularly because there is urgency in our communities to address in helpful ways the very issues that we have been discussing.
———————
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 intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Recently I visited Philadelphia’s National Museum of American Jewish History. Some of the floors were devoted to a single theme. For example, there was a floor devoted to “Chasing Dreams,” which celebrated baseball and the many fans, players, and characters from minority groups who helped shape our American story. And there was a floor devoted to Jews as immigrants coming to America. Each exhibit was great, but the museum director has to be a putz for neglecting to devote a floor to classic insults by Jews.
Bob Dylan
To be fair, I, myself, didn’t come up with this idea until last night when I happened to be listening to Bob Dylan’s “Theme Time Radio” show. Bob happened to have Tom Waits as a guest and here’s what he had to say:
Tom Waits
Hi, Bob. It’s Tom. Here’s a little morsel of information. The Jewish people have always had a penchant for colorful cursing. Here are some of the most famous Jewish curses:
May God call the tune and may your enemies play the music.
May you lose your faith and marry a pious woman.
May all your teeth fall out but one which should remain for a toothache.
May you grow like an onion with your head in the ground and your feet in the air.
May you have a good long sleep, dreaming only of your troubles.
May you be the proof that man can endure anything.
May your wife eat matzohs in bed and may you roll all night in the crumbs.
So there.
It was upon hearing this, that I first came up with this great idea for a separate floor at the museum.
A Separate Museum Floor Devoted to Classic Insults By Jews
For your consideration, here are some ideas for this museum addition. There could be several sections on the floor. Of course, one of them would have to be devoted to the great insults that spilled forth from the many comedians who performed during the heyday of the Borscht Belt.
For those not familiar with the term, “Borscht Belt,” it refers to the mostly defunct summer resorts of the Catskill Mountains that would cater to many of their guests who happened to be Jewish. The word, “borscht” refers to one of the traditional Jewish items found on their menus (sour cream and beets).
The long list of the Borscht Belt stars include Woody Allen, Jack Benny, Billy Crystal, Rodney Dangerfield, Henny Youngman, Jerry Lewis, Don Rickles, Joan Rivers and Jerry Stiller. Some of these stars specialized in insulting themselves.
Rodney Dangerfield
Perhaps the greatest of all within this group was Rodney Dangerfield who continually complained about getting no respect:
“My doctor said I was in terrible shape. I told him, ‘I want a second opinion.’ He said, ‘All right, you’re ugly too!'”
Henny Youngman
Some specialized in insulting their spouses:
“My wife dresses to kill. She cooks the same way.” (Henny Youngman)
Don Rickles
And, for some, their favorite schtick was insulting hecklers in the audience:
“Oh my God, look at you. Anyone else hurt in the accident?” (Don Rickles)
In addition to a section on Jewish Borscht Belt comedians, I think there could be one set aside for Seinfeld characters seeking to come up with the perfect insult to reply to an insult.
George Costanza character from the Seinfeld TV show
“Hey George, the ocean called and they’re running out of shrimp.”
“Oh yeah!” replies George, “Well, the jerk store called and they’re running out of you!”
Another section could be devoted to Chelm, a real Polish town that according to Jewish folklore is inhabited by Jewish fools whose antics kept Jews amused for generations.
The great sage of Chelm went out for a walk with his trusted young assistant, Shlermo, by his side. Suddenly it began to pour. “Quick,” said Shlermo, “open your umbrella. You’re getting soaked.” “Don’t be ridiculous,” exclaimed the great sage, “it wouldn’t do any good. My umbrella has more holes than a sieve.” “Then why did you bring it?” “I didn’t think it would rain!”
Well, there you have it, just a few ideas from off of the top of my head for a museum floor devoted to classic insults by Jews. It would be great!
Now, at this point, I’m imagining that some of my readers might be scratching their heads, wondering why I would want to support any idea that might encourage people to insult anyone. So let’s take a moment to look at this issue.
What Possible Value Could There Be To Having a Section In A Museum Devoted To Insults?
If done well, this section could delve into the more serious issues surrounding the nature of insults as used in our society. For example, as I pointed out in an earlier post titled THE ART OF PLAYFUL TEASING, insults are used in a playful game called teasing. You are judged in part on the quality of your insults and also how well you keep your cool on being insulted.
Even the most mature people may like to play the teasing game, for they enjoy the duel of wits and the occasional humorous comeback.
Mature people are distinguished from immature people by their lack of desire to hurt somebody in this game. Their empathy helps them to realize that the smiles and the lighthearted tone they try to set throughout the game sometimes mask real tensions. Thus, they keep their senses tuned to the subtleties of the repartee, and know when to back off when things begin to get too serious.
