Category: conflict resolution

Psychiatric Name Calling: Is There An Alternative?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date February 24, 2015
5 Comments on Psychiatric Name Calling: Is There An Alternative?

The publishers of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) currently hold a monopoly for classifying the concerns that lead people to seek mental health services. Recently on this blog, in a series of articles, I have been pointing out numerous faults of the DSM. To check out some examples of these, see my posts titled Name Calling by Psychiatrists: Is it Time to Put a Stop to it? and Are “Mental Illnesses” Really Potentially Helpful Tools?

In these critical posts, I have touched upon what I believe would be a distinctly better alternative to the DSM and argued that its creation, in breaking up this monopoly, would stimulate through creative competition, improved mental health services. Today, let’s take a closer look at this.

The Classification and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Concerns (CSM)

I called this proposed alternative manual, the CSM, and you can find a much fuller description of it in a peer reviewed journal HERE. In brief, its first chapter would begin by stating that the developed of the CSM fully recognize that individuality outruns any classification system. It is for this reason that the CSM does not seek to classify anyone. Instead, it classifies the expressed concerns of individuals seeking to have their concerns addressed by a mental health service provider.

The CSM begins from the perspective of the person seeking services. Because the expression of a mental health concern is a clearly observable event, by making it the event being classified in the CSM it solves the reliability problems that have been plaguing the DSM’s far more abstract concept of “mental disorders.”

After this statement, the CSM would clearly define its main construct:

A mental health concern occurs when a person seeking mental health services expresses to a mental health service provider a concern about any of these topics: behavior, emotion, mood, meaning of life, managing chronic pain, work, relationships, education, eating, cognition, sleep and challenging life situations.

Each of these topics would have separate major sections in the second chapter, and under each section would be a list of more specific concerns.

This second chapter would be devoted to listing all of the concerns that professionals tend to hear from those seeking their services. Each concern would be given a code that would be used for various administrative purposes such as insurance forms and computer filing systems. And then there would be, for each concern, a list of related search terms that can be used to assist people who want to utilize a search engine to find all the relevant literature regarding that particular concern.

The list of concerns would be identified by two types of surveys. First, a large sample of mental health service providers would be asked to list the various concerns that they are asked to address in their practice without couching them in pathological language and to stick as closely as possible to the language used by those seeking their services. So, a concern about feeling blue might simply be classified “feeling blue,” rather than the DSM’s “Major Depressive Disorder;” a concern about a child’s above average activity level might simply be classified as “above average activity level” rather than the DSM’s “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.” The second type of survey that would be used to generate the list of concerns that would appear in the CSM, would ask the membership of mental health service user organizations to list the various concerns that led them to seek mental health services. They, too, would be asked to avoid pathological terminology. For a number of practical reasons, a maximum of four words would be used for classifying each expressed concern in this chapter.

The final chapter of the CSM would be devoted to describing good practice guidelines for the use of psychological formulation, which is an assessment approach that is consistent with the CSM’s philosophy of not pathologizing individuals. Psychological formulation provides an approach that expands on the brief expressed concerns of individuals by developing a narrative of several paragraphs. It can be defined as the process involving a mental health service user and a mental health service provider co-constructing a hypothesis or ‘best guess’ about the origins of the mental health service user’s concerns in the context of his or her relationships, social circumstances, life events, and the sense that he or she has made of them. Once it has been established what the concerns are, the immediate next question is, ‘How do we jointly understand these experiences, why they arose, and how we might be able to address them?’

Unlike diagnosis, this type of psychological formulation is not about making an expert judgement, but about working closely with the individual to develop a shared understanding which will evolve over time. And, unlike diagnosis, it draws attention to the service user’s resources and strengths in surviving what are nearly always very challenging life situations.

Defending the CSM Approach

Now, some believe that the psychological formulation is all that is needed as an alternative to the DSM and that there is no need to join it with any classification manual such as the CSM. But keep in mind that currently the DSM is used by insurance companies and other third party payers such as Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Insurance companies and these other third party payers have a form that must be filled out whenever someone seeks mental health services under their plan. This form has a little box that currently says, “Diagnosis.” In that box, mental health professionals must fill in the DSM code that corresponds to their so-called diagnosis of the person seeking services.

With the CSM proposal, all that we would be asking insurance companies to do differently in order to add value for their customers, is to slightly change that little box. Instead of just saying “Diagnosis” as it currently says, that box would add two little words, so it would end up saying “Diagnosis or Concern.” Then, when mental health professionals fill in the box, they would be given the choice to either write in the letters “DSM” and its code number that corresponds to its so-called diagnosis, or they would write the letters CSM and its code number that corresponds to the expressed concern. Mental health consumers would be given the choice to go to pathologizing mental health service providers or those using the CSM approach.

That’s all the change that would be required in order to increase value for insurance customers as well as other third party payers. And a major goal that all third party payers have is to increase value for their customers. The cost and effort for these payers would be minimum and we would have numerous testimonials from customers that documents that this change would be viewed as a significant improvement.

A psychological formulation approach, which requires several paragraphs to be completed, would be far too cumbersome for these payers to incorporate into their bureaucratic system. Moreover, a short word or phrase that could replace terms like “Major Depressive Disorder” or “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder” is necessary for other practical forms of communication. For example, if I want to write a title for a research article, it would not be practical to insert into it several paragraphs. The psychological formulation approach would become far more widely used if it has some practical way of providing some short terms that are consistent with its non-pathologizing approach to conceptualizing an individual’s mental health concerns.

Some may argue that if everyone could go to a mental health professional merely to have their concerns addressed, then the system would soon be overloaded with clients and insurance policy costs would soar. Since insurance companies only cover people with more serious conditions known as “mental disorders,” so the argument goes, this limits the amount of people who can get to see a mental health professional.

Insurance and other third party payer executives are not stupid. They would readily understand, with a little explaining, that mental health service providers now using the current DSM do not turn anyone with a mental health insurance policy away who comes to their office expressing what I refer to as a mental health concern. Professionals are in the business of increasing their clients. Let’s be honest here; there are “close enough” matches throughout the DSM for anyone with mental health insurance coverage who currently wants mental health services to get it.

Here’s another reason why the CSM would improve the psychological formulation approach. In pretty much any of the advanced countries in the world, there is a rather large segment of the population that believes science has been an enormous help advancing our knowledge. The CSM, as already mentioned, is even more consistent with principles of science than the DSM because it solves the problem of reliability that has been a mess with the DSM. And for science minded people, each branch of science must have a system of classification that helps to organize concepts, to retrieve relevant research, and to be useful in formulating programs of research. In my view, the pairing of psychological formulation with the CSM’s list of brief descriptors of mental health concerns will fit well with this worldview.

