Category: conflict resolution

Women and Criticism

On this blog, I often discuss immature and mature ways to deal with criticism. The advice that I offer is designed to be helpful to males and females alike. But recently, in an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, Tara Mohr argues that when it comes to criticism, women can benefit from advice specifically targeted to the unique cultural situation that they find themselves in.

The New York Times Article

Ms Mohr, in her thoughtful article titled “Learning to Love Criticism,” tells us:

Criticism stings for all of us, but women have been socialized to not rock the boat, to be, above all else, likable. By the time a girl reaches adolescence, she’ll most likely have watched hundreds of films, television shows and advertisements in which a woman’s destiny is determined not by her own choices but by how she is perceived by others. In those hundreds of stories, we get the message: What other people think and say about us matters, a lot.

In addition to these messages in the media, for centuries women have had less rights than men. Being likable, or at least acceptable to stronger, more powerful men, became a primary survival strategy. For many women around the world, this is still the reality.

Given this history, we might think that women have mastered the skills to insure that they are liked, but in the business world there is some evidence that problems exist.

A Recent Survey

In a recent survey that looked at 248 performance reviews from 28 different companies, both men and women gave more negative feedback to the women being reviewed. Here are a few examples:

“You can come across as abrasive sometimes. I know you don’t mean to, but you need to pay attention to your tone.”

“Your peers sometimes feel that you don’t leave them enough room. Sometimes you need to step back to let others shine.”

“The presentation ultimately went well. But along the way, we discovered many areas for improvement. You would have had an easier time if you had been less judgmental about R—‘s contributions from the beginning.”

This kind of negative criticism showed up twice in the 83 critical reviews received by men. It showed up in 71 of the 94 critical reviews received by women.

There are three possibilities that present themselves here:

1. The women received more negative criticism despite not acting in any distinctively different way than the men because of distinctively different expectations of how women “should” act;

2. The women who received more negative reviews actually acted distinctly different in certain ways than the men and it is these differences that led to the additional negative criticism;

3. It is a little of both.

An Informal Survey

Interestingly, from my perspective, are the results of an informal survey of someone I know who was intimately involved in evaluating and promoting personnel. Here, early criticism was about equal between men and women, but more women took the negative criticism they received to heart and made changes prior to their following evaluation. This ultimately led to their promotions. The majority of the men who got negative feedback seemed uninterested in making any changes and subsequently lost their opportunity for promotion.

From this, I think that it is not only possible, but perhaps even probable, that despite the pattern suggested in the more thorough survey, there is great variability across settings.

Some bosses may have an archtype that a great leader is a tough, no nonsense person who only projects a demanding sense of profits. Such an attitude will provoke a very different style of criticism around the office than one that supports the idea working for profits doesn’t have to mean that we must abandon basic principles of human dignity.

Let me just add that the person involved in providing and promoting personnel in the informal survey happened to be a master at providing very specific feedback. Consider the example provided above in which someone stated in a review:

“You can come across as abrasive sometimes. I know you don’t mean to, but you need to pay attention to your tone.”

Such a statement potentially can be helpful as one looks within and seeks to come up with a less abrasive way to respond in situations. However, the feedback would be far better if a supervisor, let’s call him Bill, invited a subordinate, let’s call her Mary, to a one-on-one meeting shortly after an abrasive incident occurred. At that meeting, Bill does several things. He gently explains that he is about to imitate how Mary had acted, using her tone of voice and what was said. Then, after imitating for her how she acted, he displays for her in a role-play how he would prefer she act when a similar incident arises. He then proceeds to ask Mary to imitate what he just acted out. Then he goes through this process with Mary until she can actually copy the less abrasive style to his satisfaction. If Bill provided this level of specific feedback, it would be potentially far more helpful then the two-sentence feedback that was actually provided.

Advice

I very much support the recommendations that Ms Mohr provides in her New York Times piece. For example, at one point she writes,

If a woman wants to do substantive work of any kind, she’s going to be criticized — with comments not just about her work but also about herself. She must develop a way of experiencing criticism that allows her to persevere in the face of it.

How can this be done? “A woman,” says Ms Mohr, “can identify another woman whose response to criticism she admires. In challenging situations, she can imagine how the admired woman might respond, and thereby see some new possible responses for herself.”

I won’t go into all of the recommendations of Ms Mohr, suffice it to say her article is well worth reading. But I do think it is essential to point out that a single article will not do the trick for most of us, women or men, who want to learn to become a master at dealing with criticism. It takes several months of regularly bringing before our minds examples of criticism, followed by a discussion of how to transform each specific example into something better. My blog provides one way to go about doing just this. Readers can begin with the introduction to this blog, and move forward at their own pace by clicking on the next newer entry post. Additionally, by reading the trilogy of novels that I’ve written, people become immersed for a few months in adventures that illustrate the struggle to seek respect even under the most trying circumstances.

Well, that’s this week’s edition of From Insults to Respect. Here’s to hoping you’ll join us again real 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 and social intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.

Tags conflict, conflict management, criticism, dispute management, disrespectful, insults, negative criticism, negative feedback, New York Times Op Ed, psychological maturity, respect, Tara Mohr, types of criticism, women and criticism

conflict resolution DSM Name calling psychiatrists psychiatry respect The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders William James wisdom

Psychiatric Name Calling: Is Science to Blame?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date September 22, 2014
14 Comments on Psychiatric Name Calling: Is Science to Blame?

A couple of weeks ago I raised the question, “Name Calling by Psychiatrists: Is it Time to Put a Stop to it?” In response, some blamed the insurance companies and other third party payers for the name calling. Because it is true that these payers do require the pathologizing of people seeking mental health services, in last week’s article, I took a close look at that issue.

Others responding to my question argued that diagnosing mental illness is based on the principles of science. So, let’s look at this line of thought.

The Nature of Science

Science enquires what is the nature of something? what is its constitution, origin, and history? Human beings also make enquires of a different sort, What is the object’s importance, meaning, significance, or value now that it is once here? Neither judgment can be deduced immediately from the other. They proceed from diverse intellectual preoccupations, and the mind combines them only by making them first separately and then adding them together.

As Steven Jay Gould, professor of zoology and geology at Harvard University, explains it:

“The net of science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the usual clichés, we get the age of rocks, and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they determine how to go to heaven.”

In the natural sciences there is a branch called pathology that classifies tumors, lesions, bone fractures, tissue tears, toxic reaction to a chemical, blockage of blood flow within the circulation system, blockage within or to an organ, and microbe infections. Pathologists have reliable ways of identifying and categorizing these naturally occurring entities. When we take a science view of each of these entities of interest to pathologists, it is not a value judgment if they exist or not. If ten pathologists look at a tumor, they can all see it, describe its color, density, weight and what each of the tumor’s cells look like under a microscope.

Pathologists, as scientists, have been studying these entities and sometimes they found that some of them are associated with certain physical complaints. For example, some people complain about headaches and vision problems. When they died, autopsies were carried out and often a tumor was present that was pressing against the optic nerve.

This finding led to a theory that for people who expressed this type of physical complaint, if an operation was carried out while the patients were still alive and this type of tumor was indeed pressing on the optic nerve, perhaps removing it would alleviate the complaint. Studies were carried out and it led eventually to a valued treatment.

The connections between the research findings of pathologists gave doctors some understanding of what was causing some of the physical complaints of their patients. But often doctors could not find evidence that any of the entities of interest to pathologists were the cause of the complaint. When this occurred, most doctors merely changed the expressed complaint into some medical jargon that sounded somewhat like those concerns that had been shown to be due to a pathological condition. In such cases, they offered some treatment that was often based more on the commercial art of medicine rather than science.

