Category: anger

Unfriending Over Politics

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date April 1, 2026
No Comments on Unfriending Over Politics

Welcome to From Insults to Respect.

Please consider the following quote by Mathias Risse of Harvard University:

“Surely, political debate about what America should be, and which kind of economic system it should have, must count among the most basic themes in democratic discourse.”

Add to this, if you will, that the very first amendment declares that U.S citizens have, as a basic right, freedom of speech.

There is something so basic about the value of free exchanges of views that we hardly ever question it. If we are moved to question it, there are research studies that document that such exchanges are the mechanism by which better solutions are found and better decisions are made. Providing readers here with a formal review of the literature discussing these studies is too lengthy a process for our current purposes. It will suffice for today, I think, if I merely encourage you to imagine yourself seeking justice for yourself in a court of law that provides only the prosecutor getting to make the case against you, without your having any opportunity to present your side. Such an image, it seems to me, provides more than enough intuitive understanding that hearing both sides of an issue is crucial for increasing the chance of arriving at just decisions.

Something Appears To Have Changed

Since Donald Trump has been reelected to the U.S. presidency, I have been hearing more and more from friends, family members, and neighbors about an increase in the number of people who are being unfriended because they have expressed their contrary political views. Thus, opportunities for lively exchanges of different views that had been a regular part of our democracy appear to have diminished.

When I use the term, “unfriending,” I am not referring to how the term is used on Facebook. Rather than referring to this type of internet relationships, I am referring to the ending of what I view as real life, actual in-person relationships. Here are a couple of examples: One guy I know, told me about two of his cousins with whom he has always been close since they were children. A few months after Trump’s reelection, he and his cousins had a conversation expressing different political views. Ever since, these two family members have been refusing to talk to him. When he has made his usual seasonal calls to wish them happy holiday and to catch up with family doings, they now hang up on him. Another person has told me about how, after a brief discussion with a neighbor regarding Trump’s healthcare policy, this neighbor has now begun to turn a cold shoulder to her whenever they pass one another.

In an effort to avoid unfriending, but also leading to a diminishing of exchanges between people with different views, I’ve been seeing more and more folks only willing to discuss political issues when they are among others they know are in agreement with them. These talks are enjoyed for the support that one gets from likeminded folks. If they are with people with whom they disagree regarding their positions, they avoid the discomfort of hearing contrary opinions by insisting they will not engage in discussing political topics.

If we add to this, the current media programming situation in which people can tune into shows that solely express opinions that completely agree with them, we can see why more and more in our society have been losing out on the value that comes from hearing a variety of opinions.

Can We Improve This Situation?

It can be argued that the reason for the changed situation is because Trump has been modeling insulting, disrespectful behavior. Among the insults that I have heard Trump use are “fat pigs” and “disgusting animals.” I observed him on national TV calling Senator Lindsey Graham “a stiff,” Governor Rick Perry “stupid,” and numerous other political opponents, idiots.” He has denigrated federal judges who ruled against his efforts as well as the chairman of the Federal Reserve for not lowering interest rates.

However, whenever Mr. Trump insults his opponents, many voters are apt to defend him by saying he isn’t doing anything much different than all the other politicians. Meanwhile, I’ve heard Trump, when criticized for his insulting style, defend himself by declaring that no one has been more maligned than he. And he can certainly point to instances in which he has indeed been maligned.

That said, permit me to suggest that in an effort to change the current situation in which our fellow citizens are less likely to share their differing political concerns, we leave this maligning issue behind. I just don’t think it likely to lead to anything productive. Instead, I would like you to consider some suggestions I have personally found helpful.

When a political issue comes up, I say I think the topic is very interesting. Then I encourage the person who first brought up the topic to express his or her opinion. I then give the person an opportunity to fully express it, without my throwing out any insults, or displaying behavior that could in anyway be viewed as disrespectful. I listen without expressing anger and will only interrupt to briefly ask for some clarification of what was said. People value being listened to, and I seek to provide this value.

When the person has clearly finished, I thank the person, summarize what was said, and add that what was said was very helpful to me. I then again thank the person. Then I say, “I’ve heard a different position and I would love to describe it and then get your reaction to it.” I have found that when expressed this way, most will let me proceed. As I describe the different opinion, I use no insults or any tone of voice that might suggest I am maligning the position the other party had expressed. I then ask respectfully for the reaction of the person who had been listening to me, and again I respectfully listen. If I see the person responds angrily, I don’t express return anger. When the person completes the reply, I again summarize what was said using a soft friendly voice and leave the exchange at that. If the person had responded civilly, I would be open to further expand the discussion. Otherwise, I leave the discussion with the hope that in due time both of us will further think about what was said.

This respectful exchange typically works very well for me, and I continue our relationship on friendly terms.

In situations in which people say they don’t want to discuss political issues, I gently encourage them to at least give me a try. I explain that I realize political discussions can get heated and lead to bad feelings, but, with me, they will find me listening respectfully and discuss the issues civilly. I also explain the value that comes from hearing diverse political views. If this leads to an agreement to go ahead with such a discussion, and the person with whom I am having a discussion starts to get heated, I encourage that we return to a civil style. If that doesn’t work, I let the person finish the point that is being made, without my returning the anger, and then suggest we take some time to calm down.

Well, there are my thoughts and suggestions for dealing with this type of situation. I surely encourage readers to express their views regarding this, even if they are contrary to my own.

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.