And so, these are some of my arguments for uniting in the CSM proposal a classification system and the psychological formulation proposal. Together, both can clearly improve value for consumers of mental health services by providing a new choice, but only if consumers of mental health services role up their sleeves, organize, and effectively advocate for this type of change.

In summary then, the CSM is more consistent with principles of science. It is close enough to the worldview and administrative requirements of all of the stakeholders in the mental health field, thus reducing resistance that often comes with proposed changes. And the creation of the CSM would break up the DSM monopoly, thereby spurring creative approaches for understanding the nature of anguish, sadness and tears.

——————————-

Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional and social intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.

Tags CSM, DSM, mental disorders, mental health, mental health concerns, mental health service, mental health services, mental illness, name calling, negative criticism, psychiatry, The Classification and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Concerns

conflict resolution DSM Mental Illness psychiatry psychopathology The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders William James

Are “Mental Illnesses” Really Potentially Helpful Tools?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date February 17, 2015
6 Comments on Are “Mental Illnesses” Really Potentially Helpful Tools?

If your behavior, thoughts, or feelings become a concern, for a fee, many psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers are eager to translate your experiences into a language of symptoms, diagnoses, psychopathology, and mental illness. In an earlier post I provided negative criticism about this type of name-calling (see here). Today, we focus in on an additional problem with the pathologizing approach.

Psychiatric Name-Calling Simplistically Devalues What William James Referred to as “Exceptional Experiences”

Tools can be used for good or evil. A hammer can be used to drive in nails in the construction of a life-preserving shelter or to bludgeon an innocent person to death. A car can be used to rush a child to an emergency room so that life-preserving treatment can be administered, or it can be used to tragically end a prom night. Are experiences that are oftentimes referred to as pathological really tools, and is it up to each one of us to use them either for good or evil?

The first time I came across this question occurred while reading about William James’s 1896 series of lectures on “Exceptional Mental States.” Harvard psychologist, Eugene Taylor, had reconstructed these lectures from James’s original handwritten lecture notes, newspaper reports, letters, and a variety of other sources.

At the very beginning of the lectures, James argues that experiences that are commonly viewed as unhealthy or morbid are really “an essential part of every character,” and give life “a truer sense of values.” To support his contention, James first provides three examples of famous individuals who suffered from melancholy, a term that corresponds closely with what modern pathologizers call “major depressive disorder.” St. Paul, the religious figure of the New Testament, Cesare Lombrosa, a late 19th-century Italian criminologist, and Immanual Kant, the 18th-century German philosopher, became, according to their histories, better as a result of their troubling experiences.

Not only is melancholy far more normal and potentially beneficial than the pathologizers would like us to believe, so too, James argues, are delusions and hallucinations. James tells us that the belief in the possession by demons, which is often viewed as a delusion by pathologizers, is remarkably common. “[It] is the one most articulately expressed doctrine of both Testaments, and . . . reined for seventeen hundred years, hardly challenged in churches.”

James then goes on to tell his audience about Buddhist sects in Japan that have priests who believe they can put themselves into a trance so that a god can speak through them. These people seek to cultivate these experiences, apparently believing that they provide some benefits to their sect.

Although hallucinations can be construed as a symptom of mental illness to some, James presents the case of Socrates who “once stood motionless for many hours in the cold and spoke of having a guiding demon.” Attempting to counter the association between pathologies and hallucinations, James states,

Even if this demon [of Socrates] were really meant hallucinations of hearing, we know now that one in eight or ten of the population has had such an experience and that for insanity we must resort to other tests than these.

Like melancholy, delusions, and hallucinations, the “symptoms” of obsessions and manias are treated in James’s lectures as experiences that are normal and potentially beneficial. Thus, James states that there is no end to the possible types of obsessions that we see all around us. And what about “the anti-slavery mania?” Is this to be viewed as pathological? What benefit can such experiences have? James tells his audience about Henry Borg, founder of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; Charles Henry Parkhurst, a Presbyterian clergyman and reformer who launched a furious attack on organized crime in state government that led to an official investigation; Dorothea Dix, a mid-19th-century humanitarian who visited the insane asylums and successfully advocated for legislation to improve the care for those now labeled mentally ill; General Booth, founder of the Salvation Army; Frances Willard, a suffragette; and others. “These persons,” said James, “are not insane, not maniacs, not melancholics, not deluded.”

Later, he states, “Individuals are types of themselves and enslavement to conventional names and their associations is only too apt to blind the student to the facts before him.”

As Taylor (1984) closes his reconstruction of the lecture series, he quotes James as follows:

There is a strong tendency among these pathological writers I have cited… to represent the line of mental health as a very narrow crack, which one must tread with bated breath, between foul friends on the one side and gulfs of despair on the other. Now health is a term of subjective appreciation, not of objective description….There is no purely objective standard of sound health. Any peculiarity that is of use to a man is a point of soundness in him, and what makes a man sound for one function may make him unsound for another…. The trouble is that such writers . . . use the descriptive names of symptoms merely as an artifice for giving objective authority to their personal dislikes. The medical terms become mere appreciative clubs to knock a man down with. . . . The only sort of being, in fact, who can remain as the typical normal man, after all the individuals with degenerative symptoms have been rejected, must be a perfect nullity . . . Who shall absolutely say that the morbid has no revelations about the meaning of life? That the healthy minded view so-called is all?

The Review of the Evidence

It may seem a fanciful theory that the experiences now referred to as mental illnesses can be potentially helpful. However, in 2010, Robert Whitaker published a book titled Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness. To write the book, he pored through the scientific literature for the past 50 years and found a dramatic increase in the number of people who are pathologized, which led to an astonishing increase in psychiatric drug consumption. And more people then ever before became disabled for longer and longer periods of time.

Here is just one of many such studies that Whitaker describes.

In the 1980s, Martin Harrow, a psychologist at the University of Illinois, began a long-term study of 64 newly diagnosed schizophrenia patients. Every few years, he assessed how they were doing. Were they symptomatic? In recovery? Employed? Were they taking antipsychotic medications? The collective fate of the off-med and medicated patients began to diverge after two years, and by the end of 4.5 years, it was the off-medication group that was doing much better. Nearly 40% of the off-med group were “in recovery” and more than 60% were working, whereas only 6% of the medicated patients were “in recovery” and few were working. This divergence in outcomes remained throughout the next ten years, such that at the 15-year follow-up, 40% of those off drugs were in recovery, versus 5% of the medicated group.

Whitaker also found studies that compared cultures, like our own, that employed the pathologizing model with cultures that framed exceptional experiences as potentially beneficial. Countries infected with the pathologizing approach had outcomes significantly poorer.