Less mature people, partly because of their lower levels of empathy, may think that the more awful they can make someone feel during this game, the better they are at it. When the criticizers have themselves been humiliated by other immature people, they may come to be even more motivated to humiliate others as a way to take out their own pain on others.
So, there you have it, my post for this week. I hope that in addition to a few laughs you found within it some food for thought.
Until next time, may you find some ways to bring a little peace into this cockeyed crazy world of ours.
Jeff
——————————-
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.
In the above Sally Forth comic strip, we learn from Ted that Sally had a fight with her sister. By the third panel, Ted begins to criticize Sally, saying she is coming off like a robot, and then he expresses his view that she had been kind of dismissive of her sister’s news about becoming engaged. In the last panel, I get the feeling that Sally really isn’t in a state to listen to Ted’s criticism. And yet, Ted tries to push Sally to address his criticism.
The next day’s comic strip moves the story further along.
Here we see that Ted has come to understand that he would have been better off skipping the criticism that he had provided to Sally. Listening, he believes, would have been a better thing to do.
Now we see Sally confiding to a friend about how she feels about Ted’s criticism. We also learn that since Ted criticized her, she has not been talking to him.
Using this series of Sally Forth comics, today we will work on three key tasks:
1. Consider when it makes more sense for Ted to listen, rather than to criticize.
2. Examine what Sally could have done that might have been better than giving Ted the silent treatment.
3. Examine some essential listening skills for those times when we believe it is better to listen, rather than to criticize.
Before we move on to these key tasks, let’s move the Sally Forth story a few days further along.
Here we learn that Ted had begun to criticize Sally immediately after Sally’s fight with her sister. That’s a crucial point that will soon be woven into our various discussions.
Three Assessment Strategies to Decide Whether to Critique or to Listen
Here, I’d like to suggest three assessment strategies to help with the decision to critique or to listen.
1. Assess when the quarrel occurred. If the quarrel has occurred very recently, it’s usually best to go with listening. Trying to present a reasoned critique shortly after a heated quarrel makes little sense because it is extra hard for people to reason carefully when they are very frustrated and angry. By listening in a caring way you can play a huge part in helping the person to return to a state in which reasoning abilities are at their peek.
2. Assess whether it is crucial to share your critique immediately. I think you will find that in most situations your critique can wait a day, two days, or even a week. However, in some cases a conflict may require some immediate action and you may believe your critique is so crucial for making a wise choice, that pushing your critique to the fore makes sense.
3. Even if Ted had waited a reasonable period of time and had been making himself available to listen to Sally, before diving into his critique, it would still be a good idea for him to ask the following types of questions. “Sally, I have some time now, do you want to talk more about what’s been happening between you and your sister?” If Sally says yes, Ted would say something like, “So far, Sally, I’ve been mainly listening as you talked about what happened. I’m wondering if you think you’re ready to hear some ideas that I’ve been thinking about that might be helpful, or would you prefer me to stay in a listening mode?” After asking this question, Ted would assess how Sally replies. Even if she says she wants to hear his ideas, if her voice appears tense, or there is a tense expression on her face, he might be wise to tread lightly on anything that Sally might find too sensitive. Additionally, he might reasonably switch back into a listening mode if she appears to turn angry at something that he says.
Now, so far, I have been discussing what Ted could have done better to address Sally’s concerns. Now let’s take a couple of minutes to discuss what Sally could have done better.
The Silent Treatment Versus Assertiveness
In the Sally Forth story, Sally, turning angry at Ted, decides to give him the silent treatment. I’m wondering if there might be a better way for her to have handled this type of situation.
My wife, Andrea, is very assertive when it comes to these types of situations. If I begin to express my views before she is ready to hear them, she just gives me a clear signal to back off, and I respect her wishes. Maybe Sally could have said to Ted when he began to provide his critique immediately after her argument with her sister, “I see you want to critique what happened, Ted, but I prefer that you just go into a listening mode for now.”
If Sally, when she has returned to a calmer state, agrees that this assertive approach makes more sense than ending up giving Ted the silent treatment, she can practice doing this in her mind at least three times. These practice sessions are simple and involve closing her eyes and imagining how she felt right after her fight with her sister, then recalling how Ted began to criticize her action, and then imagining herself being assertive to Ted. By practicing this a few times, especially if she does this over the course of a few days, there is an excellent chance she will have no difficulty using the assertive approach the next time a similar situation arises.
Now, let’s once again turn our attention to what Ted could do in this situation. Both he and Sally agree that it would have been better for him to have gone into the listening mode, rather than the critiquing mode. But doing good listening doesn’t mean simply keeping your mouth shut while the other party talks. There is a real art to listening. In the next section, I’m going to present the three most helpful things to do while listening.