These doctors usually called both types of physical complaints (those with pathological findings and those without) “illnesses” or “disorders.” By doing so, the science of medicine and the art of medicine became blurred. And then, business interests became wrapped up in the various treatment options and principles of science began to become more and more murky when applied to the medical world.

Disorders and Psychiatry

In a book titled Psychiatric Persuasion by Elizabeth Lunbeck, there is considerable documentation that back at the turn of the 20th century when the main job of psychiatrists was running insane asylums their professional organization decided to expand their market by doing two things. 1. Persuade the public that more and more normal behaviors are pathologies that require psychiatric treatment, and 2. Develop a category system that converts all psychological concerns that a person might want to get help for into a language that sounds like a pathological condition. This would legitimize the treatment of anyone who came to their office, thus the argument that the current psychiatric “diagnosis” system has become a business tool while being promoted as science.

Now, it is certainly possible to create a categorical system consistent with science for the problems that come to the attention of psychiatrists and other mental health service providers that don’t confuse conditions that are associated with pathological findings and those that are not. Such a system would classify “mental health concerns,” rather than calling people names. A mental health concern occurs when a person seeking mental health services expresses to a mental health service provider a concern about any of the following topics: behavior, emotion, mood, meaning of life, managing chronic pain, work, relationships, education, eating, cognition and sleep. Two classes of mental health concerns are concerns expressed about oneself and concerns expressed about someone else.

One benefit of classifying “mental health concerns” rather than “mental disorders” has to do with inter-rater reliability. Consider being in a room with 100 psychologists, or even 100 average Joes and Jills, and a person in front of the room says she has been feeling depressed. A questioner asks the client, “Are you concerned about feeling depressed?” and the person says, “Yes.” If you asked for a survey of how many people in the room thinks the person has expressed a concern about being depressed, you would get, I believe, 100 percent agreement. Expressing a mental health concern is a specific action that people do, and therefore it is clearly observable.

Research on the inter-rater reliability of the mental disorders classification system has demonstrated that its inter-rater reliability is very problematic.

Science is Not to Blame

It is not science that is to blame for psychiatric name calling; it is the psychiatric business tool that is cleverly designed to capitalize on the public’s respect for science.

When we begin to use a classification system that does not clearly separate principles of science from values involved in business interests, other values start to slip into the classification process as well. Early on when the pathologizing of human experience was just getting underway, William James made a number of relevant comments about this.

James argued 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 provided three examples of famous individuals who expressed concerns about melancholy. Such experiences today, if expressed to a psychiatrist, would probably be converted into a so-called “diagnosis” of “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 biographies, better as a result of their troubling experiences.

Although hallucinations can mean madness to some, James presented 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 stated, “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.”

James stated that there is no end to the possible types of obsessions that we see all around us. What benefit can such experiences have? James wrote about Henry Borg, founder of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in 1866; Charles Henry Parkhurst, a Presbyterian clergyman and reformer who held a New York City pastorate from 1880 to 1918 and 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 labeled mentally ill.

Later, James stated, “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.”

James concluded that,

“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. Moreover we are all instruments for social use, and if sensibilities, obsessions and other… peculiarities can so combine with the rest of our constitution as to make us the more useful to our kind, why, then, we should not call them in that context points of unhealthiness, but rather the reverse . . . The trouble is that such writers [pathologizers]. . . 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?”

To illustrate what James means here, consider an article in the American Journal of Psychiatry (May, 2004), titled “Virginia Woolf (1882-1941).” Although she is described by psychiatrists as having bipolar disorder, her diaries and letters, document movingly, her emotional extremes and her capacity to savor the “ordinary rhythms of life.” At times Woolf railed against her distressing emotional experiences, felt frustrated and impeded by them, and at other times she felt it was essential to her. In diaries and letters, she returned to the question repeatedly without reaching a resolution: were her emotional experiences a terrible obstacle to her art, or were they the necessary condition for it?

For those trying to sell psychiatric drugs, a simplistic answer to this question is eagerly promoted. Science has not provided a definitive answer to this question as far as I am concerned, and throwing around phrases such as “the brain is malfunctioning in depression,” or “the brain has a chemical imbalance in depression” goes way beyond the available evidence.

Psychiatric labels are like masks held on by rubberband straps. They hide some of the characteristics of an individual. Wearing such masks may serve some purposes, but after a while they start to get uncomfortable for many, particularly around the ears. Let those who want to wear these masks be free to do so. But let those who want to meet us face to face, also be free to do so.

——————————-

Tags disrespectful, DSM, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, insults, mental disorders, mental health, mental health concerns, mental health services, mental illness, name calling, psychiatry, science, Steven Jay Gould, William James

conflict resolution DSM psychiatrists psychiatry The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

Psychiatric Name Calling: Are the Insurance Companies to Blame?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date September 16, 2014
5 Comments on Psychiatric Name Calling: Are the Insurance Companies to Blame?

Last week, I posted an article titled “Name Calling by Psychiatrists: Is it Time to Put a Stop to it?” It created quite a stir and it’s currently challenging my two previous most popular posts—“Teaching Children How to to Deal with Criticism” and “Is it Wise to be Assertive?”—for the number one spot.

The article points out that by using the term “diagnosis” in psychiatric terminology it misleads people in a variety of ways. For example, when psychiatrists provide their patients a so-called diagnosis many people believe there is now a valid explanation for why they are struggling with their personal difficulties. Instead, all that has really happened is that the psychiatrist has converted the expressed concern of the patient into pathologizing language.

The manual that psychiatrists use when deciding which words to use when converting concerns to “diagnoses” is called The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Of course as this manual was developed there was a huge financial interest to utilize language that encourages the perception that an expressed concern is a very, very serious life-long condition that requires medical treatment for a lifetime. Consequently, when patients express a concern about being depressed, the psychiatrist informs them that they have “major depressive disorder,” and often couple this with statements such as, “This is a serious lifetime condition that must be managed for a lifetime.” Any language that suggests that there is substantial evidence that most people recover even without treatment runs counter to the psychiatric business plan.

Among the many comments that I received about the name calling article are those that point out that most of the doctors who are using the psychiatric terminology provided in the DSM are not psychiatrists. Pediatricians, general practitioners, internists, psychologists, and neurologists daily call people these names. Other comments present the argument that it is the pharmaceutical companies that promote the pathologizing of human concerns in order to convince people to ingest their drugs.

I’ll be exploring these issues in coming weeks. But today, let’s focus in on the argument that the real group of people at fault for this type of name-calling is the third party payers such as insurance companies, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. After all, by far, the DSM terms are used most by these types of entities.

The DSM and Third Party Payers

Most people in the United States who seek mental health services don’t directly pay for them. Instead, they have insurance policies that cover some, or all, of the fees; or they qualify for Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security benefits. Insurance companies and these other agencies are called third party payers.

Third party payers currently have a form that must be filled out whenever someone seeks mental health services under their plan. That form has boxes for the name of the person seeking services, his or her contact information, policy number, some information about who is being asked to provide services, and then, imbedded in all of this, is a little box that currently says, “Diagnosis.” In that box, mental health professionals must fill in the DSM code that corresponds to their “diagnosis” of the person seeking services.