Tags civil discourse, conflict resolution, conflict resolution skills, Unfriending, Unfriending over politics

anger Bullied bullying conflict resolution emotional maturity insults interpersonal conflicts Name calling providing negative criticism social skills sports coaching

Abusive Criticism In Big Time Sports

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date September 30, 2015
No Comments on Abusive Criticism In Big Time Sports

It’s the bottom of the eighth inning. The talented star, Bryce Harper, front runner for the National League Most Valuable Player Award, hits a pop fly to left field that a professional outfielder is very likely to catch. However, there are times when such fielders do lose the ball in the sun or the stadium lights, and the ball ends up being dropped, allowing the batter to safely reach base if he had bothered to run. It is for this reason that Mr. Harper is supposed to hustle down to first base even if he has a pretty good reason to think that the ball he hit is, in all likelihood, going to be caught. Instead of sprinting down to first, Mr. Harper slowly steps out of the batter’s box and then heads to the dugout where he runs into a very angry teammate, Jonathan Papelbon.

According to several sports reporters, Mr. Papelbon, an incredibly talented pitcher, began to criticize Mr. Harper about his lack of hustle, and after a very brief exchange, he charged into Mr. Harper, putting his hands on his throat and shoving him into the back wall of the Washington dugout. Fortunately, Mr. Harper was still wearing his batting helmet because his head smacked hard into the wall, and his helmet came flying off. Several Nationals players and coaches responded immediately and physically separated the two.

How Mature was Mr. Papelbon’s Style of Providing Negative Criticism in this Situation?

Regular readers of this blog know that when it comes to providing negative criticism, we are encouraged to consider a tentative model that describes five levels of maturity. Level one is viewed as the most immature, and each higher level is viewed as a little more mature. Let’s take a quick look at these levels, and as we do so, let’s see if we can figure out which of the five levels best describes Mr. Papelbon’s approach.

PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM: FIVE LEVELS OF MATURITY

1. The criticizer displays one or more of the following behaviors:

Cries without stating what the crying is about
Physically attacks the person being criticized
Damages property

2. Those who are at this level display one or both of the following behaviors:

The criticizer does not explain what the offending behavior is, but instead expresses displeasure with glares, insults, shouting, silence, or threats that do not involve bodily harm. (For example, someone might be making too much noise and the criticizer might turn to the noise maker and glare, or cry out, “Jerk!”)
Threatens bodily harm regardless of what else is said.

3. Those who are at this level clearly state the criticism with enough detail so the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance, but couple it with glares, insults, shouts, or threats that are not about bodily harm.

4. Those who are at this level state the criticism without bodily attacks, damaging property, glares, insults, threats, or shouts, and with enough details so that the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance. If the person receiving the criticism becomes defensive or angry, these criticizers empathize without returning glares, insults, threats, or shouts.

5. Those who are at this level provide criticism in a manner very similar to a level four style of criticism but beforehand, they consider the person who is the target of the criticism, and the situation that he or she is in. As a result of such considerations, they may decide to alter the criticism.

According to the Above Model, What Level of Maturity Best Describes Mr. Papelbon’s Form of Negative Criticism?

While criticizing Mr. Harper’s lack of hustle to first base, Mr. Papelbon physically attacked him. Of the five levels described in the above model, level one, the most immature level, best describes what he had done.

Why is such a style considered immature? Well, one reason is that when people respond at the more mature levels, it demonstrates that they can consider the consequences of their actions before they choose what actions to take. In this case, the consequences for Mr. Papelbon has been a suspension for the rest of the season, a fine of thousands of dollars, and he has been displayed on national news in a negative light, thus tarnishing his reputation. A little forethought would have led to avoiding these clearly negative consequences.

Now, it is important to note that the specific negative criticism that Mr. Papelbon wanted to deliver to Mr. Hudson, was, according to my own value system, correct. Mr. Hudson does owe it to his teammates to hustle down to first base in these situations. However, I disagree with how Mr. Papelbon provided the criticism.

Mr. Papelbon, center, after lunging at Mr. Harper.

What would have been a more mature response? A little forethought would have led to realizing that Mr. Harper was very frustrated with his own pop out in the game. Thus, to wait until the next day would give both parties time to calm down.

Moreover, providing negative criticism to someone in front of lots of other people is often a huge mistake. Face-saving actions tend to increase defensiveness for both parties. Asking to discuss such matters in private is often a kinder, wiser approach.

Finally, Mr. Papelbon would have been wise to first consider if he was the best person to present the criticism. Usually managers of a team are the ones who are considered to have the legitimate authority to bring these types of issues up to a player. If Mr. Papelbon felt he had a particularly close relationship with Mr. Harper, or an established mentor relationship, there could be some exceptions to this general rule. Otherwise, Mr. Papelbon might have been wise to privately discuss his displeasure about his teammate’s lack of hustle with his manager and urge him to take firm action.

Sports Illustrated Article on “Abusive Coaches”

In big time sports, Mr. Papelbon is in no way the only one who provides negative criticism in a manner that matches the most immature levels of our model. In a special report of the September 28, 2015 issue of Sports Illustrated, Alexander Wolff (with reporting by Lauren Shute) writes:,

“Why do college coaches continue to yell, demean and demoralize? That’s yesterday’s tactic. Today’s athletes can’t-and won’t-take it. What’s more, it doesn’t work: Study after study shows the benefits of a more positive approach.” (p. 51)

What are the negative consequences of providing negative criticism in these low maturity level styles? The Sports Illustrated writer tells us about excellent players leaving their teams, and in rare cases, committing suicide.

Many coaches have lost their jobs after an athletic director’s investigation. Over the past 28 months at least seven Division I schools have had an investigation, and then parted ways with coaches following player complaints of mistreatment.

Moreover, some colleges end up getting sued. In one case, seven former players have filed a $10 million civil suit that charges the school and coaches were fostering a racially hostile environment.

There is some relatively good news in the Sports Illustrated article. Apparently, most players are not being treated in a demeaning manner judging from one recent NCAA survey. Of Division I players, 31% of men’s basketball players and 22% of football players reported that a coach “puts me down in front of others.” Although this indicates that there is still plenty of room for improvement, it can nevertheless be viewed as a hopeful sign that most coaches are finding more positive ways to bring out quality performances in their players.