Three Helpful Things to Do While Listening
When Ted goes into his listening mode, there are a few things that he can do to make his listening more effective. First, every minute or two, he could briefly summarize what she had just said. This would assure Sally that Ted is paying attention. You can learn more about how this is done by looking up the topic, reflective listening. Second, if Sally turns sad about something she is discussing, Ted could express sadness on his face as well, look into Sally’s eyes, and softly touch Sally’s shoulder. This is called empathic listening. Finally, Ted could learn how to validate Sally’s feelings. For example, Sally says to Ted, “Every time I hear my sister has made some awful mistake, I feel awful inside.” Ted can validate Sally’s feeling by saying something like, “I know what you mean, I feel like that when my brother makes an awful mistake.” When someone validates a person’s experience in this way, it helps to communicate a connection between the speaker and the listener.
Okay, so there are some ideas to think about when considering whether to listen or to criticize. I hope you find within this post some food for thought. My Best, Jeff
———————————
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 intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Anyone who follows the news, has heard about the most recent terrorist act in France. This post, however looks at what occurred earlier this year against those who worked for the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. The magazine had published articles and cartoons that criticize those who believe that the proper response to people making fun of a group’s religious beliefs is to kill them. Although the magazine writers had poked fun at all of the major religions, it was individuals who viewed themselves as followers of the Muslim faith that actually carried out these murders.
Before I go any further, I hasten to point out that Muslim statesmen, clerics and intellectuals have condemned these awful acts. Moreover, the vast majority of those who view themselves as Muslims are not going around murdering anyone, let alone people who voice criticism of their faith. That said, we still have laid before us on the front pages of every media outlet this particular event. I therefore am personally moved to spend some time today throwing around some relevant ideas. Anything that I do say today in no way is meant to imply that I think Muslims, in general, are more violent-prone or immature than other people.
Violence in Response to Criticism
Regular followers of this blog well know that I have put together a tentative model of different levels of maturity for responding to criticism. There are 5 levels. Level one is viewed as the most immature set of responses. Each higher level is viewed as more mature.
If you will, take a look below at the five levels of maturity and see what level of maturity best describes the actions of those who murdered the Charlie Hebdo magazine workers?
This level requires displaying one or more of the following:
Weeps or sobs with tears or pouts unless also displaying responses consistent with either level 4 or 5.
Physically attacks the criticizer (regardless of whatever else is said or done)
Damages property (regardless of what else is said or done)
This level requires displaying one or more of the following:
Insults the criticizer (either with words, hand gestures, the sticking out of a tongue, the rolling of the eyes, or smirks)
Glares at the criticizer
Threatens the criticizer
Punches, kicks, or throws an object without physically hurting someone or damaging anything
Criticizes the criticizer without first fully addressing the original criticism.
This level requires displaying one or both of the following:
Displays defensiveness without directly insulting the criticizer (raising voice’s volume or pitch)
Displays a lack of interest either by verbally indicating this, or with nonverbal cues, or complete silence.
Individuals at this level listen to the criticizer in a supportive, warm, friendly style, and then make it clear that they fully understand what was said. Moreover, they put the criticizer at ease by making statements that indicate that the wise learn from criticism. Some time is spent on showing that they are thinking about the criticism. If, after thinking about the criticism the criticism is deemed to be correct, they make a statement frankly indicating, “I can see your ideas have merit, and I intend to use them in the future.” If they are not sure if they agree, they make a statement indicating that they are very interested in what was said, plan to think a little more about this over the next few days and then they will be ready to discuss this further. If, after thinking about the criticism, the criticism is deemed to be incorrect, a statement is made designed to disagree without being disagreeable. More specifically, a sense of humor, some listening in a caring way and a few smiles help to traverse rough terrain. As the episode winds down, the criticizer is encouraged to feel comfortable communicating suggestions in the future.
In addition to actions consistent with level 4, people acting in a manner consistent with level 5 seek ways to use, whenever they disagree with the criticism, a technique known as steering in the direction the criticizer would prefer to go. That is, rather than just disagreeing without being disagreeable, the criticized person seeks to find a new choice of action that creatively utilizes something suggested from the criticism. Steering cannot be incorporated into all situations, but it is an additional goal of the most mature individuals.
Okay, so now that you looked over the five levels of maturity for responding to criticism, which level do you think best matches those who slaughtered the group of individuals who worked for the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo?
My Response
As I looked over the levels, the task was easy. As far as I’m concerned, level 1 is clearly the best match.
Now some might say, why bother to put the actions of those who did the killing in a developmental framework? For many, just calling them vile names more than suffices.
Well, one reason is that calling someone vile names doesn’t automatically point one to a description of what would be a more mature response, as a developmental model does. Additionally, if you want to talk the language of many experts in human behavior, getting away from the vile name calling fits in with their zeitgeist.
