Welcome to From Insults To Respect.
When thirteen-year old Cool Steve’s parents no longer can afford the rent where they had been living, they move to a less expensive, run down apartment. Steve has to start a new junior high school even though it’s the middle of a school year. Let’s see if we can learn something when we see how Steve handles his first day there.
* *. *
At lunchtime, Steve’s teacher informs him, “Young man, because this is your first day here, when you get down to the lunchroom, you’re to report to the vice principal, Mr. Lantern. He’ll assign you a place to sit. You can’t miss him; he’s the large, bald gentleman down in the lunchroom.”
“You must be the new member of our team,” says Mr. Lantern, amidst the noisy sounds of the lunchroom. He glances at a clipboard. “Steve Marino?”
“Yes, Mr Lantern.”
“Welcome to Cunningham. Follow me.”
They walk past rows of long rectangular lunch tables until Mr. Lantern, pointing to an empty spot, says, “Why don’t you have a seat right here? This is where the students in your homeroom sit.”
“Okay,” says Steve, nervous but attempting an air of nonchalance.
As Steve begins to sit down, this very pretty girl who is sitting just to the right of where he has been assigned leaps up wildly screaming. “I can’t believe this!”
Steve looks around for some answer to this crazed girl’s actions.
“I can’t believe this!” she screams. “The incredible power!”
Steve sees that she’s talking to him while intensely staring at him.
“You have a very old soul,” she continues, “an ancient soul of some mighty leader. I’ve never sensed such power! This is incredible!” Then she touches Steve’s arm and her shining, green feline eyes drift up as if leading her to another dimension and she swoons, “Ohhhhhhhh!”
Steve, shaking his head, sits down, looking bewildered.
“Don’t mind her,” says this broad, dark haired guy sitting opposite to the girl. “You’ll get used to Mysterious Jane.”
“Mysterious Jane?” Steve asks.
“Yeah,” says the guy, “we call Mysterious Jane, Mysterious Jane, because she’s strange. Anyways, I’m Ron DeFilipo.
After Steve introduces himself, he looks over the situation. Directly to Steve’s right sits Mysterious Jane, with her long glimmering black hair, lovely green eyes, strikingly beautiful facial features, and, even as a thirteen-year-old, her curves are hard to ignore.
Ron points to a guy on his left. “This here is Jerry Miller, the best athlete in eighth grade.” Jerry, thick dark brown hair, swarthy, and wearing a silver chain around his neck with a distinctive Star of David hanging from it.
Steve gives Jerry a respectful salute.
Jerry returns the gesture with a nod.
“You see those kids over there?” says Ron to Steve, referring to the table two feet away. “They’re the SP kids, the biggest wimps at school.”
We had SP students, those in the “Special Progress Program” for super smart kids in my last school, Steve thinks to himself.
At the SP table this blond-haired, blue-eyed kid who, upon hearing Ron calling SP kids wimps, turns to Ron and yells, “We aren’t wimps, you are!”
Both glare at each other.
“Personally,” says Steve, “I like some of the kids that got school smarts. I like to have a couple of them for my friends ‘cause I’m not all that great with school stuff, capeesh? They help me to understand some stuff.”
“I don’t need no help from any wimpy SP kids,” says Ron.
“We wouldn’t give you any,” the SP kid bitterly responds.
“Ya wanna be friends with those jerks, ga’ head,” says Ron.
“I’m not saying you have to be a school wizard to be my friend,” says Steve. “I like to know kids with different kinds of talents.”
“So you’re a new kid here,” says another kid sitting at the SP table.
“Yeah. Today’s my first day.”
“Well, I’m Cliff, Cliff Schweitzer, and this blond guy sitting across from me who is always arguing with Ron; well, the guys call him Brainy George.”
“Your real name is ‘Brainy George’?” Steve asks smiling.
“Na. George Beck.”
Steve looks him over. His fine blond hair is sloppily combed mostly to the right, but some haphazardly falls over to the left. Thick glasses magnify his pale blue eyes.