These findings lead me to conclude that it is time to have a reasonable discussion about embracing other models of care.

——————————-

Tags Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness, hallucinations, insults, Leo Tolstoy, melancholy, mental disorders, mental illness, name calling, pathologizing, psychiatric disorders, psychiatric drug treatment, Psychiatric Drugs, psychiatric medication treatment, Robert Whitaker, William James

conflict resolution insults teasing

The Art and Abuse of Insults

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date February 9, 2015
No Comments on The Art and Abuse of Insults

Many of my posts leave some feeling like I insulted them. In one post, for example, I took the position that when it comes to responding to criticism there are four levels of maturity (see HERE). Some people who respond to criticism in a way that matches the description of the immature levels let me know that they felt I had insulted them. In another post (see HERE), I took the position that psychiatrists do not really diagnose people with mental disorders; instead, they merely convert the expressed concerns of people into psychiatric jargon. Here again, I heard from people who complained that I had insulted them.

And so, when I published last week’s post titled “Insults By Jews As Works Of Art,” the negative reaction of some people had not surprised me. What was a surprise is that the discussion that came out of these reactions proved to clarify and deepen my own understanding of the nature of insults. In the hope that this may do the same for my readers, let’s take a look at what transpired. Names and a few minor details have been changed to protect privacy issues.

The Exchange

Matt said that my “Insults By Jews As Works Of Art” post is inappropriate, and he suggested to the person who moderates one of the groups that we belong to that I be removed immediately.

I replied:

“In my opinion, the topic of insults is very appropriate. Everywhere we look, whether at schools, the workplace, family gatherings or watching TV, insults occur, and sometimes this is just playful stuff, but too often it escalates a conflict, a fight breaks out, and occasionally someone needs medical attention. On other occasions, the insults cross the line into bullying, people become depressed and some become suicidal.

“With regards to Matt suggesting that I be removed from this group because of my recent post on insults, hmmm, maybe a curse would here be an appropriate response, something like:

“Matt, may you wake up tomorrow and find you’re stuck in a country where freedom to express opposing views is banned.

“I hope this is recognized as an attempt at a humorous quip. I have no ill will toward Matt, although I do disagree with him on this issue.

“Rather than suggesting that I be removed from the group, I think it would have been much more helpful if he, and others who disagreed with what I had written, rewrote the sentence that is viewed as most objectionable so that it would be at least a little less objectionable. Alternatively, or additionally, writing a brand new sentence that could be inserted into some specific place in the post would be far more helpful than a one-sentence criticism stating the post was not appropriate. It is not too late to do this, and I encourage group members to do so.”

One group member seeking to defend me, wrote:

“Your post was interesting as a sociological examination of a prominent ethnic group, its stereotypes, and its communal self-concept.”

Another wrote,

“This made my day Jeffrey, and made me laugh – thank you! Made me have a think about my roots as well!”

A couple of people disagreed with the idea that I should be removed from the group:

“What I like about it [your post] is that it is not vulgar. Just benign insults that are insults. It is like the Egyptian insult, “May you live in interesting times.” When these are translated to English, they kinda lose their meaning. Most of the Jewish insults feel like they were translated from Yiddish; they have that flow.

“It can show students and adults that insults can be sophisticated and not vulgar, and with any luck, aren’t even recognized as insults until later.”

A person that we will here call Nick wrote in part,

“I do believe you had good intentions behind your piece and would have not published it if you knew so many people would have taken it negatively. In other words, while I do not agree with you all the time I am not for banning you from this group. However, I do say all of this praying that you do understand why what you did is offensive and you are apologetic rather than trying to defend.”

I replied to Nick in part as follows:

“Just to clarify, I believe my intentions were good, and I certainly did not intend to offend anyone. However, I well knew that it would indeed offend some. Since it is Black History Month, I’ll point out that Martin Luther King, whenever he wrote his speeches, had good intentions, did not seek to offend, but well knew his speeches were going to offend. Mark Twain had his books banned, George Barnard Shaw was hated in many circles, and Salman Rushdie had people calling for his murder.

“There are two Yiddish sayings that might capture a little of what I’m trying to communicate. The first is, ‘If you want people to respect you for your wisdom, just agree with everything they tell you.’ The second states that ‘A Rabbi that has not been thrown out of a congregation because of offending them is no Rabbi.’

“If you write opinion pieces, some will agree with you, some will disagree but appreciate hearing a different view of an issue, and some become offended. That goes with the territory. Living up to a principle that one should never express an opinion that has any chance to offend means never expressing an opinion.

“Moreover, when in my last post I referred to some insults as works of art, what I meant to convey is this, true works of art are not just meant to be merely decorative. Rather, they are meant to stir up, prod, challenge the thinking, and deepen the thinking of society. I think great comedy is part of art, and I think Jews, Italians, Blacks, Methodists, and all other groups of people have some comedians who artfully express this form of art. I happen to be Jewish, therefore, I know far more about Jewish humor than that of other groups, so I used that as an example.”

Another person wrote:

“Keep in mind that ALL humor is aggressive and hurtful in some way. There is not one “belly-laugh” joke that does not attempt to hurt or belittle someone or something. No, puns don’t count – you don’t laugh, you groan. I do not intend to live in a world without laughter, and we laugh when someone or something hurts!!!”

To this, another group member wrote that he felt this statement overgeneralized. Among my friends, when we insult one another in a playful way, I think most of the time no one is getting hurt, and much laughter comes from this. But there is an edge to many comedians who are seeking something beyond pure laughter.

Jon wrote,

“The Jewish cultural DNA is at least one part philosopher, one part cynic and one part humorist, among much else, of course.”

Jon did find my title offensive, and proposed, as an alternative, “The Art and Abuse of Insults and Teasing – A Cultural and Historical Perspective.” He pointed out that “This would highlight the universality, celebrate the creativity in humor, and hit us square between the eyes with the destructive power as we slide along that slippery slope.”

Nice. Although I decided not to change the title, I do agree his was conceptually distinctly better than mine. I had already published the post under the original title and to change it a week later could be confusing. And I wondered if Jon’s title may come across as a bit too academic for the larger audience that the post seeks to interest and to do justice to the title would require a much longer piece that my post tended to be. I did take part of Jon’s suggested title for this post. Moreover, in order to demonstrate a little more of the universality of humor in the form of insults I now offer some non-Jewish examples.

Last week I mentioned that Rodney Dangerfield, a Jew, was a master at insulting himself. Here’s Abraham Lincoln, a non-Jew, offering humor in a similar manner.