Third party payers initially developed their form for people who were seeking medical services for physical complaints. Physicians would fill in the diagnosis box with a code that corresponded to a list of diagnoses in their pathology manuals based on a visual inspection of a tissue tear, the results of x-rays, blood test, or a pathologist examining a tissue sample of a tumor under a microscope. Sometimes it was based on a report from a toxicologist because it was theorized that the patient had been exposed to some toxic substance. In each of these cases, the diagnosis that was provided actually did provide some understanding for why patients were struggling with their expressed physical complaints.

However, I hasten to point out that in many cases physicians were unable to uncover the reason for the physical complaint. At such times they often did pretty much what psychiatrists do today—they converted the physical complaint into medical jargon, typically using Latin derived syllables, and then stuck them into the third party payer’s “diagnosis” box on the third party payer forms, prescribed some treatment, and low and behold, third party payers paid the doctors just like they did when a real diagnosis was provided.

A physician once confided in me that for the majority of his cases he was unable to identify the reason for the physical complaint but he nevertheless provided some diagnosis and a prescription for a pill. “If I didn’t,” he said, “my patients would feel that they wasted their money by coming to see me.” I then asked him how he felt about misleading his patients in this way. “Well,” he replied, “if my patients feel that I have made a real diagnosis and prescribed some pills, they feel a sense of being reassured and the pills can have a placebo effect which may be very curative in its own way.”

“The pills that you prescribe,” I replied, “are not simply substances with no physical effects beside the placebo effect, they have a number of real serious side effects associated with their use. Is that really ethical?”

“Well, the physical side effects often help the placebo effect because the patient feels something is really physically happening. It is part of what reassures them that what was prescribed has a powerful effect. When weighing the risk of serious side effects versus the minor side effects that can be helpful, I make my decisions on what to prescribe.”

And so, that’s a little of my understanding of the reasoning behind this type of misleading name-calling and prescribing practices of physicians dealing with physical complaints. I prefer honesty. However, for those who prefer this fatherly treatment that is mixed with huge financial interests, I’m advocating that they continue to get what they want.

Now, once third party payers began to provide coverage for mental health services, their administrative forms didn’t have to be changed. There was already a precedent for placing in the “diagnosis” box on the form fake diagnoses, and psychiatrists seeing that this business model was a source of a great deal of money created the DSM.

What would be a Reasonable Alternative to the DSM?

For those who prefer to be treated honestly, can an alternative to the DSM be developed?

The alternative I’ve been working on is called The Classification and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Concerns, or, for short, the CSM. With this approach, no individuals would be classified, only their expressed concerns.

With the CSM proposal, all that we would be asking insurance companies to do differently in order to add value to their customers, is to slightly change that little box that currently requires a diagnosis or a word pretending to be a diagnosis. Instead of just saying “Diagnosis” as it currently says, that box would just 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.

The cost and efforts for insurance companies would be minimal, and we would have numerous testimonials from customers that documents that this change would be viewed as a significant improvement.

Now, some of the insurance company executives might pause and say, “Wait a minute. You’re asking us to permit the use of the CSM as an alternative to the DSM. Just wait a minute. The DSM has been developed by mental health experts and is backed by a major mental health professional organization—the American Psychiatric Association. Does the CSM have that type of authority to back it up?”

If we prepared for this, we will be able to answer that the CSM was also developed by mental health experts and does have several mental health professional organizations backing up its use as an alternative to the DSM. I believe this can be achieved. We have in our alternatives group several people who would qualify as mental health experts, and I think we can get some more involved as well. And when the latest edition of the DSM was released several professional organizations expressed a strong desire that an alternative to the DSM be developed. I think it’s reasonable to assume that at least some of them would agree to back this alternative, especially if we involve them in its development.

In short, the creation of the CSM would permit us to present to insurance company executives and other third party payer administrators a real alternative to the DSM. It would be virtually cost free for them to permit its use, it would have the authority of being developed by experts in the mental health field, the backing of mental health professional organizations, and it adds value for a significant number of their customers.

The CSM Would also Help Mental Health Service Providers

Now, besides the insurance companies and other third party payers, the other big group of people in America that is currently using the DSM is mental health services providers. How would they react to being given the choice to replace the DSM code with the CSM code on third party payer forms when they felt in their professional judgment that it was appropriate? Well, we get a little sense of what their reaction would be from a survey Paula Caplan tells us about in her book, They Say You’re Crazy. According to this survey, over 70 percent of those practitioners who responded to the survey said that the only way they use the DSM is to fill out the insurance form. Other than that, it doesn’t help them at all.

To those who believe that the use of the current DSM terminology helps to enhance the placebo effect of treatment, keep in mind that this is a testable theory. We can arrange for studies that compare the outcomes of service providers that utilize the DSM coding system with service providers that employ the CSM coding system. But that would be an approach that employs basic principles of science, rather than unsupported claims backed by enormous financial interests.

——————————-

Tags disrespectful, DSM, insults, insurance companies, mental disorders, mental health, mental health services, mental illness, name calling, psychiatric disorders, psychiatry

conflict resolution Name calling

Name Calling by Psychiatrists: Is it Time to Put a Stop to it?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date September 8, 2014
55 Comments on Name Calling by Psychiatrists: Is it Time to Put a Stop to it?

On one fine spring day, I was sitting on a Central Park bench and two women were sitting one bench just to my right reading their newspapers. Suddenly, one of them cried out, “Sophie, can you believe this! The story I’m reading here, oh my God! This young boy, seventeen years old mind you, the same age as my Jonathan, he’s struggling with ideas about suicide. Seventeen years old, his whole life before him and he wants to kill himself. What would lead a boy to this?”

“Such a young boy, Bessie?”

“Yes. My God.”

“He must have some type of mental illness.”

“Oh, you’re right, Sophie. I just glanced at the next paragraph, and a psychiatrist explains that the boy has a mental illness called major depressive disorder.”

With that explanation, the two women nodded to one another, and continued on to another story, seemingly satisfied that they now knew why the boy was dealing with this issue.

This notion that when a psychiatrist says someone has a mental illness, or some type of mental illness, that this offers a valid explanation for why the person is struggling with personal difficulties is, as far as I’m concerned, a bunch of nonsense. Just before the incident in the park, I had seen a performance of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, which tells the story of a boy about the same age as the one in the story Bessie was reading and is also struggling with feelings of committing suicide. As Shakespeare’s story unfolds, the audience is presented with a character that has motivations, conflicts, frustrations, disturbing situations and emotions. In the end, I left with some insights into why a character such as Hamlet might struggle with feelings of suicide.

In my opinion, even a play, which lasts but two or three hours, can only provide in its narrative a simplified account of what real life stories are all about. And yet, in today’s world, for many people a very different type of play is sufficient for providing the reason why someone is dealing with a challenging concern. This new type of play begins with the curtain rising. A character says to the audience he is struggling with feelings of suicide. A psychiatrist then proclaims the character has the mental disorder known as major depressive disorder, and then the curtain comes down. That’s the whole play. And people walk away fully satisfied that an adequate explanation has been provided.

When psychiatrists start calling people names, they get them from a book called The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). They claim that they are not just calling people names, but, instead, they are making a diagnosis. Diagnosis, as it is defined in Wikipedia, “is the identification of the nature and cause of anything” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnosis).

It would be reasonable to assume, therefore, that the DSM would assist in identifying the nature and causes of the types of personal concerns that come to be called mental disorder. But the DSM uses a descriptive approach that attempts to be neutral with respect to theories of the nature and cause of the various “disorders” that it describes. Therefore, referring to the DSM as a “diagnostic” manual is contrary to reason.