Steve turns to look at Cliff. Even though he’s in the SP program like George, Cliff hardly looks like an intellectual. Dark and athletic looking, Cliff is quite a contrast to his buddy, Brainy George.
“Just because these guys are in the SP program, you don’t like them, Ron?” Steve asks.
“Aaa, they’re a bunch of losers,” Ron responds.
“What did he say?!” asks a student who is sitting to Cliff’s left.
“Shutup Abromowitz!” Ron hollers.
“I don’t like this kind of talk, Ron,” hollers Jerry Miller, his gold star of David glimmering reddish blue like an igniting flame.
Mr. Lantern points to Steve’s section of the lunchroom.
“That means it’s time for us to get in the lunch line,” says Mysterious Jane to Steve touching his arm and smiling into his eyes.
As Steve begins to get up, he feels an intense anxiety pang. Great, he says to himself. Now I gotta get on this lousy lunch line and use this damn free lunch pass I got at the welfare agency.
* * *
The aroma of chicken soup, peanut butter sandwiches, and fried fish cakes drifts into Steve’s nostrils. He picks out a peanut butter sandwich, a container of milk, and some ice cream. Then he shows the cashier his free lunch pass. Ron DeFelipo, standing right behind Steve, starts to laugh and says to Mysterious Jane, “Look at this! This is the guy with all the power! He can’t even afford to buy himself lunch! What a joke!”
When Steve hears this, it feels like a knife has been stuck in his gut. His face becomes hot, he pleads with himself not to have tears well up in his eyes, and he looks down avoiding everyone’s eyes.
Jane looks at Steve, turns to Ron, shoves him, and says, “You have no brains.”
“Don’t ya get it?” says Ron. “He’s got all this power and…”
“Lay off. It’s hard enough,” says Brainy George, who’s standing nearby.
When Steve gets back to his table, his appetite’s gone. There’s a sour feeling in the pit of his stomach. After a few moments he accepts that he isn’t going to get any food down, so he pushes his tray away.
A few minutes later, Ron turns to Steve and says, “Can you believe this? This ugly midget George says he can take me.”
Now Cliff, who has been quietly reading the Daily News sports page while eating, decides to put in his two cents. “If it’s important to you to be a good fighter, Ron, why don’t you join a wrestling team or karate club? Or learn to box. There’s a boxing club not too far from here where the former world heavyweight champ, Floyd Patterson, trained when he was growing up. Join one of those things. You’ll find that, compared to people who train regularly, your skills are awful. With training you can develop them and test them respectfully against other people who are also skilled.”
“I don’t need no training,” says Ron. “I can take anyone around here.”
“Anyone?” Jerry Miller asks.
“Well, maybe not you, Jerry,” Ron comes back, “but pretty much anyone.”
“Look,” says Cliff, “all I’m trying to say is, no matter how good you get at fighting, it’s not going to prove who’s a man and who isn’t. Patterson was the champ. Sonny Liston beat him and now he’s the best fighter around. He can take all of us. Does that mean he’s the only man around and the rest of us are wimps? And what happens when someone finally takes Liston? Does that mean that one day Liston’s a man and the day he loses suddenly he becomes a wimp?”
Steve once again begins to wrestle with his food and this time he gets some of it down, though it tastes like sawdust.
* *. *
Well, that’s my story for today. I hope it provokes some thoughtful reactions about how poverty isn’t just a shortage of money; it includes embarrassing experiences and opportunities to be cruelly looked down upon.
My Best,
Jeff
Recently, I happened to be listening to Paul McCartney’s fine album, Egypt Station, and my emotions were stirred up by the straight away rocker, “Who Cares.” The first stanza, with its driving beat, sets up its theme:
With “Who Cares”, I was thinking about a song where you actually are talking to the people who may listen to it. And in my case I was imagining young fans, or young people who might hear this, and who are going through some sort of problem where they’re being picked on, being put on.
Now it just so happens that this blog has extensively discussed ways to skillfully respond to this type of experience (see 
Who cares what the idiots say
For example, I once worked in a juvenile correctional facility and some of those confined there had, when feeling they had been insulted, violently attacked the insulter. Both of the parties in the exchange ended up physically hurt. Moreover, their physical violence led to the costly consequences of dealing with the justice system. So, relative to the violent approaches, Sir Paul’s is, in my opinion, way preferable.