Last week’s post pointed out that Don Rickles, a Jew, was a master at insulting people who were insulting him. Here’s Winston Churchill, a non-Jew, at the same game:

I, for one, don’t like this Churchill comeback. It strikes me as mean. Yet I know someone who brought it to my attention and he thought it was very funny. It is strange how two people can have such different reactions to such comments.

Here are a couple other insults demonstrating that the art is indeed universal:

Sally wrote:

“It [my post] conflates deliberate personal insults, deliberate wishes of harm to another, consensual teasing, and comedic performance, and ties it up with an anti-Semitic bow.”

I replied:

“Sally, I love your turn of phrase. At the same time, I disagree with you that I conflated deliberate wishes of harm to another from consensual teasing. I made in my last post a distinct point of separating that issue as we move toward the end of the post. Nevertheless, I will think about using in any future writings on this issue the part of your sentence that points to the need to avoiding conflating deliberate personal insults, deliberate wishes of harm to another, consensual teasing, and comedic performance. This is very well said, makes the point I had wished to make clearer, and I thank you for this feedback.

“I didn’t mean to write in a way that suggested anything that could be interpreted as anti-Semitic.”

Well, those are some thoughts from the feedback. I hope that we can keep the dialogue going, particularly because there is urgency in our communities to address in helpful ways the very issues that we have been discussing.

———————

Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.

Tags bullied, bullies, bullying, conflict management, George Barnard Shaw, insults, Mark Twain, Martin Luther King, playful teasing, Salman Rushdie, Winston Churchill, Works Of Art

conflict resolution insults Jerry Seinfeld Jewish Comedians

Insults By Jews As Works Of Art

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date February 1, 2015
2 Comments on Insults By Jews As Works Of Art

Recently I visited Philadelphia’s National Museum of American Jewish History. Some of the floors were devoted to a single theme. For example, there was a floor devoted to “Chasing Dreams,” which celebrated baseball and the many fans, players, and characters from minority groups who helped shape our American story. And there was a floor devoted to Jews as immigrants coming to America. Each exhibit was great, but the museum director has to be a putz for neglecting to devote a floor to classic insults by Jews.

To be fair, I, myself, didn’t come up with this idea until last night when I happened to be listening to Bob Dylan’s “Theme Time Radio” show. Bob happened to have Tom Waits as a guest and here’s what he had to say:

Hi, Bob. It’s Tom. Here’s a little morsel of information. The Jewish people have always had a penchant for colorful cursing. Here are some of the most famous Jewish curses:

May God call the tune and may your enemies play the music.

May you lose your faith and marry a pious woman.

May all your teeth fall out but one which should remain for a toothache.

May you grow like an onion with your head in the ground and your feet in the air.

May you have a good long sleep, dreaming only of your troubles.

May you be the proof that man can endure anything.

May your wife eat matzohs in bed and may you roll all night in the crumbs.

So there.

It was upon hearing this, that I first came up with this great idea for a separate floor at the museum.

A Separate Museum Floor Devoted to Classic Insults By Jews

For your consideration, here are some ideas for this museum addition. There could be several sections on the floor. Of course, one of them would have to be devoted to the great insults that spilled forth from the many comedians who performed during the heyday of the Borscht Belt.

For those not familiar with the term, “Borscht Belt,” it refers to the mostly defunct summer resorts of the Catskill Mountains that would cater to many of their guests who happened to be Jewish. The word, “borscht” refers to one of the traditional Jewish items found on their menus (sour cream and beets).

The long list of the Borscht Belt stars include Woody Allen, Jack Benny, Billy Crystal, Rodney Dangerfield, Henny Youngman, Jerry Lewis, Don Rickles, Joan Rivers and Jerry Stiller. Some of these stars specialized in insulting themselves.

Perhaps the greatest of all within this group was Rodney Dangerfield who continually complained about getting no respect:

“My doctor said I was in terrible shape. I told him, ‘I want a second opinion.’ He said, ‘All right, you’re ugly too!'”

Some specialized in insulting their spouses:

“My wife dresses to kill. She cooks the same way.” (Henny Youngman)

And, for some, their favorite schtick was insulting hecklers in the audience:

“Oh my God, look at you. Anyone else hurt in the accident?” (Don Rickles)

In addition to a section on Jewish Borscht Belt comedians, I think there could be one set aside for Seinfeld characters seeking to come up with the perfect insult to reply to an insult.

George Costanza character from the Seinfeld TV show

“Hey George, the ocean called and they’re running out of shrimp.”

“Oh yeah!” replies George, “Well, the jerk store called and they’re running out of you!”

Another section could be devoted to Chelm, a real Polish town that according to Jewish folklore is inhabited by Jewish fools whose antics kept Jews amused for generations.

The great sage of Chelm went out for a walk with his trusted young assistant, Shlermo, by his side. Suddenly it began to pour.
“Quick,” said Shlermo, “open your umbrella. You’re getting soaked.”
“Don’t be ridiculous,” exclaimed the great sage, “it wouldn’t do any good. My umbrella has more holes than a sieve.”
“Then why did you bring it?”
“I didn’t think it would rain!”

Well, there you have it, just a few ideas from off of the top of my head for a museum floor devoted to classic insults by Jews. It would be great!

Now, at this point, I’m imagining that some of my readers might be scratching their heads, wondering why I would want to support any idea that might encourage people to insult anyone. So let’s take a moment to look at this issue.

What Possible Value Could There Be To Having a Section In A Museum Devoted To Insults?

If done well, this section could delve into the more serious issues surrounding the nature of insults as used in our society. For example, as I pointed out in an earlier post titled THE ART OF PLAYFUL TEASING, insults are used in a playful game called teasing. You are judged in part on the quality of your insults and also how well you keep your cool on being insulted.

Even the most mature people may like to play the teasing game, for they enjoy the duel of wits and the occasional humorous comeback.

Mature people are distinguished from immature people by their lack of desire to hurt somebody in this game. Their empathy helps them to realize that the smiles and the lighthearted tone they try to set throughout the game sometimes mask real tensions. Thus, they keep their senses tuned to the subtleties of the repartee, and know when to back off when things begin to get too serious.

Less mature people, partly because of their lower levels of empathy, may think that the more awful they can make someone feel during this game, the better they are at it. When the criticizers have themselves been humiliated by other immature people, they may come to be even more motivated to humiliate others as a way to take out their own pain on others.

So, there you have it, my post for this week. I hope that in addition to a few laughs you found within it some food for thought.

Until next time, may you find some ways to bring a little peace into this cockeyed crazy world of ours.

Jeff

——————————-

Tags bullying, disrespectful, Don Rickles, insults, Jewish Comedians, Jews, National Museum of American Jewish History, Phyllis Diller, Rodney Dangerfield, Tom Waits

conflict resolution Listening skills silent treatment

To Listen, Or To Criticize?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date January 21, 2015
2 Comments on To Listen, Or To Criticize?