Mustafa Akyol
Consider Mustafa Akyol, author of Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty and the writer of yesterday’s New York Times Op-Ed titled “Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy.” First, Mr. Akyol points out that,
The only source in Islamic law that all Muslims accept indisputably is the Quran. And, conspicuously, the Quran decrees no earthly punishment for blasphemy — or for apostasy (abandonment or renunciation of the faith), a related concept. Nor, for that matter, does the Quran command stoning, female circumcision or a ban on fine arts.
Mr. Akyol explains that religious nationalism is guided by religious law — Shariah — which was developed over 100 of years after the Quran, and it is there that we find clauses about punishing blasphemy as a deadly sin. While Shariah is believed by many Muslims to be rooted in the divine, according to Mr. Akyol, the overwhelming majority of its injunctions are man-made, partly reflecting the values and needs of the seventh to 12th centuries — when no part of the world was liberal, and other religions, such as Christianity, also considered blasphemy a capital crime.
In contrast to Shariah law about blasphemy, the Quran tells its followers: “God has told you in the Book that when you hear God’s revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them.”
Mr. Akyol concludes his Op-Ed piece with the following:
Just “do not sit with them” — that is the response the Quran suggests for mockery. Not violence. Not even censorship.
Wise Muslim religious leaders from the entire world would do Islam a great favor if they preached and reiterated such a nonviolent and nonoppressive stance in the face of insults against Islam. That sort of instruction could also help their more intolerant coreligionists understand that rage is a sign of nothing but immaturity. The power of any faith comes not from its coercion of critics and dissenters. It comes from the moral integrity and the intellectual strength of its believers.
Notice Mr. Akyol’s last paragraph refers to immaturity, and he lays out what he views as a more mature, wiser path. That is the type of model that I, myself, am striving to emulate.
———————
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 intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
As some of you may know, Bob Dylan has a show called “Theme Time Radio Hour.” As the title suggests, each episode is centered on a theme. He begins his episode on madness as follows:
The theme of “madness” is relevant to this blog’s theme because when people seek to insult others, we commonly hear words like, “You’re mad,” “You’re crazy,” “You have a mental disorder,” and “You’re mentally ill.” Negative consequences often flow from such name calling. Individuals flinging these efforts to insult often become less respected by those who are their targets. Those who are their targets sometimes end up having less respect for themselves. From here, conflicts can escalate, leading to losing friends, problems at work, and even violence.
One man that was no stranger to madness was Bill Gates. He was the editor of E. C. Comics. He had a series of horror comics in the ’50s, but then he was targeted by the government who said that his comics were ruining the morals of America’s young people. He was supposed to water down all of his books. He had one humor comic he called “Mad.” He changed it to a magazine so it wouldn’t be subjected to the comics’ code of authority. It became a huge hit and generations of kids got their first lessons on comedy from the usual gang of idiots that he assembled. He never sold advertising in the magazine while he was alive and there were no sacred cows. Bill Gates, madman of free speech.”
“One guy that was accused of cracking up was Jimmy Piersall. He became a professional baseball player at 18, signing with the Boston Red Sox in ’48. On May 24, 1952, just before the game against the New York Yankees, he got into a fist fight with Yankee infielder, Billy Martin. After that, he scuffled with his teammate, Mickey McDermott. The final straw came when Jimmy Piersall spanked the four-year old son of his teammate, Burnt Stevens during a game in the Red Sox clubhouse. The four-year old had tried to tweek his nose and poured lemonade down his shirt. You can see Jimmy’s position–Boy, you need a spanking. There were a number of incidences like this and he was sent down to the minor leagues. He got into a lot of trouble down in the minor leagues, and spent some time in the West Borough State Hospital. He was diagnosed with manic depression, but he still returned to baseball by the opening of the ’53 season. And get this, he finished ninth in the voting for the MVP award, and the next year he was the Sox’s regular center fielder.”
In addition to describing these individuals who were thought to be mad by some and yet achieved greatness in various valued arenas, Bob provides diverse examples of regular Joes and Jills who displayed behaviors that were viewed as crazy by either themselves or others. These examples touch a chord in the listener because they illustrate experiences that are pretty close to what we have all experienced at different points in our lives.
The practice of meditation can help you to learn this skill.“Time flies when you’re talking crazy, and we gotta get out of here. But before we do I want to leave you with the words of the man who is the voice of the barroom, poet of the gutter, and Shakespeare of the alleyway. Here’s a poem by Charles Bukowski called “Some People.”
If done well, this section could delve into the more serious issues surrounding the nature of insults as used in our society. For example, as I pointed out in an earlier post titled 