Although, better than some strategies, here at From Insults To Respect, I’ve been advocating that readers add another tool to their resolving conflicts toolbox to deal with insults. What I mean by this is that I’m not suggesting throwing out of your toolbox the approach Paul’s song describes, for you may, after considering the situation, decide it is the one that makes the best sense. However, by adding to your toolbox the following approach, you may discover that many situations can be handled in a far better manner.
Consider the possible benefits of not concluding right off the bat that the insulter is an idiot. Instead, you seek to transform any disrespect the insulter might have for you into him or her liking and respecting you. This involves taking up the attitude of a detective seeking to find out why the person had decided to seek to insult you, and then using some easy to learn techniques to skillfully respond to what you find out.
The first thing you do with this alternative approach is to shift into your detective attitude. You notice the guy doesn’t appear truly angry, and maybe he has a little twinkle in his eye. You then recall he throws out similar insults to others in a similar manner. 
The detective in you now guesses that this guy likes to throw out insults in a playful way to light a little spark in his relationships. Now that you have this theory in mind, instead of walking away with the attitude that this guy is an idiot, you smile at him, showing him you can gracefully take a little kidding without getting defensive. He ends up also smiling.
Consider another example. This time when you receive the insult, the detective in you recognizes that you have angered the person because you did make some type of mistake. Rather than walking away with the attitude that the insulter is an idiot, you decide, instead, to agree in a caring manner that you did make a mistake, express that you are sorry, and ask if there is some way you can make it up to the person. The insulter ends up appreciating that you are willing to take the responsibility for making a mistake, and respects you more for having done so.
Then, listening in a caring manner to the insulter, and then summarizing what is said shows the insulter you care enough to take seriously what the issues are, and by doing so you can often quickly turn an angry fellow into someone who greatly likes and respects you.
‘Cause you’re worth much more
As you might imagine, people who are viewed as wise tend to be more respected than people who are viewed as foolish. With that in mind, let’s take a look at a few suggestions for improving our wisdom.
“Much better…if our companion views a thing in a light different from what we do, to leave him in quiet possession of his view. What is the use of rectifying him if the thing be unimportant; and if important let it pass for the present, and wait a softer moment and more conciliatory occasion of revising the subject together.”
So, when deciding whether to acquiesce to the opinions of others, remaining silent, or taking up the challenge of presenting your alternative views, consider the wisdom of first assessing if the person you are interacting with has an “open minded” or “close minded” personality.
Therefore, when with people you don’t yet know whether or not they are open minded and you hear them express an opinion with which you disagree, you might want to first assess where they are on this open minded-close minded continuum. This can be easily done by you by first summarizing their opinion, showing an interest by asking a few clarifying questions, and then saying something like, “I heard a different opinion about this topic, and I’d like to get your reaction.” Then, after briefly describing the alternative view, see if the person indicates an openness to discuss this. If he or she starts to get defensive by saying something like, “That’s stupid,” and, “Only idiots think that way,” it may be wise to take the discussion no further.
Notice that with this approach, you don’t initially claim that the alternative position is correct, or that it is something you firmly believe, thus avoiding leading people you are talking with to feel you have attacked them for their belief.
In many social situations, if you find that you don’t enjoy them, it is a simple matter to avoid them in the future. Not so in many workplace situations, or at school where attending is mandatory. Also, when invited to a social party, you may want to keep getting invited to future parties with these folks even if some of the attendees are not your cup of tea. This may be so because you enjoy most of the attendees, or your regular participation at attending provides valuable information about what is going on in the neighborhood.
Then, over the next few days, search on the internet, or go to the library to find some well thought out views on each of the topics by some respected writers. Seek to find some great writers who have different views on the same topic.
When this research is complete to your satisfaction, write out what you want to say about the topic with an eye of balancing short term and long term goals, and how different situations might call for different approaches. Your opening paragraph is best framed as something you can say in a couple of minutes. Finally, have someone you respect critique what you wrote. By doing this, your comments at your social gathering will tend to be far wiser than if you just jump into expressing your opinion without utilizing this technique.