In the above Sally Forth comic strip, we learn from Ted that Sally had a fight with her sister. By the third panel, Ted begins to criticize Sally, saying she is coming off like a robot, and then he expresses his view that she had been kind of dismissive of her sister’s news about becoming engaged. In the last panel, I get the feeling that Sally really isn’t in a state to listen to Ted’s criticism. And yet, Ted tries to push Sally to address his criticism.

The next day’s comic strip moves the story further along.

Here we see that Ted has come to understand that he would have been better off skipping the criticism that he had provided to Sally. Listening, he believes, would have been a better thing to do.

Now we see Sally confiding to a friend about how she feels about Ted’s criticism. We also learn that since Ted criticized her, she has not been talking to him.

Using this series of Sally Forth comics, today we will work on three key tasks:

1. Consider when it makes more sense for Ted to listen, rather than to criticize.

2. Examine what Sally could have done that might have been better than giving Ted the silent treatment.

3. Examine some essential listening skills for those times when we believe it is better to listen, rather than to criticize.

Before we move on to these key tasks, let’s move the Sally Forth story a few days further along.

Here we learn that Ted had begun to criticize Sally immediately after Sally’s fight with her sister. That’s a crucial point that will soon be woven into our various discussions.

Three Assessment Strategies to Decide Whether to Critique or to Listen

Here, I’d like to suggest three assessment strategies to help with the decision to critique or to listen.

1. Assess when the quarrel occurred. If the quarrel has occurred very recently, it’s usually best to go with listening. Trying to present a reasoned critique shortly after a heated quarrel makes little sense because it is extra hard for people to reason carefully when they are very frustrated and angry. By listening in a caring way you can play a huge part in helping the person to return to a state in which reasoning abilities are at their peek.

2. Assess whether it is crucial to share your critique immediately. I think you will find that in most situations your critique can wait a day, two days, or even a week. However, in some cases a conflict may require some immediate action and you may believe your critique is so crucial for making a wise choice, that pushing your critique to the fore makes sense.

3. Even if Ted had waited a reasonable period of time and had been making himself available to listen to Sally, before diving into his critique, it would still be a good idea for him to ask the following types of questions. “Sally, I have some time now, do you want to talk more about what’s been happening between you and your sister?” If Sally says yes, Ted would say something like, “So far, Sally, I’ve been mainly listening as you talked about what happened. I’m wondering if you think you’re ready to hear some ideas that I’ve been thinking about that might be helpful, or would you prefer me to stay in a listening mode?” After asking this question, Ted would assess how Sally replies. Even if she says she wants to hear his ideas, if her voice appears tense, or there is a tense expression on her face, he might be wise to tread lightly on anything that Sally might find too sensitive. Additionally, he might reasonably switch back into a listening mode if she appears to turn angry at something that he says.

Now, so far, I have been discussing what Ted could have done better to address Sally’s concerns. Now let’s take a couple of minutes to discuss what Sally could have done better.

The Silent Treatment Versus Assertiveness

In the Sally Forth story, Sally, turning angry at Ted, decides to give him the silent treatment. I’m wondering if there might be a better way for her to have handled this type of situation.

My wife, Andrea, is very assertive when it comes to these types of situations. If I begin to express my views before she is ready to hear them, she just gives me a clear signal to back off, and I respect her wishes. Maybe Sally could have said to Ted when he began to provide his critique immediately after her argument with her sister, “I see you want to critique what happened, Ted, but I prefer that you just go into a listening mode for now.”

If Sally, when she has returned to a calmer state, agrees that this assertive approach makes more sense than ending up giving Ted the silent treatment, she can practice doing this in her mind at least three times. These practice sessions are simple and involve closing her eyes and imagining how she felt right after her fight with her sister, then recalling how Ted began to criticize her action, and then imagining herself being assertive to Ted. By practicing this a few times, especially if she does this over the course of a few days, there is an excellent chance she will have no difficulty using the assertive approach the next time a similar situation arises.

Now, let’s once again turn our attention to what Ted could do in this situation. Both he and Sally agree that it would have been better for him to have gone into the listening mode, rather than the critiquing mode. But doing good listening doesn’t mean simply keeping your mouth shut while the other party talks. There is a real art to listening. In the next section, I’m going to present the three most helpful things to do while listening.

Three Helpful Things to Do While Listening

When Ted goes into his listening mode, there are a few things that he can do to make his listening more effective. First, every minute or two, he could briefly summarize what she had just said. This would assure Sally that Ted is paying attention. You can learn more about how this is done by looking up the topic, reflective listening. Second, if Sally turns sad about something she is discussing, Ted could express sadness on his face as well, look into Sally’s eyes, and softly touch Sally’s shoulder. This is called empathic listening. Finally, Ted could learn how to validate Sally’s feelings. For example, Sally says to Ted, “Every time I hear my sister has made some awful mistake, I feel awful inside.” Ted can validate Sally’s feeling by saying something like, “I know what you mean, I feel like that when my brother makes an awful mistake.” When someone validates a person’s experience in this way, it helps to communicate a connection between the speaker and the listener.

Okay, so there are some ideas to think about when considering whether to listen or to criticize. I hope you find within this post some food for thought. My Best, Jeff

———————————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.

Tags anger, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, critique, dispute management, Listening skills, negative criticism, respect, Sally Forth, Sally Forth comics, silent treatment

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.

———————

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

ADHD attention problems conflict management conflict resolution Ritalin

Treating ADHD: If Not Drugs, Then What?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date January 7, 2015
3 Comments on Treating ADHD: If Not Drugs, Then What?

Some children, when asked to attend to certain tasks, do so for shorter periods than most. Some are also more energetic. Such children are often said to have Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

Although many doctors recommend placing children believed to have ADHD on drugs such as Ritalin and Adderall, many parents refuse to go that route. The evidence that the drugs do not lead to lasting improved academic and social outcomes are major reasons (see my post titled “The Myth of Ritalin’s Effectiveness” for a review of the effectiveness studies). Other major reasons have to do with concerns about known negative side effects and possible long term harm to such young developing brains.

Parents who have a child viewed as having ADHD typically face two challenges–disciplining their child and responding to concerns from their child’s teacher. For parents who choose the drug approach, they may come to believe that at least by drugging their child something is being done to deal with the challenges. They may thus become less motivated to take some other steps because what can be done is being done. If the child misbehaves, the parent may come to believe that the cause is due to the drug not doing what it’s supposed to be doing. Maybe the child needs to go back to the doctor to get the dose tweaked, or another drug needs to be added or substituted.