Why Do Many Coaches Continue to Use Abusive Tactics?

As reported in the Sports Illustrated article, according to Ramogi Huma, executive director to the National College Players Association, which often hears from abused athletes:

“I believe this is a cultural problem. A lot of coaches, they were hollered at and abused when they were players.” (p. 52)

There is also undoubtedly a great deal of pressure on the coaches. If they don’t win, they are very likely to be replaced.

But perhaps the major reason is that coaches are not provided enough inspiring stories about how successful coaches find ways to win by fostering bonding, loyalty, and commitment to a team in a positive manner. Dramatic enthusiasm when explaining to players what specifically they can do to improve, rather than belittling them about what they did wrong, is one such positive approach. Celebrating each step toward improvement is another.

Conclusion

Thinking about what happens when immature styles of criticism occur in the world of big time sports can provide us an important lesson with regards to how we provide criticism to others in non-athletic situations. The five levels of maturity provides guidance not only to big time athletic teammates and their coaches, but also to the rest of us.

Real change from lower levels of maturity to higher levels rarely occurs from reading a single article. More typically, it requires bringing examples of people utilizing the higher level skills before one’s consciousness at least weekly for several months, and, on each of these occasions, an effort must be put forth to consider how these skills can be specifically applied to one’s own life. Following this blog is a no cost way to help make this happen.

I hope you join us again real soon.

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.

Tags anger, bullies, bullying, disrespectful, insults, maturity levels, negative criticism, sports coaching

anger conflict management conflict resolution criticism insults interpersonal conflicts negative criticism respect Responding to Criticism Uninvited criticism Unsolicited criticism

A Conversation About Unsolicited Criticism

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date March 30, 2015
6 Comments on A Conversation About Unsolicited Criticism

A while back, I published on this blog a post titled, “Unsolicited Criticism: Good or Bad?” Regular readers may recall that it begins as follows:

Illustration by Aviva Maltin

“Judy, it’s so nice to see you,” I say as she comes into my office and sits down on my couch.

“I’ve been reading your blog again, Dr Rubin. It’s filled with a bunch of hogwash.”

“Hmmm, it sounds like there are some ideas in it that you don’t care for.”

“I read last night two of your blog posts–Is Criticism Bad and Criticism and Wisdom. What a bunch of nonsense!”

“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.

——————————-

Tags conflict management, dispute management, disrespectful, insults, uninvited criticism, unsolictied criticism

anger conflict management conflict resolution criticism insults Islam Muslims respect Responding to Criticism

Killing People Because They Criticized Your Muslim Faith: Is It A Sign of Immaturity?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date January 14, 2015
6 Comments on Killing People Because They Criticized Your Muslim Faith: Is It A Sign of Immaturity?

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.

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.

———————

Tags Charlie Hebdo, Charlie Hebdo magazine, criticism, Islam, maturity levels, Muslim faith, Muslims, Mustafa Akyol, negative criticism, psychological maturity, Quran, religious beliefs, violence

Albert Einstein anger conflict resolution criticism Name calling negative criticism providing criticism wisdom

Einstein and Stupidity

“Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe.”–Albert Einstein

In the spring of 1914, Albert Einstein left his home in Switzerland to take a job at the University of Berlin in Germany’s capital. He was then, 35.

He took the job with much misgivings. When he was a young boy living in Germany, Einstein had been deeply repelled by the authoritarians, militarism, and bigotry he found all around him. And as a young man, he was appalled by the prejudices, injustices and reactionary ideas found in the heart of many Germans in those days. Nevertheless, working in Berlin provided an opportunity to pursue his research without teaching and administrative obligations and to have ready access to many brilliant fellow scientists and mathematicians.

Einstein’s Name-Calling During World War I

Months after Einstein moved to Berlin, in August 1914, the first world war broke loose, creating wholesale death, misery, and hunger. And then, many people with whom he was working signed a manifesto denying that Germany had any responsibility for the war. Instead, the blame fell entirely on Germany’s enemies. The concluding paragraph states:

We cannot wrest from our enemies’ hand the venomous weapon of the lie [that Germany is responsible for the war]. We can only cry out to the whole world that they bear false witness against us. To you who know us, who have hitherto stood with us in safeguarding mankind’s most precious heritage–to you we cry out: Have faith in us when we say that we shall wage this fight to the very end as a civilized nation, a nation that holds the legacy of Goethe, Beethoven and Kant no less sacred than hearth and home.

This type of document along with all that was happening in the world was pretty rough on Einstein. In a letter to Paul Ehrenfest, a physicist and one of his closest friends, he wrote:

The international catastrophe has imposed a heavy burden upon me as an internationalist. In living through this “great epoch,” it is difficult to reconcile oneself to the fact that one belongs to that stupid, rotten species which boasts of its freedom of will. How I wish that somewhere there existed an island for those who are wise and of good will! In such a place even I should be an ardent patriot. (From Einstein on Peace, p. 2)

We see in this quote that Einstein, in his anger, chose to refer to the human race as stupid. And yet, some of the people that were supporting the war were among the smartest people of their day, at least in terms of their academic accomplishments.

Of course, Einstein is not the only one to use the word stupid upon becoming angry:

Apparently, for Einstein, the word stupid was meant to mean something different than an inability to master challenging subject matter. What then did he mean?

Such terms are often used broadly, meaning the same thing as other words and phrases thrown at someone in anger, such as “crazy,” “mentally ill,” “jerk,” “piece of trash,” “rotten,” etc. When used like this, they all mean nothing more than the angry party strongly doesn’t like what the other party did. They serve as a type of exclamation point.

For Einstein, I think stupid might have had an added meaning; something like not being able to see something that seems so plainly reasonable to him. War is a terrible thing, Einstein believed, and the justification that Germany used to enter into it clashed with his sense of what was so plainly reasonable.