When you do provide your opinion, begin by noting that you have found that different respected authorities have come to very different conclusions on this topic. Be prepared to be able to summarize these different views, but your opening statement is best kept to the one or two minute paragraph that you crafted when you wrote out your entire position, because typically people don’t appreciate a long lecture. If people you are talking with are really interested in delving into the topic, they will make some reply, perhaps presenting an alternative view.
After giving others an ample opportunity to comment, you can then provide more of your opinion in a two or three minute segment. Then, once again, let others respond, and continue in this give and take manner. Present your own conclusions in a humble, tentative manner, while remaining open to hearing critiques of what you offer. Avoid, getting defensive, and if someone raises a good point that you have not yet considered, reply humbly with a statement such as, “I think there is some merit in what you have said.” Then summarize it, and say, “I’d like to give this some thought and then I’ll get back to you.”
Wisdom is a prized characteristic. Avoiding angering close minded people for no substantially good reason is one technique that can raise the estimate of your wisdom. Utilizing the “Summarize and Delay” technique will not only increase how others view your wisdom, it may also very well actually increase your wisdom. In your discussion, avoid coming off like you are trying to humiliate those with different views. Rather, empathize with them, and above all, be kind.
Welcome to From Insults to Respect. Today we examine a conflict witnessed by millions that involves U.S. Congressman Jim Jordan at a U.S. House Coronavirus Hearing angrily questioning infectious disease expert Dr. Fauci. It can be viewed on YouTube 
Briefly, Congressman Jordan desired to defend the U.S. Constitution and the liberty of Americans. In his view, interfering with his desire are a set of recommendations developed by the CDC that Dr. Fauci has given voice to as part of the job the current president has hired him to do. Jordan appears to believe Dr. Fauci is guilty of promoting recommendations that interfere with liberty and the Constitution. At the same time, Dr. Fauci desires to do his job without facing personal attacks and a style of questioning that he referred to as ranting.
At first, Dr. Fauci is reluctant to describe the objective measure, explaining it depends on a variety of ever changing conditions, such as the percentage of people who will agree to be vaccinated, how resistant new emerging variants of the virus will be to the available vaccines, and other factors that can sprout up. But, after making clear that any estimate that he gives must be viewed as very tentative, Dr. Fauci finally provides his best guess–when the number of daily infections drop to 10,000 a day, which may very well be reached by early to mid summer if the vast majority of people are vaccinated.
You said that when Texas ended their lockdown, ended their mandates, this was inexplicable and this would, quote, “lead to a surge in cases.” But Texas is at the bottom of the 50 states. But all of the states at the top are lockdown states. So, that guess didn’t look too good. What explains why Texas is so darn low as compared to the rest of the states. Lockdown states have a much higher rate than the state of Texas which over a month ago said that we’re not going to have all these lockdowns and all of these mandates that you say we have to have a lockdown.
Jordan: Dr. Fauci, when is the time? When, in your written statement you say, “Now is not the time to pull back on masking, physical distancing, and avoiding congregating settings. When is the time? When do Americans get their freedom back? 
Dr. Fauci: When we get the levels of infection in this country low enough that it is not a really high threat.
Jordan: What measure. I mean, are we just going to continue forever. When do we get to the point? What measure, what objective outcome do we have to reach before Americans get their liberty and freedom back? 
Jordan, his voice has become louder: You don’t think that American liberties have been threatened the past year, Dr Fauci? They’ve been assaulted, their liberties have.
At this point, Jordan again interrupts in the middle of Dr. Fauci’s sentence and begins to list examples of Americans loss of liberty, and among them, he says, “The governor of our third largest state meets with physicians and that video is censored because it dared to disagree with Dr. Fauci, so I just want to know when Americans are going to get their liberties back.”