But for parents who refuse drug treatment, they don’t get confused about all of these drug issues and a clearer path lies before them. As a school psychologist for many years, I’ve walked with parents down this non-drug path on numerous occasions, and here are some suggestions that I found most helpful.

My Four Favorite Suggestions for Parents Concerned about a Child’s Attention Span or Energetic Behavior

1. Search the internet with the following search terms–“ADHD without drugs.” If you do so, you will find many suggestions on how to address your concerns. A daily running program and meditation were just a couple of excellent ideas that I found quickly in a recent search of this sought. Many of the suggestions indicate that they have research support demonstrating that they are effective (see for example APA’s article titled “Easing ADHD without Meds“). What I particularly like about having parents search the internet in this way is that they get to select from a wide range of ideas the ones that make the most sense to them. Moreover, there are always new ideas coming out, and these types of internet searches are regularly updated.

2. Get a copy of The Kazdin Method for Parenting the Defiant Child by Alan Kazdin. Dr. Kazdin is director of the Yale Parenting Center and Conduct Clinic and is a former president of the American Psychological Association. His approach has been well tested in solid research programs with impressive results.

If you can’t afford to buy Dr. Kazdin’s book, you can get a copy at your local library. If your library doesn’t have a copy, walk over to the the librarian and ask to get it through inter-library loan. If you have trouble reading books, it is also available on CD. Listen to these CDs while you are driving, cleaning the house, and washing dishes. You’ll find a goldmine worth of information.

3. Ask your child’s teacher to provide you, each week, a list of the main topics that will be covered in class the following week. Then view at home with your child a lesson on each topic on the Kahn Academy website.

This website is a resource that provides free lessons on all the topics that teachers teach in school. By having your child review each lesson before hearing it for the first time from the teacher, when the teacher actually presents the lesson in school, your child will now be at least somewhat familiar with the topic. This is called “priming” and it has been demonstrated to increase the interest level for learners and increase the likeliness that the topic will end up being mastered. Moreover, once you show your child how the Kahn Academy website works, your child, before each test, can go back to the lesson and make sure he or she has really mastered it.

If you do not have the time to do this with your child, see what you can do to get someone at least four years older than your child to carry out this activity. You may have to pay a young teenager a little, but it will be better than paying for pills.

This approach leads to real learning. Once your child starts to make better academic progress in school, he or she will feel better about school in general.

4. “Casino for teaching calculation fluency” is a card game that I have found works great for kids who have difficulty learning math skills in the usual manner. You can find the rules for the basic casino card game on line by typing in your search engine, “Casino card game rules.” Once you learn the basic rules it will be easy to learn how to apply the game to improve a wide range of math skills.

Basically, the game is played as follows. The dealer deals four cards to each player and four cards face up in the center (these center cards are laid out separately so that all are visible). The aim is to capture cards from a layout on the table, by playing a card from your hand which matches in number a table card or the sum of several table cards. When it’s your turn, if you can’t capture any cards, you have to throw into the center, face-up, one of the cards from your hand. The cards that each player captures are accumulated in his or her pile. The player who ends up with the most captured cards (in the simplest form of the game) is the winner. After each player plays the four cards that are originally dealt, each player is dealt four more cards. The game is over when all the cards in the deck are used up.

To win, a player must learn to do basic addition. Consider this example. Suppose it is my turn and I have in my hand a 9, and on the table, face up, is a 6 and a 3. If I know 6 plus 3 equals 9, I can use my 9 to capture the 6 and the 3. The more cards I capture, the more chances I have of winning. If I am a bit clumsy at addition, this game can motivate me to increase my fluency.

Once your child has learned to add smoothly, you can change the rules of the game to learn more advanced math skills. For example, you can make the new rule as follows: the only way to capture cards is by using subtraction; or multiplication.

The game can be played in groups of 2, 3, or 4. Besides a deck of cards, it will help to learn math if you will get an abacus. Any student having trouble with learning basic arithmetic should be taught how to use an abacus, and should get a great deal of experience using it. It visually displays how our system works, with the ones line, the tens line, and the hundreds line. The manipulations are fun, and they begin to make conceptual sense after regular use. You can buy an abacus on line for just a few dollars and they come with directions.

The abacus is used as follows. Suppose Sue, who is playing Casino with Jill, attempts to use a 7 in her hand to capture a 6 and a 2. She can use the abacus to see if 6 and 2 equals 7. In a short period of time, Sue will learn to add without the abacus.

An interesting psychological aspect of playing this game is that even when it is not the turn of the other players, all the other players are motivated to do the calculation of the person whose turn it is in order to make sure she or he does not cheat. Moreover, whenever a player can’t make a capture, and therefore throws a card from her or his hand onto the table, all the other players start to make calculations in their heads to figure out how the new card can be utilized. Consequently, there is an enormous amount of additional calculations going on than one might think by watching the player whose turn it is. This is a large reason why this game is so effective.

Now, once your child learns the basic rules of the game, usually within a half hour of playing time, the rules can be changed so that your child begins to work on learning fluency of the math facts at his or her level. So, if Sue is learning to be fluent in learning single digit addition facts, the group plays the game in the standard manner.

If Sue is learning fluency in mastering two digit addition facts, the game is changed so two decks of cards are combined. Both decks get a little doctoring. The parent takes out the four jacks from one of the decks and crosses out their J, and writes beside it the number 11. In a similar fashion, queens, and kings have respectively, the numbers 12, and 13 written on them, replacing their Q and K. For the cards in the second deck, their numbers are changed so that they are given numbers that range from 14 to 27. Both sets of cards are shuffled together, and the game is played like the basic version of the game but there is far more addition facts that can be employed in order to capture cards.

For students learning fluency in mastering single digit subtraction facts, the same rules are applied as the single digit addition form of the game but players can only capture cards by applying a subtraction fact. For example, if Fred has a 2 in his hand, and there is an 8 and a 6 faced up on the table, if he recognizes that 8 minus 6 equals 2, he can capture with his 2 both the 8 and the 6.

For students learning fluency in mastering two digit subtraction facts, the same rules are applied as the two digit addition form of the game but players can only capture cards by applying a subtraction fact.

In a similar manner, the game can be played as well so it is designed to teach fluency in basic multiplication or division.

$math is fun$ Math is often a stumbling block for children who have trouble paying attention to topics that bore them. By making learning these skills fun, these skills are quickly learned. When your child then goes to school, his success in math class will greatly improve his or her overall school experience.

Okay then, those are some ideas to help children thought to have ADHD. There are of course far more options to discover.

Until you join us again, 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 intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.