My Personal Understanding of the Nature of Diagnosis

When I was fifteen years old, I was tackled hard in a football game. After the pile of tacklers got off of me, I found that when I tried to put any weight on my left leg I felt excruciating pain. Shortly after this unwelcome discovery, I arrived at the Coney Island Hospital. A doctor asked a few questions and decided to take an x-ray of my left leg. Minutes later, he showed me the x-ray, and pointed to where a bone in my leg was broken. His “diagnosis” was that my left leg had a fractured fibula.

Now, what if the doctor did not take an x-ray, but instead just said to me after he asked me a few questions, “Your problem is that you have ‘Major Inability to Stand Disorder.’” Making such a statement, as far as I am concerned, is quite different from what the doctor did when he took an x-ray, looked it over, and declared that my left leg had a fractured fibula. To refer to both types of statements as examples of the same thing—that is, a diagnosis—makes it more difficult to see this difference.

Consider, if you will, another situation. A few years ago I had trouble starting my Ford Pinto. I brought the car in and the mechanic provided me a theory that perhaps I needed a new starter. This, it seemed to me, was his initial theoretical diagnosis. He then inspected the starter and found that it was in fine shape. Thus, his original theory of what was wrong proved incorrect. He then theorized that my spark plugs were dirty. He took a look and found that they were indeed dirty. He cleaned them up, put them back in their proper place, and the car started right up. In the end, as far as I was concerned, he “diagnosed” what was wrong with my car as having dirty spark plugs. If the mechanic had instead just asked me a few questions, and then told me that the problem with my car was that it had “Major Non-starting Disorder,” then this to me is something very different than “diagnosing” my car’s problem.

The DSM, by claiming it is a manual for making diagnoses, masks the difference between the following two statements:

1. “You have a fractured fibula.”
2. “You have ‘Major Inability to Stand Disorder.’”

Similarly, the DSM, by claiming it is a manual for making diagnoses, masks the difference between making the following two statements:

1. “My theory for why your car is not starting is it has dirty spark plugs.”
2. “Your car is not starting because it has ‘Major Non-starting Disorder.’”

In both of these examples, the number “1” statements offer some theory for understanding the cause for what we believe has gone wrong. The number “2” statements just restate the expressed concern about something we believe has gone wrong in some technical terminology. The DSM actually is just a classification system for expressed mental health concerns, and it would be far more accurate if it honestly said so.

Classification

A major reason why scientists classify is to speed up the process of obtaining useful information. The classification, when useful, is a labor-saving contrivance. Let’s look at an example that makes this vividly clear.

Biology Example

Suppose a biologist named Steve comes upon a whale for the first time. He has never seen such a creature before. He wants to learn more about it. He observes that it is a vertebrate, gives live birth to its offspring, and uses mammary glands to feed its offspring. Once this is observed, Steve can see if other biologists have collected any information on this creature by looking in a book that uses a certain classification system. By looking in the book under mammals, which has a pretty clear definition, he can save an enormous amount of time because he will not have to bother looking at all the insects, birds, and reptiles. This saves him from needlessly examining millions of specific listings—a clear time saver.

I hypothesize that there would be no significant difference between the so-called diagnosis system called the DSM and a classification system that simply classifies expressed personal concerns in retrieving valued scientific information. In an article that I published in The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, I fully explain this concern alternative (see HERE).

Briefly, with the concern approach individuals would not be classified, only their expressed concern. If I want to find out about any scientific studies that looked at different ways that addressed concerns about depression, in Google Scholar I can now simply put in the search engine— “depression, treatments.” Without adding the words “major” and “disorder” in the search engine, I can currently get numerous relevant hits. If the new concern classification system was adopted, soon the term “addressing concerns” would be receiving the same number of relevant hits that I now get by using the search term “treatment.” Thus, this scientific requirement would be amply fulfilled without using the search terms of “major depressive disorder” and “treatment.”

The DSM and the concern classification system would both serve a valuable scientific function—the retrieving of relevant scientific information in a time- saving manner. The accepted term for such a system in science is “classification,” not “diagnosis.” If “diagnosis” was clearly recognized as a perfect synonym for “classification” then it wouldn’t matter which term was used. But “diagnosis” indicates that something more than classification is being provided in the DSM, whereas the concern classification system would make no such claim. The concern system would not seek to present itself as something that it can’t back up as accurate. And it avoids the negative name calling of people that so many find offensive and stigmatizing.

Another Problem with Psychiatric Name Calling

Furthermore, when psychiatrists provide a so-called “diagnosis” of a mental disorder it indicates that there is something wrong with the person. This masks an alternative possibility. It is very possible that the experiences typically being diagnosed as mental disorders are more aptly construed as tools. That is, 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. Similarly, there are numerous people who have had the experiences that are said to be diagnosed in the DSM as a mental disorder, who report that the experience ended up helping them to achieve enormous benefits; whereas, others became ambivalent, and others agree that they proved to be all bad. It may be very true that it is up to each one of us to find the wisdom to use these tools for good.

The percentage of people who report that the experiences now referred to in the DSM as mental disorders turned out to be good, bad or mixed is a question for science. Mental health practitioners when using the DSM participate in proclaiming that all of these experiences are all bad, thus masking these vitally important variations of experiences.

A scientific classification system is better when it helps us to see things of interest more clearly, rather than to mask them. The classification system of mental health concerns would serve to break us out of the DSM cloister of words and reopen us to the source of our experience.

——————————-

Tags criticism, DSM, insults, major depressive disorder, mental disorder, mental health concerns, mental illness, name calling, personal concerns, psychiatry, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

anger bullying conflict management conflict resolution criticism insults internet bullying

Internet Meanies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illustration by Credit Kristian Hammerstad — Illustration by
Kristian Hammerstad

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

Moreover,

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

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

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

Have a great week!

Jeff

——————————-

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

Abraham and Isaac Bible change conflict resolution free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum negative criticism psychological maturity wisdom

Conflict Resolution and The Wisdom of Abraham

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date August 21, 2014
2 Comments on Conflict Resolution and The Wisdom of Abraham

Sometimes we observe people doing things that seem terribly wrong. We may then find, welling up from within, an urgent desire to provide negative criticism.

In earlier posts, in an effort to provide some guidance on how to avoid expressing our concerns in a form that can potentially make a bad situation far worse, I provided a description of 5 levels of maturity for providing negative criticism (see HERE). In many situations, by simply attempting to create a communication that is consistent with the level 5 description, we end up dramatically improving our chance to make a valuable difference. But there are certain subtle situations that require special considerations.

Sometimes the actions you hope to change are intertwined with certain entrenched worldviews. In these types of situations, to expect to encourage people all at once to make what might seem to them to be some enormous change, might be way too much to expect. How better to deal with these situations? In today’s post, I’m going to present a parable that I hope you will find helpful when dealing with these types of situations.

This little parable is based on a story that appears in the bible about Abraham. I’ve taken some creative license in its telling, and based on this altered narrative, I’ve come up with a dramatically different literary interpretation of its meaning than the typical religious interpretation of the actual biblical story. For those who have a deep sense of religion, I don’t mean any disrespect. I do realize that by using a biblical story in this way I may grate upon tender associations, but I simply am unable at this point to derive any alternative that contains this story’s emotional impact. In no way am I attempting to claim that it has some sort of religious authority that some of you may feel for the actual biblical story.

With that said, I now present the story of “The Wisdom of Abraham.”

The Wisdom of Abraham

A few thousand years ago a man named Abraham lived in a village whose inhabitants followed the religion of Ba’al. The village was bound to the economy of the land that depended on the regularity and adequacy of the rains. Anxiety about the rainfall was a continuing concern of the inhabitants and this gave rise to rites to ensure the coming of the rains.