Dr. Fauci: My answers are consistent with [cross talk] may I answer the question please. My recommendations are not a personal recommendation. They are based on the CDC guidance and which are underscored by…
Dr. Fauci: Right now we have about sixty thousand infections a day, which is a very large risk for a surge. We’re not talking about liberties, we’re talking about a pandemic that has killed 560,000 Americans. That’s what we are talking about.
Dr. Fauci: Well, you just said people can’t assemble in their own homes. They can. That’s a CDC recommendation. [after some crosstalk Dr. Fauci continues] You are going to see a gradual, from, right now we are at an unacceptable high level, regardless of who you are. We’re going to see, as more and more people are vaccinated and we get over three million people a day, you are going to see the level of infection go down and down, and gradually there will be more flexibility to doing the things you are talking about. 
Dr. Fauci: You are asking for a number. If I have a number, it would have to be my best estimate, and that would be that when the number of infections a day are well below ten thousand a day. At that point, there would be a gradual pulling back of a number of the restrictions you are talking about, particularly when people are vaccinated more and more because a combination of, if you are vaccinated you are protecting yourself for sure, and the more people who get vaccinated in the community, the lower the number of infections will be.
Dr. Fauci: You’re ranting again.
Let’s begin with Congressman Jordan. Most of his questions were relevant and initially he doesn’t sound particularly belligerent. In my opinion, he could have done better throughout by asking his questions in a warm and friendly manner. When Dr. Fauci made a few comments that Jordan objected to, rather than utilizing the conflict resolution skill of disagreeing without being disagreeable, he instead angrily raises his voice and repeatedly interrupts Dr. Fauci in mid-sentence. What would disagreeing without being disagreeable have looked like in their exchange? I think by empathetically providing statements from time to time that indicated he knows Dr. Fauci has been the bearer of bad news throughout the pandemic and that’s a rough situation to be in, could have helped to traverse some of the roughest terrain of this conflict.
Now, let’s turn to critiquing Dr. Fauci’s handling of the conflict. With the exception of three brief moments, I think he kept his tone of voice in a matter of fact manner that was fitting for this occasion. Where he faltered on this score will be discussed shortly.
swered the questions posed to him in a manner that struck me as fair given the number of factors in steady flux. His biggest mistake, in my opinion, occurred by not taking advantage of making a connection with Jordan on their shared values.
I share with you the love of liberty and freedom, Congressman Jordan, and well recognize the enormous frustrations that have been ongoing during this pandemic. The restrictions about family gatherings have been awfully hard, numerous people who have a business ended up with devastating losses, people have lost their job, and on and on, all of this has been terribly difficult to deal with emotionally as well as financially. And yet, according to the best scientific data we have available, if we did nothing to try to decrease the spread hundreds of thousands of more people would have died, and hospital personnel would have been even more overwhelmed than they had become at the height of the U.S. experience with this pandemic. 
In its preamble it states its purpose is, and I quote, “…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” 
Now we are engaged in providing a common defense to battle this pandemic, a battle that has led to the deaths in one year of nearly twice the total number of deaths that occurred during the four years of World War II. Sacrifices are being made. I’m not happy about them, but I was hired by the president to provide my recommendations based on science and a vetting process involving experts at the CDC, to decrease the spread of the virus. Consistent with our Constitution, it is up to our elected officials to decide which recommendations to make mandatory. Citizens have the right to file a suit in court if they believe their rights are being violated. 
If Dr. Fauci would have made these types of connections with Jordan’s values, it may very well have taken the wind out of Jordan’s sails, tempering his ire.
In conflict resolution we often teach people to make “I” statements rather than insisting on an opinion. Thus, Dr. Fauci might have done better if instead of saying, “No, you are. That is exactly what you are doing,” he said pleasantly, “Well, although you don’t view it as a personal thing, I’m experiencing it as exactly that. To be clear, I did not advocate that the video be censored, and I fully support freedom of speech.”
I get why Dr. Fauci was exasperated at this point. He believed he had provided the best answer available, but I do think Jordan was in his rights to ask for a more specific guess. Dr. Fauci eventually did provide more specifics that came when Jordan made this request.