Tags Adderall, ADHD, ADHD Treatment, Alan Kazdin, Kahn Aademy, Learning strategies, Ritalin, The Kazdin Method for Parenting the Defiant Child

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

———————

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

ADHD conflict resolution DSM Ritalin The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

The Myth of Ritalin’s Effectiveness

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date December 21, 2014
25 Comments on The Myth of Ritalin’s Effectiveness

In a recent post titled ADHD and Psychiatric Name Calling, I reviewed studies documenting how much is currently being spent annually on ADHD drug treatments. Here are some new numbers provided by Healthline: What are we getting for this? In this post I hope to clarify this issue. As you read it, you will see phrases in blue. By clicking on each, you will be taken to the actual research article that documents my statement.

For students placed on Ritalin or other stimulant drugs, in short term studies teachers and parents report some improvement in behavior. However, even in the short term, the vast majority of research indicates that there is no improvement on academic functioning. At the end of 14 months, drug treatment was not superior than no-drug treatment on the following measures: classroom observed behaviour, parent- and teacher-rated social skills, parent-rated parent–child relationships, peer sociometric ratings, and academic achievement. By the end of three years there was no significant effects of the drugs on any measure. stomach and head pain And yet, parents who undeniably care about their children, regularly expose their children to the side effects of these drugs, as well as potential long term risks. Why? Because they are convinced that the helpfulness of the drugs outweigh those negatives.

What is it about these drugs that create the myth that the drugs are really helping their children? To understand how this myth is created, it will help if we first take a quick look at how people come to believe smoking cigarettes helps them to deal with stress, and drinking caffeinated coffee helps them to be more productive.

The Myth that Cigarette Smoking Reduces Stress.

In a study published in the American Psychologist, researchers found the following:

Smokers often report that cigarettes help relieve feelings of stress. However, the stress levels of adult smokers are slightly higher than those of nonsmokers, adolescent smokers report increasing levels of stress as they develop regular patterns of smoking, and smoking cessation leads to reduced stress. Far from acting as an aid for mood control, nicotine dependency seems to exacerbate stress. This is confirmed in the daily mood patterns described by smokers, with normal moods during smoking and worsening moods between cigarettes. Thus, the apparent relaxant effect of smoking only reflects the reversal of the tension and irritability that develop during nicotine depletion. Dependent smokers need nicotine to remain feeling normal. The message that tobacco use does not alleviate stress but actually increases it needs to be far more widely known.

This paragraph just provides a summary of the research article that leads to its conclusion. In my view, the whole article lays out a very convincing argument that the relief from a drug withdrawal reaction that occurs each time a person ingests the drug can create the illusion that a drug is helpful. Moreover, I believe that this same argument can also be used to explain how a stimulant such as Ritalin can appear to be helpful even when it is not. Before we get to Ritalin, however, let’s first turn our attention to America’s favorite stimulant, caffeine.

My Personal Experience with Caffeine

When I was 18, I started college. My first class began at 8 a.m. Ugh! That meant waking up around 6 a.m. so I could wash up, have breakfast, and take the hour train ride.

Sitting down for breakfast, I decided to have my first cup of coffee. Both my parents drank coffee in the morning and throughout the day, too. I had heard that it gave you a boost when you were tired, and man, I was tired.

My first sip tasted rather bitter, so I dumped a couple of teaspoons of sugar in. Much better. Then came a little pleasant “up” sensation, but it was accompanied with a little stomach distress. Oh, well. Off I went and it wasn’t long after that I was drinking coffee regularly.

coffee3 As I entered into my twenties, I began to notice that in the morning before I got my first cup, I was irritable and struggling with sleepiness. With the first sips, ahhhh, relief.

In addition to my morning cups, I’d have a cup typically around 10 a.m., a cola with lunch, which has some caffeine in it, and a couple of cups after supper with dessert.

During my thirties, I began to develop headaches. I attributed them to stress.

coffee2 By the time I was forty, the headaches became so bad that I went to a physician who prescribed some pills. I don’t like taking pills, but the headaches were so bad that I thought maybe I should give them a try.

Before filling the prescription, I looked up information about it and found the prescribed pills were made entirely of caffeine. Then, I looked at the side effects and found that one of them was headaches. This surprised me.

Since I was already consuming caffeine throughout the day, and a side effect of caffeine was headaches, I thought maybe instead of taking the pills, the first thing I should try was to stop consuming caffeine.

Wow! Giving up coffee was not easy. For several days I went through a very rough period of headaches, feelings of depression, difficulty sleeping, and my brain seemed to be meandering through thick mud.

In retrospect, perhaps I should have tried tapering off coffee, reducing each week one cup at a time. But I did make it through the morass, and in a couple of weeks I was fine. And ever since, I no longer get any headaches.

More surprising is that when I wake up in the morning, by the time I wash up and sit down for breakfast, I’m every bit as awake as I used to become when I had finished my morning coffee. It is now clear to me that the exhausted, irritable feelings that I used to have before I gave up coffee was due to a caffeine withdrawal effect from going a whole night without having any. Throughout the day, I now find that I have a smoother ride and I am every bit as productive as I used to be when I was a coffee drinker.

The Myth of Ritalin’s Effectiveness

Ritalin, and most other drug treatments for “ADHD” are stimulants. And just as I came to mistakenly believe coffee helped me to be more productive, I think Ritalin’s effects lead to the same mistaken conclusion. And just like I didn’t attribute the side effects of caffeine to my coffee drinking, I think parents don’t realize how much of their child’s sleeping problems, headaches, late afternoon miseries are due to the drugs. And when parents try to withdraw their children from the drugs to see if it is really helping, as the withdrawal effects begin to become worse and worse, parents come to think that this is how their children naturally are when they don’t take the drugs.

Now, there is more to this story than I can reveal in a single post. For example, other factors that lead to parents thinking these drugs are more effective than they actually are is the clever advertisement of the drug companies. Moreover, in some cases, children, as they become older, typically mature at a certain pace. Thus, some children viewed as having ADHD problems completely grow out of these problems without any drug treatment. If this growth in maturity occurs shortly after a child begins to take the drugs, the improvement from natural maturity growth can be easily attributed to the effects of the drugs. When this happens, parents rave to their family members and friends that Ritalin saved their child, and they push other parents to do what they did–get their children on Ritalin.

And so, this is how I think the myth of Ritalin’s effectiveness is created. An initial improvement in behavior once the drug treatment begins; a slow tolerance develops to the drug so it becomes less and less effective, but this occurs over a period of time during which the child is naturally maturing. As a result, some parents don’t notice that the drug is becoming less effective. When parents do notice the decreased effectiveness of the drug, they often take the child to the doctor to get an increased dose. Again there is a boost in apparent improvement. As tolerance to the drug once again begins to occur, more time goes by, and of course there is more growth in the child’s natural maturity. This may lead to less attention problems, but the improvement is attributed to the drugs, rather than improved maturity. Whenever parents try to see if their child can do just as well without the drugs, the withdrawal reactions convince them that their child really needs the drug. Negative side effects of the drugs are attributed to other causes. Couple all of this with the clever advertisement campaign of drug companies, and we end up with a pretty impressive myth.