Einstein’s Approach to Providing Negative Criticism After World War I

Soon after the end of the first world war, Germany saw the rise of Hitler and Einstein fled to America, taking a position at Princeton University. As World War II got underway, Einstein did support military intervention. As he explained it when declining an invitation to prepare a presentation of the pacifist point of view,

I am not what you might call a religious pacifist. Besides, I consider it preferable for men to fight rather than allow themselves to be butchered without lifting a finger. That was just about the alternative in the case of Hitler’s Germany. (Einstein on Peace, p. 553)

But when America became involved in the Korean War, Einstein again experienced anger about a military intervention. Korea had not attacked any country, let alone the United States. Korea was engaged in an internal fight about what type of government it chose to have. US military intervention, Einstein believed, would serve to dramatically increase the loss of life. How did Einstein express his disagreement in his adopted country where most were fierce supporters of the war?

When writing to a trusted friend he would allow himself to let out his raw emotions about what was going on in the world. This occasionally included utilizing words like stupid, idiot, and rotten. But at least in the many public statements that I’ve read of his, it was extremely rare to see him utilizing anything that strikes me as name calling. Typical is a 1953 quote taken from Einstein’s review of a book on Gandhi. The author was Gene Sharp, a 25-year old graduate of Ohio State University who had just received a two-year sentence for defying the draft law during the Korean War. Einstein wrote:

How is it possible that a young man was able to create such a mature piece of work? The author’s preface tells us how it was possible. He feels the profound obligation to serve, with all his energies and with unlimited readiness for sacrifice, a purpose which is clearly personified in Gandhi’s unique example: to overcome through an awakening of moral strength the danger of self-destruction which confronts mankind as a result of explosive technological developments. The collapse which threatens mankind is characterized in the volume by the words depersonalization, regimentation, total war, while its salvation is characterized by the words personal responsibility, in conjunction with nonviolence and service to human beings in Gandhi’s sense.

I believe the author is completely right in asserting that every human being is compelled to come to a clear decision with regard to this important matter: there is no middle ground.

In the Nuremberg trials the following principle was laid down: Personal moral responsibility cannot be set aside by national laws. Let us hope that we may soon come to the point where the Nuremberg principle will not only be enforced upon citizens of vanquished nations! (Einstein on Peace, p. 544)

Here, Einstein, rather than calling those who support war insulting names, he instead expresses admiration for two people who had acted to resist participation in military activities–Sharp and Gandhi. He then places their activities in the context of a moral principle that was articulated by the judges at the post World War II Nuremberg trials. These judges convicted Nazi leaders who presented a defense that they were just following orders.

I like this approach of letting people know, by use of a narrative, what actions you do respect. It goes beyond just saying what you don’t like. It adds specificity, and I think people learn ideas better through narrative rather than principles alone. It is this very approach that I tried to create in my three novels.

Okay, there’s my post for this week. Until next time, here’s hoping we all find some helpful ways to bring about a more peaceful world.

Jeff

———————

Tags Albert Einstein, anger, Einstein on Peace, name calling, negative criticism, promoting peace, stupidity

anger challenge conflict resolution threats

Exaggerating the Benefits of Anger

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date October 29, 2014
7 Comments on Exaggerating the Benefits of Anger

“Are you going to vote for the new school facility plan, Marc?”

“No, Phil. It calls for combining the two high schools in our town so that there will be nearly 2,000 students in the combined school. I prefer small schools. I say, keep them small, keep them personal.”

Turning red and glaring into Marc’s eyes, Phil begins to holler, “What are you, stupid? We can’t afford two high schools in this town. You’re nuts!”

The next day. “Hi Marc, you still going to vote against the combining the two high school plan?”

“You know, Phil, I’m hesitant to discuss anything with you. You get angry and you begin to put me down and you start with the glares….”

“Oh, don’t be a baby, Marc. Don’t you know that anger is a good thing. Research shows it can make us push on towards our goals in the face of problems and barriers. And hiding anger in relationships can be detrimental. When you hide your anger, your partner doesn’t know they’ve done something wrong, so they keep doing it. That doesn’t do your relationship any good. There’s also some evidence that anger can be useful as a negotiation strategy. If people see that you are angry, studies show that the other party will make more concessions.”

Now, it is not hard to understand why Phil, and others, might make such statements about anger. After all, if you go on the internet and glance at some of the articles that come up in search engines when we insert in the search box the words, “benefits of anger,” people can get a similar impression as Phil. There is, for example, “The Upside of Anger: 6 Benefits of Getting Mad,” or “When Anger is a Plus,” etc. However, a careful reading of the actual research studies lead one to dramatically different conclusions.

The two biggest mistakes that people make when interpreting the research on this topic is, 1. not taking a good look at what the expression of anger is being compared with, and, 2. not noticing how broadly the term anger is defined. Let’s focus quickly on these two types of mistakes.

Not Taking a Good Look at What the Expression of Anger is Being Compared With

If people only told their partners in their relationship what they feel he or she did wrong when they become angry, then there probably are times when the expression of anger might do more good than never saying anything. In such studies, comparing the expression of anger with saying nothing is, in my opinion, potentially misleading. People can learn to provide negative criticism in a far more helpful way than what we typically call anger (see my post titled “Providing Negative Criticism: Five Levels of Maturity“).

For the negotiation studies that found that people who became angry did fairly well compared to some other subjects who did not become angry, again let’s look at what “becoming angry” was compared to. Those who didn’t become angry really didn’t care all that much about whether or not they obtained the reward. They did make some halfhearted effort to achieve it, but then quickly gave in. Those folks who were confronted with someone who was angry and ended up settling for something that was less than what they would have settled for if they were confronted by someone who was not angry, also had little of real value at stake. They were also given extremely few options to use in the negotiation. Under these types of situations, a person might prefer to give the other party, if he or she becomes angry, a little more than they might otherwise do rather than to put up any longer with what felt to them like abuse.