Many of the elders of the community remembered a drought that was so severe that over half the village died of starvation. After that terrible year, some of the Ba’al leadership prayed and reported that their god had spoken to them and commanded that to avoid another similar severe drought the people of the village must sacrifice a couple’s first born child. The people reluctantly obeyed, and from that point on there had never been another drought quite as bad.

Now, in this community, it came to pass that Abraham had a wife, Sara, who, after many, many frustrating years of trying, she, at long last, became pregnant. When the community members heard about this, they all gathered in the village square.

The leader of the community, Hareesh, took out a knife with a golden handle encrusted with sparkling jewels. “Abraham,” Hareesh cried out so all could hear, “after all of your difficulties in getting Sara pregnant you have finally succeeded. God will indeed appreciate your great sacrifice when your child is born. All in the village are so fortunate, for because of your great sacrifice we will surely have a wonderful rainy season and our crops will be bountiful. Let us all thank god.”

“Well, um,” Abraham began to stutter, “um, well I know that in the past it was our tradition to sacrifice our first born child, but, um…”

“Abraham!” cried Hareesh in a booming voice, “there will be no buts about this matter. You will follow the will of god!”

Abraham saw the look on the face of this leader, and he glanced quickly over the faces of the others in the village and it was plain that if he was to object any more he and his wife would be put to the fire, and so he held his tongue.

On the day that Sara gave birth, all again gathered in the village square. And there stood Hareesh with the golden handled, jewel-encrusted knife. “Abraham,” he cried out, “do you want me to do the deed, or do you wish to do the deed yourself?”

“Last night,” Abraham replied, “I prayed and prayed, and then, just as I heard the first cry of my new born son, god oh mighty spoke to me and he did command me to do as other village fathers have done before me. God commanded that I indeed must sacrifice my son. Because of all that Sara and I went through to have this son, god has ordered that this sacrifice must occur in a special holy place up in the mountain in the region known as Mariah. I’m to take my best ram with me for it is a two-day journey to the special holy place and he will help to carry my supplies. I will also take two of my most capable servants. Give me the sacrificial knife and I will follow god’s commandment.”

“Abraham,” cried Hareesh as he fingered the gold handled jewel encrusted knife,” you must do the deed just as god has commanded. But bring back the dead body of your son so we can give him the respected burial he well deserves.” And then Hareesh handed the knife over to Abraham.

And so, Abraham took his son, along with his ram, and two servants up to the mountain. A few days later he returned with his son very much alive. Following beside him was Abraham’s two servants carrying the ram, which was dead, and it had the sacrificial knife stuck in him.

As soon as Abraham had been spotted descending from the mountain, the people of the village began to gather.

“Abraham, your son is still alive!” boomed Hareesh. “What is the meaning of this?!”

“Well,” said Abraham, “I did as god had commanded. On the third day of my journey, I looked up and saw the holy place in the distance. I said to my servants, “Stay here while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then I will come back to you, having sacrificed my son, Isaac.”

“I placed my son on the holy site, and just as I reached back with the knife in my hand, the Lord called out to me from heaven, ‘Abraham! Abraham!’

“‘Here I am,’ I replied.

“And the lord said to me, ‘Do not lay a hand on the boy. Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you are my loyal servant, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son. And I can see within you, Abraham, how hard it is to bring yourself to do this deed. I am a merciful god, and therefore, from now on no one in your village shall ever sacrifice their first born as a sacrifice for me. Instead, you must sacrifice one of your finest rams.”

“And so, I followed the lord’s commandment and, as you can plainly see, I killed the ram with the sacrificial knife.”

And as Abraham finished his story, his servants laid the dead lamb at the feet of the crowd standing before him. And suddenly a great cry rose up from one segment of the crowd, and Abraham saw that it was from all of the women who were currently pregnant. They were crying that the lord was merciful, and tears were running down their faces. They fell to their knees, yelling, Thank you oh merciful lord, thank you.” And the husbands, realizing they would not have to kill their first born, also began to cry out, “Thank you oh merciful lord, thank you!” And there followed quickly another wave of cries. This time it was from all of the young men and women who had recently married and knew that if this new change had not occurred, they too would have had to sacrifice their first born, and they were greatly pleased. And then, even the men who had sacrificed their own first born, seeing how thrilled their own young sons and daughters were at Abraham’s story, also began to thank god for being so merciful.

Now, Hareesh, and some of his followers, were somewhat skeptical of what Abraham had said, but seeing the great passionate joyful response from almost everyone in the crowd, he held his tongue. Later the leader said, “We will see how the rains come, and if there is a drought, we will know the truth.”

When the rainy season did come, there were at times some ups and downs. But, in the end, overall, there was great agreement that there had been an excellent harvest, and the people were pleased.

The following year, one day, Abraham, who had now become greatly respected in the village, announced to the people that while he was praying, the lord once again spoke to him, saying that he saw that many of the good people of the village who dutifully sacrificed their finest ram each year, were deeply grieved upon doing so. And therefore, the lord, being merciful, has now commanded me to tell you that no longer will we have to sacrifice a ram once a year, instead we must make a sacrifice by fasting once a year for a whole day, from sundown to the next sundown.

Now, most of the people liked this new change, but there were a growing number of villagers who felt that Abraham was beginning to take them too far away from the old ways. And this feeling grew. And in those days, people felt that the only way to settle this was to set up a war council meeting, plan a date to violently fight it out, and those who survived got their way.

But, on the day of the war council meeting, Abraham had many of his biggest warriors standing beside him. And he announced that while he was praying that morning, the lord again had spoken to him and he said, “Among those who want to follow the old ways I see that there are many with beautiful souls, and are good god fearing people. And among those who want to follow you, Abraham, there are also many with beautiful souls, and are good god fearing people. Both groups must live side by side in peace. And so I command that those who want to follow the old ways are to be free to do so, and those who want to follow my instructions to you, Abraham, are to be free to do so. Let both groups live together in peace.”

Many of the villagers were perplexed by this and said, “Hmmm, we can do that? You mean we don’t have to kill each other to decide this. Those who want to live the old way can live as they wish, and others can follow god’s instructions to Abraham?”

“Yes,” said Abraham. “Now let us all go in peace.”

The villagers who had been unhappy with Abraham, looked over at the big guys that Abraham had standing beside him, they looked over at Abraham and thought he was a pretty decent guy, and they started to warm up to this idea. And as the days passed, peace was found throughout the land.

Well, that’s my post for this week.

My Best,

Jeff

——————————-

Tags Abraham, Abraham and Isaac, conflict management, conflict resolution, dispute management, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, maturity, maturity levels, parable, The Bible, types of criticism, violence, wisdom

conflict management conflict resolution crying MATURITY relationships social intelligence

My Answer to the Question, Are People Who Cry When Criticized Immature?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date August 10, 2014
7 Comments on My Answer to the Question, Are People Who Cry When Criticized Immature?