Dr. Fauci’s frustration with Jordan’s interruptions and his angry tone of voice is understandable. And though ranting may have been an accurate description, most people would view Dr. Fauci’s comment as an insult. Insulting someone in the middle of a conflict just leads to more trouble than it is worth. I think Dr. Fauci would have been better off just saying something like, “Congressman Jordan, I am having a hard time dealing with your tone and frequent interruptions. I understand you have strong feelings about this, as I certainly do. Maybe we need a break so I can deal with how I’m feeling.”
Regular readers know that I have been presenting the theory that a powerful way to increase the respect that others have for you, and the respect you have for yourself, is to become a master at responding to criticism. 
To that end, I have presented a model that describes five levels of maturity for responding to criticism (see 
Weeps or sobs with tears or pouts without also using level 4 response
Glares at the criticizer
4. Level 4 individuals 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.
5. In addition to actions consistent with level 4, people responding to criticism 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 some aspect suggested from the criticism. Steering cannot be incorporated into all situations, but it is an additional goal of the most mature individuals.
When Andrea saw what shirt I put on, she criticized my choice, saying, “That’s not quite right for this occasion.”
Today’s new example comes from a beautifully written book I happened to be reading, The Known World, by Edward P. Jones. The story takes place in Virginia mostly before the Civil War. In this part of the story, a conflict has sprung up in the county involving Harvey and Clarence.
Harvey has sold to Clarence for $15 a scrawny cow with practically no meat on its bones. Prior to the deal, Harvey had lied to Clarence, claiming that the cow was a good milker, though in fact more milk fell from the sky than from the cow. After the sale, when Clarence found this out, he was getting pretty frustrated, but then one day, all of a sudden, the cow turned into an excellent milker, and continued to be so. When Harvey found out about this, he wanted the cow back because a cow flowing with milk was not what he had taken $15 for.
“Yes, I did, John.”
“John, you can see what we had to wrestle with out here,” Beth Ann said. “This kinda talk and bullets to keep em company.”
“I take no side but the right one,” Skiffington said to Harvey, and if you don’t believe that then you can turn around and go home.” He waited. “I ain’t got time to waste on this cow business, Harvey.” He and Harvey were now facing each other. Beth Ann knew enough about life to know when things were dancing their way so she was quiet. Skiffington stepped to Harvey so that they were but two feet apart. You tell me this, Harvey, if that cow had died a day after you sold it to him, a day after now. No, not a day, not even a day. One hour after you sold it to him, just long enough for Clarence to lead the thing from your place, over the rise to his place so all them hooves are standing on his land and he owned it free and clear and then it up and drop dead on him, would you give him his money back? Would you think you sold him a dead cow and give him his money back? Now would you?”
You know that if I thought there was something wrong, that if Beth Ann and Clarence was wrong in any way, I would stand up for you. I would move heaven and earth to make it right for you Harvey. Do you understand me?”
“I’ll say this to you: Twice a week you send two of your chaps over here with whatever they can carry to take back some milk . But only two of them chaps, Harvey, and just twice a week. No return trips for that day. One trip and that’s all. And never you or your wife are to come.”
“Stand here,” Skiffington said and went back to Clarence and Beth Ann, who agreed to what he had told Harvey.“John, am I gonna have any more trouble outa him, shooting trouble?” Beth Ann asked.
In the above scenario, Harvey has a conflict with Clarence and Beth. When Sheriff John Skiffington is asked to help resolve the conflict, the sheriff expresses his opinion that the law is on Clarence and Beth’s side and therefore the sale of the cow is final and that should be the end of the conflict. It is at this point that Harvey criticizes the sheriff, saying in essence, that the sheriff has offered his opinion by just hearing Clarence and Beth’s side of the story, and not hearing his side. Now, to be fair to the sheriff, he had already asked what he felt was the pertinent question directly to Harvey, and Harvey replied by admitting he did indeed sell the cow to Clarence and Beth. Nevertheless, Harvey indicates he has more to say on the matter and should be listened to before the sheriff draws any conclusion.
When I called on him, he said, “Dr. Rubin, how would you resolve this? This here Tina (he points to her) and I were dating, and now I decided to end it. I’m seeing another girl. But Tina, she keeps calling me even though I told her to stop.”