What would have happened if the study would have compared not only a group of people who portrayed anger during the negotiation process with a group who didn’t, but also looked at a group of individuals who were well trained to respond to negotiation situations with “challenge?”

Challenge allows you to accomplish all of what anger positively does without anger’s negative consequences.

In brief, challenge has us:

Working up a heightened sense of determination to achieve our desire
Meanwhile, we consider the twin beliefs that the stress we have been experiencing is normal and fulfillment is not found in easy comfort, security, and routine, but rather in the continual growth in wisdom through what is learned from negative and positive experiences of an active, changing life[1]
Then, we take a deep breath and resolve to get down to the task at hand—carrying out a two-step process.

Step 1. Consider if the most obvious resolution is sufficient.

In such cases in which you become convinced that the resolution that you came up with poses no serious risks, it makes sense to you, and you feel comfortable with it, the only job you have left is to carry out your plan with charm, courage, and determination. However, if the most obvious solution does pose a serious risk, or you just don’t feel comfortable with it for any reason, it’s time to go to Step 2.

Step 2. Carrying out a more complete decision process.

There are numerous benefits that occur when we learn how to transform anger into challenge. Just becoming angry is, of course, far easier in the short term, but excellent studies demonstrate that those who learn to respond to difficult situations with challenge, in the long run do far better than either just becoming angry or making halfhearted efforts.

Learning to respond to anger-arousing situations with challenge takes some practice, but it can be achieved with practice. You can find free practice sessions HERE, and HERE, and HERE.

Moreover, a great way to learn how to transform anger into challenge is to read the “Cool Steve” trilogy, a series of three novels that portrays a coming of age tale that takes psychological suspense to new heights and sophisticated humor to new lows. Struggling to find respect, our hero faces many of the same struggles we all faced while growing up, and a few not so typical ones as well. Mistakes are made, but in the end, the value of challenge is portrayed in a manner you will long remember.

And so, either to respond with anger or not to respond with anger are not really our only two choices. Not responding with anger actually involves many different choices and one of them, transforming anger to challenge, is one of them, and a distinctly better choice than giving free range to anger.

Not Noticing How Broadly the Term Anger is Defined

In seeking to understand studies that seem to suggest that anger can be beneficial, it helps to look at how anger is defined in those studies. In one study that seems to suggest anger is helpful, the authors make a distinction between constructive anger and destructive anger. They then explain that it is constructive anger that can be beneficial. What they call constructive anger is responding to frustration without name calling or shouting, but with determination to achieve a goal. This sound to me more like challenge than anger.

In another study that talks about the benefits of anger, it was actually mild frustration that was beneficial in increasing motivation to achieve a goal. Despite this, as the authors wrote up the study results they claimed that frustration was a lot like anger, and therefore the results may suggest that anger is beneficial. A quick glance at this study’s results can mislead people because some people who become frustrated don’t begin to yell at people around them, nor do they start to throw insults and threats at them. They may, instead, feel challenged to vigorously respond in a constructive, problem solving manner, and it is these people who may be the ones responding in a more beneficial way than those who act in a manner that is clearly anger. Calling anger, frustration, and challenge all forms of anger, can confuse people into thinking all expressions of anger are beneficial. It would be far better to use words that clearly distinguishes these experiences so that people would be less likely to end up exaggerating the benefits of anger.

OK, so those are some thoughts to ponder for this week. I hope you’ll join us again sometime next week for another presentation on dealing with anger, conflict and respect.

[1] The value of this attitude is discussed in: S. R. Maddi, D. M. Khoshaba, R. H. Harvey, M Fazel, & N Resurreccion, 2011, “The Personality Construct of Hardiness, V: Relationships with the Construction of Existential Meaning in Life,” Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 51(3), 369-388.

———————

Tags anger, challenge, conflict management, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, frustration, insults, negotiation, threats

anger conflict management conflict resolution emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum negative criticism perfectionism providing criticism suicide

Suicide, Perfectionism, and Criticism

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date October 20, 2014
7 Comments on Suicide, Perfectionism, and Criticism

Sometimes I’m asked why I write so much about dealing with criticism. The answer mostly has to do with the types of concerns that have been expressed to me over the years. Some involve the desire to be liked and respected. Others have to do with seeking to gain control over anger. And still others come from parents who find that how they go about disciplining their children has been a serious source of stress in their lives. Providing and responding to criticism in a pleasant, thoughtful manner involves skills that can be learned fairly quickly, and are clearly helpful when addressing these types of concerns.

Additionally, conflicts that bring forth negative criticism, if handled in an immature manner, can escalate and result in a destructive relationship between parent and child, the parting of a relationship between two valued friends, the loss of a job, serious injury, and prison time. And then there is the relationship between certain ways that people handle criticism and suicide.

In an earlier post, titled “Teenage Suicide and Cyberbullying: A Case Study,” I wrote about 12-year-old Rebecca Sedwick who had leaped to her death after more than a year of being incessantly criticized by a coterie of 15 middle-school children. Today, once again I take up the subject of the relationship between criticism and suicide because of an article I just read in this September’s Review of General Psychology by Gordon L. Flett, Paul L. Hewitt, and Marnin J Heisel titled, “The Destructiveness of Perfectionism Revisited: Implications for the Assessment of Suicide Risk and the Prevention of Suicide.” It’s written for research-minded people and has far more nuanced information than I can share in a single blog post designed for the general reader. Nevertheless, I’m going to summarize a few of its key points for I think they are very much worth considering as we move forward in our quest to become masters at dealing with name calling, insults and teasing.