Recently, I wrote a post titled, “Responding to Criticism by Crying: Is it a Sign of Immaturity?” In that post I explained that I had, in earlier posts, put forth a model of how to respond maturely to criticism. To help readers to rate their own skill level, and that of others, I had outlined five levels of maturity. Level 1 was viewed as the most immature level, level 2 as a little more mature, and so on (see HERE for a full description of the first 4 levels of maturity, and see HERE for a description of level 5, the most mature level). Level 1 had been described as follows:

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

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

As you can see from this description of level 1, I had come to believe that weeping or sobbing with tears was best to view as one of the most immature responses. I then explained several reasons why I had come to believe that, but I won’t repeat them here. I then wrote that since I came up with the five levels of maturity, I had met some individuals who seem rather remarkably mature to me in many ways, and yet they had revealed to me that they find themselves crying quite often when they are criticized. They say that they are very sensitive individuals, that they don’t hurt anyone or anything when they go through this experience, and that I should consider removing crying from the description of the lowest level. As I thought about this, I thought it would help me if I propose a change to my readers, ask for feedback, and only then make my decision whether or not to make the change. I ended that post as follows:

Proposed Change

Weeping, sobbing and crying will only be viewed as the lowest level of maturity if the person responding to criticism does nothing else but that, or if he or she does that along with the other lowest level responses such as physically attacking the criticizer or damaging property. If, after crying, he or she then begins to display responses consistent with level 4 or 5, crying will no longer be viewed as a sign of immaturity.

Although I could make this change after I get some feedback, I hasten to point out that it won’t change the fact that many people will still consider crying in the face of criticism as a sign of immaturity. Some will lose respect for those who cry.

Perhaps these sensitive individuals can help to reduce the lack of respect that they might encounter. They can explain that their sensitivity helps them to more deeply consider the criticism. Moreover, they might suggest that for people who feel uncomfortable around someone crying, they can provide the criticism at first by email, snail mail or voice mail. This will allow the sensitive person time to process the criticism. Then, a follow-up meeting to further process the criticism can be arranged.

I hope to hear from readers on this.

After I published this, I received more feedback on this post than anything I had previously written. It came mostly from several Facebook groups I belong to, but also from a couple of professional organizations as well. Today I’d like to share with you several of these comments, and then provide my new description of level 1.

The Feedback

The first three comments came from psychologists.

I have read your material, and tend to agree w/ you. It appears to me to qualify for a level 1 response, as it reflects a lack of (age appropriate ) skill development (if it is not a reflection of serious cognitive inefficiency in general). It does invite further negative input from the criticizer and others. It increases the victims sense of vulnerability. There are many other alternatives which could be modeled or practiced — even if they are not available for immediate accessing by the victim. In this sense, I agree with Dr. Phil (who I many times don’t agree) “Fake it till you make it”

Dr. Charles Morrissey school psychologist and lic.clinical psychologist NY

Hi Jeff,

Your query is very intriguing to me. As a psychodynamic therapist, I have found that crying can occur when a criticism becomes associated with an old psychological wound that has yet to be fully processed (e.g., perhaps the criticism sounds like something painful someone heard from his/her mother repeatedly, but they did not recognize this past hurt until it was activated by the current criticism). I hope this example makes sense. I like your revision and think it takes into account such a consideration. I hope that helps!

Take care,

Ashley

Ashley Curiel, Psy.D.

Jeff, you write (I think correctly) that, regardless of any adjustments you make in your hierarchy, you “hasten to point out that it won’t change the fact that many people will still consider crying in the face of criticism as a sign of immaturity. Some will lose respect for those who cry.” I suspect that many will considering crying a sign of “weakness,” an even more damaging judgment than “immaturity” in many social and vocational settings. (I admit to some confusion about the strength-weakness continuum as it has sometimes been explained to me, where compassion was considered “weakness” and aggression a sign of “strength.”)

I wonder how much the context of the criticism matters in this analysis. If a grad school classmate told me I was “incredibly stupid” because I did not know some obscure fact about endocrinology, I could probably have shot at a Level 4 (well, at least 3) response, especially if I had been getting all As in my courses and making great progress on my dissertation while anticipating a return to a secure and fulfilling job. However, I might well cry upon hearing the same words from the chair of my dissertation committee a week before my defense, especially if the time limit on my doctoral program was almost exhausted, I was struggling to make payments on the second mortgage I had taken out to pay for the doctoral program, and my new job was contingent on my receiving the doctoral degree by the end of the school year.

You are obviously correct that most individuals cry less readily in the face of criticisms and other stresses as they become older, which does fit a “maturity” continuum, but there do seem to be individual differences in general readiness to cry when criticized, when singing the national anthem on Memorial Day, when watching a sad movie, or in moments of joy. Some folks also think there are gender differences involved.

Thanks for sharing these posts with us.

John Willis

The rest of the comments came from members of Facebook groups that I belong to.

Phoebe Âû Perlman-Miller

Thank you Jeffrey. I had a few thoughts about your article in so much as I think that we have to be careful about labelling someone who cries, as a response to criticism, as immature. I think context is important and needs to be appreciated, and the nature of the conflict or the criticism needs to be explained. Crying is a pretty normal response to grief, stress, sadness etc., and isn’t something that the “crier” should automatically be ashamed of or guilty about, nor is it a reaction to which the other party, or parties, should automatically attach shame or blame. We expect people to be able to manage their emotions and to control themselves physically, but sometimes I think that this expectation can be a little unreasonable although, again, context is everything. Crying is a reaction which is generally triggered by a heightened emotional state, and sometimes it is difficult, even for the most emotionally mature or emotionally intelligent person, to manage to balance out their threat and soothing/calming systems, depending on what has just been triggered for them. There are also, in genuine cases of distress (not the “crocodile” tear brigade), things going on in the automatic nervous system which make it difficult not to cry once the emotion has kicked in, such as the opening up of the glottis, the muscle controlling the opening from the back of the throat to the voice box, causing the “lump in the throat” feeling which often accompanies crying. Sipping water and deliberate yawning are techniques which help to release tension in throat muscles when this happens but I don’t imagine that these will automatically spring to mind when someone is in the middle of a conflict situation and, indeed, deliberate yawning might be taken the wrong way and exacerbate the matter. I think that a great proportion of those who cry when criticised do indeed use tears as part of an immature or manipulative or inappropriate response, because they know no other way of expressing or managing their distress or anger or fear etc., but I don’t think that it will be the case in every instance. I have known some of the most “together” and emotionally mature people to crack under sufficient levels of pressure (those who were criticising were certainly deliberately pushing buttons and hitting below the belt), and to cry despite obviously not wanting to, and they were certainly not wanting this physical manifestation of their emotional state to take centre stage in the interaction. Their response happened to be accompanied by some tears, but those tears were not central to their response, and certainly were not being used in a manipulative manner, nor were they accompanied by aggression or any other inappropriate behaviours, such as shouting or hitting or abuse of any kind. I think we need to look at the skills sets of both the criticisers and the criticised, and make a judgement based on the bigger picture – a somewhat wide-angled approach. Also, while I think that those who use tears to manipulate should not be allowed to gain any traction with such behaviour, I would hate to think that we “condition” people not to cry – there is a “stiff upper lip” stigma already in many societies which can be and is emotionally damaging, especially for men. We need to respect the fact that crying is natural and helpful and healing and cathartic, while also helping people manage their emotions and their conflicts using appropriate language and careful, respectful, assertive forms of communication.

Âûnty Jack

I think this depends a great deal on the type of criticism. Careful constructive criticism would be less likely to evoke tears especially if, for example, the sandwich technique was used – strength, need, strength. I think still, it is possible that someone who is tired and stressed might break down – perhaps consider that human if it is an atypical response. If the response to considered criticism and I am not talking about victimization, provoking, harassment or brutal comments, is always tears, the person may be highly manipulative, rather than immature.