But seeing the emotional reaction of Tina, and noticing the escalation of feelings that were being expressed by others in the classroom, I quickly explained to the students that it is usually best to work these types of conflicts out in private. I offered to meet Tony separately, and then Tina, and then, if they both agreed, I would meet with both of them together without the rest of the class watching on. I then asked the rest of the class why this might be the best way to work this out.
They suggest that people are more likely to escalate an argument into a fight when spectators are around (see, for example, “Impression Management and the Escalation of Aggression and Violence,” R. B. Felson, Social Psychology Review, 1982). There are, of course, exceptions to this. For example, if two people agree to have a third party mediator help to resolve a conflict, the presence of the mediator tends to reduce subsequent aggression. 
And in a courtroom, the public has a right to observe the legal proceedings involving certain conflicts for a number of valid reasons. To protect everyone in this process, there are courtroom officials on hand that help to assure that disagreements don’t escalate to violence. Moreover, if the presiding judge sees audience members interfering with the legal process, he or she can order them removed by trained security personnel.
As my classroom discussion continued, it became clear to me that the topic raises four relevant questions worth thinking about:
In my opinion, usually as soon as you recognize that some tension is beginning to surface, it’s time to ask for a private meeting. I say this because even if you think you can tolerate the tension, others around you may not. In many situations, in addition to the participants in the conflict beginning to feel uncomfortable with what is going on, others are also feeling roughed up. People may feel as if they are walking on egg shells in the presence of the antagonists.
In a business environment, this can create a hostile work environment for the other employees not directly involved in the conflict. Many supervisors are trained to intervene in such situations in order to put a stop to this, and for some, they hate this part of their job. Thus, they may just choose to get rid of one or both of the antagonists. Additionally, some supervisors may be less inclined to promote employees that can’t get along with one another.
In a school setting, it also usually makes sense for a student to seek to work out a conflict with another student as quickly as possible. As in the business setting, in addition to the two antagonists in the conflict being affected by the mounting stress, other students can start to feel uncomfortable. For example, one party in the conflict might say something to the other party, and when this is overheard by others, some may be torn between two friends. 
Sometime one of the two parties may insult the other who is a relative of the insulted party. Before long, the whole school climate can be adversely affected.
However, in my opinion, the ideal place is a semi-private place such as a coffee shop or fast food restaurant that is unlikely to have present anyone either party knows, and at a time when the place would be relatively quiet. In such places, you can find a seat that if you speak softly you are unlikely to be overheard. And even if you are overheard, it is very unlikely to really matter.
Now, I understand that for high school students, setting up a meeting in an ideal place might not be possible. Many students live far from a convenient meeting place. If there is no public transportation available, setting up a phone conversation might be your best option.
Looking directly into Jill’s eyes, say, “I’m beginning to feel some tension between us, Jill.” Then pause, to see and hear how Jill reacts. Listen carefully, and look like you are listening carefully, by looking up to her eyes from time to time. 
When she appears to be finished, summarize what she has said without trying to defend yourself in any way. Then pause to see if she wants to add anything more or to correct something you said in your summary. Then say, “I think I understand, Jill. Listen, not only am I concerned about what feels to me like tension between us, but the others around us are going to start to feel pretty uncomfortable about it as well. That’s not good for them, and for a number of reasons it’s not good for either of us. So, I think it makes sense that we discuss this fully in private.” Then tell her where and when you want to meet.
This can be done in a couple of minutes by calling Jill over to a relatively quiet area and speaking softly. If Jill refuses to meet with you, let her know that that is her choice. Then, just end by saying softly that you hope she thinks about the concern you raised and let her know that you hope she changes her mind about meeting to discuss this.
I suggest writing out a statement in advance describing the situation in your own words. If there is someone you respect that is not involved in any way with what is going on between you and the other party, consider showing that person what you have written. Then have a discussion about the situation with this respected person.
Above all else, you want to give the impression that you are a good listener. This involves looking, from time to time, into the eyes of the other party and summarizing what he or she says.
4. Level 4 individuals 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.