Suicide and Criticism

The media is filled with stories about the Ebola virus, which has so far killed close to 4,000 people worldwide, and one person in North America. In contrast, it is estimated that over one million people worldwide, including 40,000 people in North America, kill themselves on an annual basis. Recent U.S. data indicate that suicide is the second leading cause of death among people who are under 40 years of age. For every person who commits suicide, several more attempt it, resulting in anguish for family and friends, and financial costs from emergency room and aftercare services that are estimated to be several billion dollars.

Of course, there are a number of reasons why people kill themselves, but the article I just read makes the following argument:

Chronic exposure to situations and contexts that place excessive pressure (or percieved pressure) on the individual to be perfect can have a destructive effect on most individuals and this is heightened among those people who are vulnerable and hypersensitive to criticism and social comparison feedback. Consider, for instance, the vulnerable perfectionist exposed regularly to a hypercritical parent, (boss/supervisor) or romantic partner who is ever-present and seemingly impossible to please. Alternatively, the vulnerable perfectionist may have a work environment where mistakes are simply not allowed and excessive standards are required by a tyrannical boss.

Now, I hasten to point out that most parents, bosses and supervisors who encourage quality performance don’t cause anyone to commit suicide. Moreover, the vast majority of people who may view themselves as perfectionists, even those who see themselves as particularly sensitive to criticism, don’t end up killing themselves. Nevertheless, the consistent evidence from studies that link suicide behavior with chronic exposure to external pressure to be perfect and the relationship between perfectionistic characteristics and an increased risk of lethal suicide behavior leads one to pause. Perhaps there may be some ways to encourage quality performance without increasing suicide risks.

Ideas about Prevention

Many people who view themselves as perfectionists tend to remain silent about any despair that they may experience. And those who demand that their children or workers be perfect don’t see anything wrong with this. So these people are unlikely to show up and ask to learn some skills to improve their behavior. Prevention programs, therefore, must be designed proactively and implemented broadly to reach these people. Schools, colleges and business organizations, if they are to impact people at risk, must provide education about these issues to their entire population. Thus, Flett and his colleagues recommend the following key themes be incorporated into school-based programs:

(a) fostering self-acceptance and compassion instead of experiencing shame and self-criticism; (b) promoting appropriate goal-setting and goal appraisal versus setting and maintaining impossible standards; (c) combating ambivalence about giving up the need to be perfect since the distressed perfectionist must be highly motivated to change; and (d) developing resilience to feelings of shame and ability to cope with interpersonal conflict and feelings of being rejected by others.

For the work environment, Flett and his colleagues state:

Prevention efforts should include an organizational focus on reducing pressures to be perfect. When perfectionism prevails as part of the culture and values of the workplace, it tends to promote poorer performance rather than superior performance (Gillett & Stenfert-Kroese, 2003) and it is linked with job dissatisfaction, poorer communication quality, role conflict, reduced likelihood of staying, and a poorer perceived fit between the person and the work environment (Balthazard, Cooke, & Potter, 2006; Rousseau, 1990).

Although, as a general statement, these ideas are worthwhile to think about, a far more detailed process is necessary to foster the goals of these researchers. For those who can afford counseling services designed to teach self compassion, along with addressing each individual’s concerns, I recommend working with either of the two counselors described HERE. For those who can’t access counseling services because of the financial costs, although not as ideal as direct one to one counseling, there is available for free a curriculum that teaches the necessary skills at this blog site (see below).

——————————-

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.

Tags Assessment of Suicide Risk, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, Gordon L. Flett, insults, negative criticism, perfectionism, relationship, suicide, violence

anger bullying conflict management conflict resolution criticism insults internet bullying

Internet Meanies

One day I happened to be flipping through the New York Times when I came upon a story titled Dealing With Digital Cruelty by Stephenie Rosenbloom. It had been a year since I had written a post about a particularly sad incident of internet cruelty. Back then, 12-year-old Rebecca Sedwick had leaped to her death after being cyberbullied by a coterie of 15 middle-school children who urged her to kill herself. Upon reading the Times story, I decided to revisit this issue.

The Times article begins, “Anyone who has ever been online has witnessed, or been virtually walloped by, a mean comment.”

Because communication on the internet can provide anonymity and invisibility it can lead many to feel uninhibited. If someone is sitting right in front of you, there is a chance that a mean comment could lead to the insulter ending up with a fat lip or witnessing streams of tears running down a sweet face. Not so when all you see is some letters.

The Times article offers us some advice. “One way to become proactive is to ask yourself if those barbs you can’t seem to shrug off have an element of truth.” An example is provided by a writer, Mr. Pozen, who became particularly upset upon reading that his book was too “U.S.-centric.” Mr. Pozen considered that idea — and decided that the reader, despite not having put it particularly nicely, might be right. “So I thought, ‘Well, if I ever write another version of this book I ought to take that into account,’ ” he said.

While I was doing some research on this topic, I came upon another good example of this:

The writer, Gina Trapani, tells us how she would handle the following type of internet comment,

“Hey asshat, way to waste my time with a stupid article that has no original information in it whatsoever. I wish you and your web site would drop dead, dry up and blow away.”…Once I got over the name-calling and the death wish, I might ask myself: Was this article unoriginal? Could it have been more in-depth or relevant? If nothing else make a mental note of the core problem minus the meanness, learn from it and move on. Put your critics to good use instead of letting them make you feel bad.

It’s not always possible, of course, to learn something from a nasty comment. Some are baseless; some are crass.

Illustration by Credit Kristian Hammerstad — Illustration by
Kristian Hammerstad

The Times article tells us that it helps to keep in mind that some people think of their online life as a kind of game with rules and norms that don’t apply to everyday living, a game for which they do not feel responsible. If bloggers and people who use social networks keep this concept in mind, he said, they will see the psychology of aggressors, and their comments may be easier to take — and possibly ignore.