Peter Rafferty

Sometimes a criticism may tap into something from childhood, to which the natural response is to cry. Crying could also be seen as mourning for a parent who criticised a child, but because of the child’s inability to cry in front of the parent, will cry in front of a therapist. Even if crying is accompanied by anger, it may display a need that the inner child is unconsciously displaying – perhaps an insecure, anxious attachment that needs to be addressed.

Kerrie Moor

Your level 1 change pleased me ..

Kerrie Moor

My response to many things are tears.:

Abrar Pirzada

Crying can only mean to show your sensitvity for a certain moment or thing!

Carmen Hipps Prettyman

IMO, crying releases all the pent up anguish that is toxic, it is a way to cleanse. On the other hand, it can also be an overwhelming emotion that can only be expressed through the release of the flow of tears….words just can’t express some of the emotions we feel…good or bad!!!

Franciane Thonet

Sometimes, criticism can remind someone of a bad place in their Life, re-open a wound that never was quite healed..I agree with no right or wrong here.

Ellen Cohen

Crying is natural and very human. If you feel that you want to cry as a response, then cry! Your feelings are your feelings. There’s no right or wrong feelings.

And so, those are some of the many thoughtful responses that I received. After giving them a great deal of thought, I have now decided that in future posts, when I describe the five levels of maturity, I’ll word the first level as follows: 1. This level requires displaying one or more of the following:

Weeps or sobs with tears or pouts and then does nothing else to address the criticism. (Some mature people are very sensitive and do cry on occasion when criticized. If they cry and also address the criticism in a manner that is consistent with level 4 or 5, crying is not viewed as a sign of immaturity.)
Physically attacks the criticizer
Damages property

Although this is my plan for the future, I am always open to hearing additional comments and suggestions for improving the wording of all of the five levels of maturity. My Best, Jeff

——————————-

Tags conflict management, conflict resolution, constructive criticism, criticism, crying, dig for the conflict, dispute management, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, negative criticism, tears, weeping

conflict management conflict resolution criticism crying free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum

Responding to Criticism by Crying: Is it a Sign of Immaturity?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date July 27, 2014
28 Comments on Responding to Criticism by Crying: Is it a Sign of Immaturity?

Readers of this blog know that I have put forth a model of how to respond maturely to criticism. To help readers to rate their own skill level, and that of others, I have, in earlier posts, outlined five levels of maturity. Level 1 is viewed as the most immature level, level 2 is viewed as a little more mature, and so on. Let’s take a quick look at the first four levels:

Four 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.

The Most Immature Level

As you can see from the description of level 1, if you respond to criticism with weeping or sobbing with tears, this is viewed as among the responses viewed as very immature. I have placed this type of response at level 1 for three reasons.

First, I recalled that when I was very young, at times when I was criticized I would start to cry. As I became older, I didn’t cry as much to such provocations. And now, even when facing the most harsh levels of criticism, I’m pretty cool with it. From these recollections, it seemed to me that I had gone through some developmental levels as I became at least physically more mature, and part of this involved a reduction in crying when criticized.

Second, as I spoke to others, I found that this developmental change of crying less and less in the face of criticism as they became older is rather typical.

Finally, when I observed people crying in response to criticism, often people said things like the person was a cry baby or acting like a baby. Since I have argued that one reason to respond to criticism in a manner that matches the more mature levels is because it increases the respect people have for us, it didn’t make sense to put crying into one of the higher level descriptions when it appeared to decrease the respect that people had for the criers.

But, since I came up with the five levels of maturity, I have met some individuals who seem rather remarkably mature to me in many ways, and yet they have revealed to me that they find themselves crying quite often when they are criticized. They say that they are very sensitive individuals, that they don’t hurt anyone or anything when they go through this experience, and that I should consider removing crying from the description of the lowest level.

Well, therefore, let me propose a change to you, my readers, and see what you think.

Proposed Change

I hope to hear from readers on this.

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 conflict management, crying, dispute management, Five levels of responding to criticism, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, individuals, negative criticism, responding to criticism: levels of maturity

conflict resolution criticism free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum negative criticism respect wisdom

Dealing with Criticism: A Calvin and Hobbes Lesson

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date July 24, 2014
2 Comments on Dealing with Criticism: A Calvin and Hobbes Lesson

For most of us, improving our skills at dealing with criticism takes some practice. If we do this in a safe situation in which we will not expose ourselves to potential embarrassment, we can think more clearly about what is going on. Once we become very clear about how we would like to handle various situations involving criticism, it becomes easier to apply these skills during actual critical moments.

In several previous posts , I presented ideas about recognizing when subtle forms of criticism are occurring. Let’s apply this skill as we study the following delightful comic:

Calvin and Miss Wormwood

First Task: Here we see Miss Wormwood asking Calvin to put his stuffed tiger in his locker. As she does so, is she at the same time providing any negative criticism? Take a few seconds to answer this question and see if you can provide a defense of your position. After you have completed your answer, I’ll provide mine.

My Answer: In my view, Miss Wormwood does provide Calvin negative criticism when she asks him to put away his “tiger” in his locker. It is an implied form of negative criticism, but negative criticism nevertheless. My reason is that it seems to me that Miss Wormwood has evaluated where Calvin has placed his “tiger,” she doesn’t like it, and she has decided that she would prefer it to be placed instead in his locker.

You may recall that according to Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary “criticize” means, “1: to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly : EVALUATE”

Because “criticism” is so often associated with an unfavorable evaluation, to avoid confusion, on this blog we have been distinguishing between the various types of criticism by using the word negative criticism for unfavorable evaluations, neutral criticism for evaluations that leave the evaluator feeling neither positive nor negative about what has been evaluated, and positive criticism for favorable evaluations.

Second Task: In the next panel of the comic, Calvin responds to Miss Wormwood’s criticism. Please take a good look at how he does so:

Below, I’m going to provide the first 4 levels of maturity for responding to criticism. If you will, take a look at them and see what level best describes Calvin’s response. After you answer, you’ll be able to compare it to mine:

Four 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.

Okay, I’m hoping you will now make your decision at what level best matches Calvin’s response.

My Answer: I think that somewhere between a level 2 and a level 3 makes sense to me. Calvin appears to be shouting at Miss Wormwood, which is clearly in the level three description. At the same time it seems to me that he criticizes his teacher’s criticism without first fully addressing her original criticism, which is clearly in the level 2 description. If I was rating Calvin’s response I would give him a 2.5. His response would have matched a higher level if he would have had something like the following exchange with his teacher:

“Miss Wormwood, I know you like to have everything we bring to show and tell put away after we’re done with that. How come?

“This way people won’t be tripping over stuff and the class is more neat.”

“Oh, that makes sense. But I don’t like to put Hobbes in the locker because he might suffocate. Can you please make an exception today.”

If Calvin had this type of conversation with his teacher, he would have first made sure he understood his teacher’s criticism and then respond directly to what her position was. Only after doing this, Calvin would have then moved on to respectfully make his request. Such an approach would have done an excellent job matching the level 4 description.

Third Task: In the above comic, when Calvin finishes up his response to Miss Wormwood’s criticism, he criticizes her polite request to put his “tiger”in his locker by crying out that “He’ll suffocate!” Miss Wormwood then responds to this criticism. Take a good look at her response:

I would now like you to see if you can decide what level of responding to criticism best matches Miss Wormwood’s response. To help you out, you can check the 4 levels that I already provided above, and, below, I’m going to also provide the description of level 5, which is the most mature level.

LEVEL FIVE. 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.