———————

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 Adderall, ADHD, ADHD Treatment, caffeine's side effects, Coffee's side effects, drug treatment, DSM, mental illness, Myths, parenting, psychiatry, Ritalin

conflict resolution criticism John F. Kennedy Lyndon B. Johnson Responding to Criticism

Responding Maturely to Criticism: A John F. Kennedy Example

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date December 18, 2014
No Comments on Responding Maturely to Criticism: A John F. Kennedy Example

Responding to negative criticism with lower developmental level skills can lead to an escalation of conflicts, violence, and the loss of valued friends. Among the benefits of utilizing higher developmental level skills are increases in how much people like and respect us.

To encourage readers of this blog to think about the most helpful ways to respond to criticism, I presented a post titled “Responding to Criticism: Four Levels of Maturity.” A few weeks later, I presented a post describing the fifth level of maturity, which I believe is the most mature level.

In both of those posts, I give examples of people using each of the different levels. In subsequent posts, I provided some additional examples (see here, here, and here). Readers seem to enjoy these, so with that in mind, I offer you a John F. Kennedy example.

John F. Kennedy at the 1960 Democratic Convention

In 1960, the Democratic Convention was held in Los Angeles. In addition to Kennedy, other democratic candidates for president that year were Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, and Wayne Morse.

On day two of the conference, Johnson and Kennedy had an exchange in front of the entire delegation. Below, is the transcript of part of that exchange, which I obtained from a YouTube video that you can see and hear for yourself at this link, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gefp6OHLns

The actual exchange begins 4 minutes into the Youtube video. There, we see Lyndon Johnson criticizing Kennedy in front of several thousand delegates. Thus, he says:

For six days and nights we had 24-hour sessions, six days and nights I had to deliver a quorum of 51 men on a moment’s notice to keep the Senate in session to get any bill at all. I’m proud to tell you that on those 51 quorum calls Lyndon Johnson answered every one of them, although some men who would be president on a civil rights platform answered none.

On the roll call on that bill there were 45, Lyndon Johnson answered all 45. Admittedly, I didn’t have the problem that some of my people had of opposing Senators Humphrey and Morse in the primaries. But some senator missed 34 of the 45. And I point this out only so those of you who may have been not fully understanding of my entry into the race. That it is my considered judgment that my people had sent me to the Senate to perform the duty of a United States senator for which I was paid $22,500 a year. And my colleagues, including Senator Kennedy and Senator Symington, and 62 other beloved Democrats had selected me as their leader. And I did not think you would reward negligence. I did not think that you would reward me for inattention, nor did I think, as Al Smith put it, that you would penalize me.

Now, if former president, Donald Trump had been criticized in this way, I think we all have a pretty good idea of how he would have responded–probably by throwing nasty insults at Senator Johnson, like crying out that he is a horrible person.

Here’s Kennedy’s reply, which begins about six minutes into the YouTube recording:

I’m glad we are not going to put these speeches to a vote, after looking at Massachusetts’s and Texas’s delegates today. Let me just say that I appreciate what Senator Johnson had to say. He made some general reference to perhaps some shortcomings of other presidential candidates, but as he was not specific I assume he was talking about some other candidate and not me.

Kennedy then breaks out in a huge smile because he knows, and everyone present knows that Senator Johnson’s comments had indeed been directed toward criticizing Kennedy’s record. The crowd clearly appreciates Kennedy’s humor, and then, after the laughter subsides, he continues:

I, uh, found it extremely beneficial serving in the Senate with Senator Johnson as leader. I think if I emerge as successful in this convention it would be as a result of watching Senator Johnson proceed around the Senate for the last eight years.

Kennedy, now turns to Lyndon Johnson and says:

I have learned the lesson well, Lyndon, and I hope it will benefit me in the next twenty-four hours.

Kennedy has now turned back to the larger audience.

It is true that Senator Johnson made a wonderful record in answering those quorum calls, and I want to commend him for it. I, uh, was not present on all of those occasions, uh, no one, I was not majority leader. Lyndon knows I never criticized, in fact on every occasion I said that I thought Senator Johnson should not enter the primary. That his proper responsibility was as majority leader and that if he would let Hubert, Wayne and I to settle the matter we could come to a clearcut decision.

So, I come to you today full of admiration for Senator Johnson, full of affection for him, strongly in support of him for majority leader, and in that position we’re all going to work together. Thank you.

Now, after this reply to Johnson’s criticism of him, Kennedy does something else that we don’t actually see in the YouTube video. Kennedy, behind closed doors, informs Johnson that his criticism, in addition to the issue he explicitly stated, involves two others issues: First, Johnson wants to some day be president, and, second, he also wants to get several bills passed that were close to his heart, especially the civil rights bills. Kennedy explained that right now he, Johnson, was well known in Texas and the Senate, but the public in other regions around the country knew nothing about him. Kennedy then informed Johnson that he had decided to select him to be his running mate if he succeeds at obtaining the nomination. As vice president, Johnson would get to be known throughout the country. This would put him in a better position to seek the presidency in the future. Moreover, as vice president, he would preside over the Senate, and together with Kennedy as president, he could have a much better chance of getting his favorite bills enacted into law. In this way, Kennedy steered in the direction that he felt Johnson’s criticism suggested.

Okay, so that is how Kennedy responded to Johnson’s negative criticism. I shall now present the outline of all five developmental levels of responding to criticism. If you will, look them over and see what level best matches Kennedy’s response.

Five Levels of Responding to Criticism

1. This level requires displaying one or more of the following:

Weeps or sobs with tears or pouts
Physically attacks the criticizer
Damages property

2. 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.

3. 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.

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.

Now that you have had a chance to look over the descriptions of the 5 levels, which level do you think best matches Kennedy’s response? Moreover, regardless of what level Kennedy’s response matches, I encourage you to think about whether it is better to utilize Kennedy’s approach, or Trump’s approach, to responding to criticism. My guess is that if you want to get more hits on social media platforms and you don’t mind increasing hate in the world, the approach that Trump tends to use will work better for you; however, if you want to be better respected by family members, friends and people at work, Kennedy’s approach is the way to go.

Thanks for visiting today, and I hope you join us back here soon.

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 criticism, Five levels of responding to criticism, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, negative criticism