Moreover,

Harsh comments can also be made to feel less potent by directly disputing to yourself what was said. If, for example, someone writes, “You’re an idiot and no one likes you,” you can marshal evidence against it by reminding yourself, Stuart Smalley-style, of the obvious: You have an education, a job, more friends than you have time to see in a week.

Speaking of time, be mindful of when you choose to glance at your blog or social media feeds. Researchers have discovered that feeling blue or even being in a so-called neutral mood makes people more vulnerable to nasty comments. In other words: Stay off Twitter if you just bombed a presentation.

These are just a few of the thoughtful advice the article provides. If you find yourself troubled by this type of experience, I highly recommend that you give it a thorough read.

Have a great week!

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.

Tags anger, bullies, bullying, conflict management, disrespectful, insults, internet, negative criticism, New York Times, types of criticism

anger Bullied bullying conflict resolution insults parenting taunting threats

Suing Fellow Student For Bullying

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date June 25, 2014
6 Comments on Suing Fellow Student For Bullying

On this blog, from time to time I provide some commentary on news stories involving bullying. There was the case of students tormenting a 68-year-old bus monitor:

And another one in which a 12-year-old girl leaped to her death after more than a year of being cyberbullied:

And several others as well.

Another Example

This week I want to discuss a story about some parents who are trying a different approach to addressing the bullying problem. According to a June 18, 2014 story by NBC Chicago, a fourth-grader is suing another fourth grader for bullying him.

Contending he has been the victim of bullying which spanned his entire third-grade year, Matthew and Deveri Del Core filed the suit Tuesday on behalf of their son Joaquin, naming a classmate identified only as “C.A.”, along with the boy’s parents, the school district, and Jeffrey Brusso, principal of Robert Frost Elementary.

The lawsuit alleges that Joaquin had been the victim of almost weekly attacks, ranging from hitting, punching, and kicking, to more violent threats. He would wake up at night screaming and crying, terrified, and did not want to go to school.

Joaquin’s parents filed repeated police reports and met with the school, to no avail. In one of those reports, an investigating officer notes that the alleged assailant’s parent said he had “anger issues.”

“The school said they were taking action and assured us it wouldn’t happen again, and it would just keep happening,” Joaquin’s father said. “(They would say) ‘Yes, we’ll handle it, rest assured…’ and then it would happen again a week later!”

So far the case is not going too well from the perspective of Joaquin’s parents:

Within hours of filing the complaint in Cook County Circuit Court, Ms. Del Core said she was fired from her job in the Robert Frost Elementary cafeteria. A termination letter from the school’s cafeteria contractor, said she was being fired ‘at the request of the client,’ because actions she had taken ‘have been detrimental to the physical and mental well-being of students and staff.’

The family’s attorney, Joel Handler, said he would now amend the complaint, to include a charge of retaliatory discharge against the school, for firing the boy’s mother. For their part, the parents said they hoped the lawsuit sends a message.

“Kids, all kids, need to be in a safe and healthy environment to learn in, because learning fuels the rest of your life,” Matthew Del Core said. His wife suggested that the suit might actually help the alleged assailant. “This isn’t just about our son any more,” she said. “This is about the child that’s been bullying our son, that he gets the help that he needs, and that the school provides it for him.”

Commentary

In the above example, I am relying solely on the NBC Chicago story. I have no first-hand knowledge about what has actually taken place. And of course the story is still unfolding. But I have no doubt that incidences such as the one I just described occur regularly in our schools.

Bullying stories have been in the news a couple of times this month alone. The Inquisitr, for example, reported on June 21, 2014 that 14-year-old Noel Estevez, who was bullied by the same kid for months, recently snapped and stabbed his tormentor to death. In that case, witnesses stated that the boy who was stabbed was part of a group that bullied Noel so relentlessly that the eighth-grader even tried suicide, causing him to miss several months of school.

In a previous post, I made several suggestions for schools to address these types of problems. But what can parents do if they see their child being treated in this awful manner after trying as hard as possible to work effectively with the school and police and the tormenting just continues?

Judging from the comments that have been coming in on the story about Joaquin filing his lawsuit, there is a great deal of support for this type of action. For example, one person wrote:

Kudos to the family. My child attended a Catholic Jr. High and was subject to similar attacks by classmates. While the school acknowledged the issue, nothing was done until a lawyer friend of mine sent a letter to the school indicating one more occurrence and we would file suit. Low and behold, the administration addressed the matter with suspensions and other disciplinary actions immediately following. Hated to take such extreme measures but my child’s grades hit rock bottom, became extremely withdrawn and no longer wished to socialize with “real” friends. Good luck to the family and hopefully these actions will prevent another child from having to endure the same.

Another wrote:

Good for you – one of the few parents that are willing to ferociously advocate for your child and do what is necessary to protect your child. This happens more frequently than many people realize throughout the country. Brilliant bringing the media into it – now that this story is gaining national attention, perhaps many more parents with children subjected to this type of bullying while the district tries to brush it under the rug will now be willing to step in and confront those in authority who fail miserably in protecting their charges. It happened to my child, also, and I had to do the same thing before our school district caved and took care of the problem after almost two years of discounting/ignoring it.

Please join the discussion by leaving a comment in the reply box below.

——————————-

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.

Tags anger, bullied, bullies, bully, bullying, conflict management, conflict resolution, Deveri Del Core, dispute management, Joaquin Del Core, Matthew Del Core, NBC Chicago, Robert Frost Elementary, schools and bullying, threats

African American anger assertiveness Bullied bullying conflict management conflict resolution criticism emotional intelligence emotional maturity free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts Jr. Martin Luther King N-word Name calling psychological maturity respect social intelligence taunting wisdom

On Responding to the N-word

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date April 7, 2014
No Comments on On Responding to the N-word

Leonard Pitts, Jr. is a columnist, author of three novels and winner of numerous awards including the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary. When I heard that he was speaking at Flagler College, having enjoyed reading his insightful column for many years, I eagerly went to see him.