My Response: As I go about considering what level I would assign her response, first I notice that Miss Wormwood has not hit Calvin or put him down in any way and has heard out what Calvin had to say. Her response makes it pretty clear that she understands Calvin’s concern because she is no longer asking him to put Hobbes in his locker and has instead made a request that may be more agreeable to Calvin. This turns out to be a modified request Calvin can live with. Miss Wormwood has offered this change in her request even though she is unlikely to have agreed with Calvin that his stuffed tiger will suffocate if he is put in a locker.

Miss Wormwood uses steering in the direction the criticizer would prefer to go in coming up with her response. I’m rating her response pretty close to a 5.

Well, I hope you had some fun with this little practice session. Until next time, may you find all of your criticism experiences a window to wisdom.

Tags Calvin and Hobbes, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, dispute management, maturity levels, Miss Wormwood, negative criticism

conflict resolution empathy free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum Henry James meditation respect William James

Empathy, Kindness, and Maturity

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date July 10, 2014
3 Comments on Empathy, Kindness, and Maturity

“Rickey, you’re looking like you’re feeling blue,” I said softly to this 13-year boy I had been counseling for a few months. As I looked at him, I observed some sadness rising up within me.

“Ever since I remember, I always slept with my dog, Prince,” Rickey mournfully replied. “This morning, when I woke up, he was…he was…he was dead. He died!” A tear began to run down his cheek. “I really loved him, and now he’s dead!” More tears.

By now, a strong wave of sadness had washed over me. My voice became choked up, and no doubt my facial muscles twisted into a distinct look of deep concern. This reaction was not an act. I didn’t say to myself that the professional thing for me to do here is to appear concerned. My feelings of concern came to me as naturally as the warm feelings that come over me when I see a striking sunrise.

What is Empathy?

When we experience empathy we feel what we believe are the emotions of another. Empathy promotes prosocial behavior. For social beings, negotiating interpersonal decisions is as important to survival as being able to navigate the physical landscape. Empathy motivates individual behavior that aids in solving communal challenges as well as guide group decisions about social exchange. Its influence extends beyond relating to someone else’s emotions, it correlates with an increased positive state and likeliness to aid others.

Is Empathy a Sign of Maturity?

Empathy is not a type of skill that you either have or don’t have–it varies by degrees. It begins at a very early age. We see this when babies, upon hearing another baby cry, display signs of distress. And upon seeing a parent distressed while trying to reach for an object that is just out of reach, most toddlers will often crawl to the object and push it closer to the parent until the parent can pick it up.

As children get older, their empathy tends to increase. Boys, early in their teenage years tend to have a short period in which their empathy development goes a bit into reverse, but at about age 15, they begin to move forward again in developing this skill. This development tends to continue into young adulthood for both males and females, and for many, even well beyond. Since more fully developed skills of empathy tend to be more effective in achieving goals in the long run, people often view this as a sign of maturity.

Can Empathy be Learned?

Because empathy increases as a person gets older, we may become complacent when seeing our youth acting insensitive, or even downright cruel. We might simply chalk it up to immaturity, decide to rely on time itself to do its job to increase empathy, and therefore end up doing nothing to foster its development. In my view, this is a serious mistake. Many research studies have demonstrated that a number of methods can be used to increase empathy, and it makes sense that we utilize them to benefit individuals and their communities.

Methods that Increase Empathy

We can teach children to reach more mature levels of empathy in several ways. For example, when we read to them, we can pause from time to time and ask how each of the characters in the stories are probably feeling. If one of them is likely to be sad, we can express sadness in our face, thereby modeling an empathic response. We can then ask, “If the sad character was a friend of yours, what do you think would be a kind thing to do?” When the child comes up with a helpful suggestion, we could enthusiastically express our agreement that such an act would indeed be kind and then say that we respect people who are kind. If the character is happy, we can model the expression of happiness and ask a few questions about why the character is happy.

Here’s another idea. Have children learn on a daily basis in cooperative groups. Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning. Research has demonstrated that when this happens often enough, students not only learn more, they enhance their skill at getting along and increase their empathy. In these studies, throughout the day there was time for the development of individual goals, but daily students had to learn to function under cooperative conditions as well.

Although to my knowledge cooperative learning research has been studied exclusively within school settings, I believe families can effectively use this approach. For example, whenever the family goes on an outing, a parent can say something like, “Let’s all work together to make this a great time. Before we go, let’s take a few minutes to think up some ways we can all chip in to make this happen.” Then, each member of the family takes a turn suggesting what he or she can do to cooperate to achieve this shared goal. During the trip, parents can make sure they notice whenever someone is cooperating and play it up as being very appreciated.

For older children, and for us grown-ups as well, the most consistent way to increase empathy is through meditation. In an earlier post (see here) I presented a detailed description of a simple form of meditation and presented the scientific evidence for practicing this ancient art to reduce stress and ruminating on angry memories. Well, as it turns out, practicing meditation has been shown to also increase empathy, along with its close relative, kindness.

By the way, one of my favorite kindness stories involves the psychologist and philosopher, Professor William James, his son, Willie, and the professor’s brother, the esteemed writer, Henry James.

The two brothers. Henry is on the left and Professor William James is on the right — Henry is on the left and William James is on the right

A Story About Kindness

When Willie had grown to be a young man, a biographer who was working on a book about his recently deceased Uncle Henry, asked to speak with him.

“Did you get to know your Uncle Henry?” the biographer asked.

“Oh, yes. He would live with us for months at a time. When I was very young, I grew to love him because he took a very genuine interest in me. Most adults back then would just nod at me and maybe muss my hair, but Uncle Henry, he would take the time to engage me with challenging questions. Like he’d ask me what I had been thinking and feeling about things and people. And he always wanted to know what I thought other people were thinking and feeling. He had a nice, kind way of listening, too.”

“Can you recall for me a particular incident that occurred between you two that stands out in your mind that captures something special about your Uncle Henry?”

“Oh, yes.” Of all the events that occurred between Willie, the incident that stood out most vividly for him is the following:

One day, 9-year old Willie learned that his Uncle Henry was going abroad. The news saddened him for his absence would last a full year.

Upon Uncle Henry’s return to Cambridge, Massachusetts, the literary community entreated Willie’s dad, Professor William James, to throw a grand party for his brother to welcome him home and to discuss his latest literary achievements.

On the night of the party, Little Willie pleaded with his father to let him attend, but the professor insisted it was simply not a proper event for a young boy.

That night, Little Willie snuck out of his bedroom and peered through the banister posts at the top of the stairs. And when the grand proceedings began, oh, what a sight to remember.

All the great literary figures came—Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Nathaniel Hawthorn, and on and on. Each person who greeted Little Willie’s Uncle Henry did so with such awe and respect that Willie found this absolutely astonishing.

The next morning, Little Willie found Henry in the library already hard at work on his latest manuscript. Willie exclaimed, “Uncle Henry, Uncle Henry, the way everybody treated you last night, saying what a great man you are! Uncle Henry, what does it take for a man to be great?”

Henry smiled, put down his fountain pen, took a second or two to rub his chin, and then leaned forward toward Willie. “Willie, there are three things a man must do to be truly great. First, he must be kind; second, he must be kind; and third, he must be kind.”

Well, that’s my post for the week. Until next time, may you find the empathy within to remain ever mindful not to judge others by what you can or cannot see on the surface. Understand that the true wealth of individuals lies deep within, and it may be your kindness, caring and compassion that will tap into the riches of their souls.

———————————
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 cooperative learning, emotional intelligence, emotional maturity, empathy, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, Henry James, maturity, psychological maturity, respect, William James, wisdom