Mr. Pitts’s formal presentation was well received. Then, he began to take questions from the audience. His responses to each were like a laser in that his answers were precisely on point–that is, until I asked my question.

My Question

When I first stepped up to the mike, I explained that I had worked with teenagers for many years, and sometimes a white student would seek to insult a black student by calling him the N-word.

Often the response was a physical fight that would lead to a school suspension.

Before returning to school, in some cases both students were asked to meet with me. I saw each separately at first and usually I’d discuss Martin Luther King, Jr. For the black students, at some point in our discussion I would ask, “Do you understand that Martin Luther King, Jr. was all about non-violence when dealing with injustice?”

“Sure, I know that, man!” was a common reply.

Then I would say something like, “When you were called the N-word, you started to physically attack the guy who called you that. That’s a violent approach to the injustice you had faced. If it happens again, can you think of some other way to deal with this, some way that would respect Martin Luther King, Jr.’s memory?”

I would then typically get the following type reply: “If Martin Luther King, Jr. lived in my neighborhood, he’d have realized that if anyone called him that, the only way to respond is to bloody the guy up good!”

Having had experiences like this, I asked Mr. Pitts, “As a respected black man, how would you respond to someone who called you the N-word, and how would you advise black people to respond in the event that someone called them the N-word?”

Mr. Pitts’s Response

As I had said before, prior to my question, Mr. Pitts’s answers to questions that were being presented to him were right on point. Now, his reply wandered off to related issues, never directly answering my question.

He spoke, for example, of how he objected to hip-hop’s embrace of the word. He related it to how many women in the women’s movement have now embraced the phrase, “She’s my bitch,” as a form of flattery, despite the fact that historically it was used in an unkind manner by sexist men seeking to put down women. And he spoke eloquently about why he personally found the N-word so offensive. I didn’t write down his exact words, but it seemed to closely match the words he used in some of his earlier newspaper columns. For example, in a column published on November 30th, 2013, he wrote:

The N-word is unique. It was present at the act of mass kidnap that created “black America,” it drove the ship to get here, signed the contracts at flesh auctions on Southern ports as mother was torn from child, love from love and self from self. It had a front row center seat for the acts of blood, rape, castration, exclusion and psychological destruction by which the created people was kept down and in its place. The whole weight of our history dictates that word cannot be used except as an expression of contempt for African Americans.

Now, I do want to avoid a too simplistic presentation of Mr. Pitts’s position on the N-word. He does believe that the word can be rightly used in certain situations. For example, in a column titled, “Don’t Censor Mark Twain’s N word” he defended how it is used in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn:

It is, perhaps, the seminal moment in American literature.

Young Huck Finn, trying to get right with God and save his soul from a forever of fire, sits there with the freshly written note in hand. “Miss Watson,” it says, “your runaway nigger Jim is down here two mile below Pikesville and Mr. Phelps has got him and he will give him up for the reward if you send.”

Huck knows it is a sin to steal and he is whipped by guilt for the role he has played in helping the slave Jim steal himself from a poor old woman who never did Huck any harm. But see, Jim has become Huck’s friend, has sacrificed for him, worried about him, laughed and sung with him, depended upon him. So what, really, is the right thing to do?

“I was a-trembling,” says Huck, “because I’d got to decide, forever, betwixt two things and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself:

‘All right, then, I’ll go to hell’ — and tore it up.”

Mr. Pitts wrote this column in response to a publisher who had decided to put out a new edition of this classic story that replaced all 219 occurrences of the N-word with words such as “runaway slave.” Although Mr. Pitts acknowledges the publisher means well, he states that, “…it is troubling to think the state of reading comprehension in this country has become this wretched, that we have tweeted, PlayStationed and Fox Newsed so much of our intellectual capacity away that not only can our children not divine the nuances of a masterpiece, but that we will now protect them from having to even try.”

I liked what Mr. Pitts had said in reply to my question but as I left the auditorium, I wondered why he appeared to avoid answering my question more directly. And I wondered what he would say about the approach that I have been recommending for responding to insults (see for example, “Insulting Criticism: What Can We Do About It?”).

My Alternative to Violence When Responding to the N-word

Although I have given a number of different types of examples of people responding maturely to insults in past posts, I have never described specifically what my approach would look like in the type of a situation we have been discussing today. I, of course, recognize that since I am not an African-American, I lack much legitimacy in offering my opinion on this topic. Nevertheless, just to spur a deeper discussion, very tentatively I am tossing out one alternative to violence.

In the scenario presented below, this is the first time Fred is calling Leroy the N-word. In my view, Leroy’s response would be very different if Fred has begun to repeatedly taunt him. Concerns about how to handle taunting are addressed in my post titled “The Art of Playful Teasing”.

Leroy, an African-American teenager is called the N-word by Fred, a white teenager. Leroy replies by looking firmly into the eyes of Fred and says,”You just called me a nigger. I want to make certain you clearly understand that that word was used in the past by people who believed in slavery and that African-Americans are less than human. Is that what you are trying to say to me, that you believe in slavery, and I’m less than a human being?”

“Yeah, you nigger!” Fred replies.

Leroy pauses to think about this for a moment, looking down in a sad manner. Then, looking squarely into Fred’s eyes, he says firmly, “Why are you trying to insult me, Fred?”

“Because I hate niggers!”

“Fred, I’ve met some black guys who strike me as pretty hateful characters. But from my experience, there are a lot of great black guys out there. I hope in time you’ll change your mind. Anything else you want to say to me?

“Yeah, go to hell!”

“I understand that you’re trying to insult me, Fred. I’m always interested to hear you out. I’m sorry to hear how you feel about black people.”

Well, those are some thoughts I have for you this week. I encourage readers to continue the discussion by posting comments. I know these issues bring up for many of us some very strong emotions.

——————————-