Welcome to From Insults to Respect.
Please consider the following quote by Mathias Risse of Harvard University:
“Surely, political debate about what America should be, and which kind of economic system it should have, must count among the most basic themes in democratic discourse.”
Add to this, if you will, that the very first amendment declares that U.S citizens have, as a basic right, freedom of speech.
There is something so basic about the value of free exchanges of views that we hardly ever question it. If we are moved to question it, there are research studies that document that such exchanges are the mechanism by which better solutions are found and better decisions are made. Providing readers here with a formal review of the literature discussing these studies is too lengthy a process for our current purposes. It will suffice for today, I think, if I merely encourage you to imagine yourself seeking justice for yourself in a court of law that provides only the prosecutor getting to make the case against you, without your having any opportunity to present your side. Such an image, it seems to me, provides more than enough intuitive understanding that hearing both sides of an issue is crucial for increasing the chance of arriving at just decisions.
Something Appears To Have Changed
Since Donald Trump has been reelected to the U.S. presidency, I have been hearing more and more from friends, family members, and neighbors about an increase in the number of people who are being unfriended because they have expressed their contrary political views. Thus, opportunities for lively exchanges of different views that had been a regular part of our democracy appear to have diminished.
When I use the term, “unfriending,” I am not referring to how the term is used on Facebook. Rather than referring to this type of internet relationships, I am referring to the ending of what I view as real life, actual in-person relationships. Here are a couple of examples: One guy I know, told me about two of his cousins with whom he has always been close since they were children. A few months after Trump’s reelection, he and his cousins had a conversation expressing different political views. Ever since, these two family members have been refusing to talk to him. When he has made his usual seasonal calls to wish them happy holiday and to catch up with family doings, they now hang up on him. Another person has told me about how, after a brief discussion with a neighbor regarding Trump’s healthcare policy, this neighbor has now begun to turn a cold shoulder to her whenever they pass one another.
In an effort to avoid unfriending, but also leading to a diminishing of exchanges between people with different views, I’ve been seeing more and more folks only willing to discuss political issues when they are among others they know are in agreement with them. These talks are enjoyed for the support that one gets from likeminded folks. If they are with people with whom they disagree regarding their positions, they avoid the discomfort of hearing contrary opinions by insisting they will not engage in discussing political topics.
If we add to this, the current media programming situation in which people can tune into shows that solely express opinions that completely agree with them, we can see why more and more in our society have been losing out on the value that comes from hearing a variety of opinions.
Can We Improve This Situation?
It can be argued that the reason for the changed situation is because Trump has been modeling insulting, disrespectful behavior. Among the insults that I have heard Trump use are “fat pigs” and “disgusting animals.” I observed him on national TV calling Senator Lindsey Graham “a stiff,” Governor Rick Perry “stupid,” and numerous other political opponents, idiots.” He has denigrated federal judges who ruled against his efforts as well as the chairman of the Federal Reserve for not lowering interest rates.
However, whenever Mr. Trump insults his opponents, many voters are apt to defend him by saying he isn’t doing anything much different than all the other politicians. Meanwhile, I’ve heard Trump, when criticized for his insulting style, defend himself by declaring that no one has been more maligned than he. And he can certainly point to instances in which he has indeed been maligned.
That said, permit me to suggest that in an effort to change the current situation in which our fellow citizens are less likely to share their differing political concerns, we leave this maligning issue behind. I just don’t think it likely to lead to anything productive. Instead, I would like you to consider some suggestions I have personally found helpful.
When a political issue comes up, I say I think the topic is very interesting. Then I encourage the person who first brought up the topic to express his or her opinion. I then give the person an opportunity to fully express it, without my throwing out any insults, or displaying behavior that could in anyway be viewed as disrespectful. I listen without expressing anger and will only interrupt to briefly ask for some clarification of what was said. People value being listened to, and I seek to provide this value.
When the person has clearly finished, I thank the person, summarize what was said, and add that what was said was very helpful to me. I then again thank the person. Then I say, “I’ve heard a different position and I would love to describe it and then get your reaction to it.” I have found that when expressed this way, most will let me proceed. As I describe the different opinion, I use no insults or any tone of voice that might suggest I am maligning the position the other party had expressed. I then ask respectfully for the reaction of the person who had been listening to me, and again I respectfully listen. If I see the person responds angrily, I don’t express return anger. When the person completes the reply, I again summarize what was said using a soft friendly voice and leave the exchange at that. If the person had responded civilly, I would be open to further expand the discussion. Otherwise, I leave the discussion with the hope that in due time both of us will further think about what was said.
This respectful exchange typically works very well for me, and I continue our relationship on friendly terms.
In situations in which people say they don’t want to discuss political issues, I gently encourage them to at least give me a try. I explain that I realize political discussions can get heated and lead to bad feelings, but, with me, they will find me listening respectfully and discuss the issues civilly. I also explain the value that comes from hearing diverse political views. If this leads to an agreement to go ahead with such a discussion, and the person with whom I am having a discussion starts to get heated, I encourage that we return to a civil style. If that doesn’t work, I let the person finish the point that is being made, without my returning the anger, and then suggest we take some time to calm down.
Well, there are my thoughts and suggestions for dealing with this type of situation. I surely encourage readers to express their views regarding this, even if they are contrary to my own.
My Best,
Jeff
———————————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Jack, in his mid-thirties, responded,
Back in 1966, psychologist Jack W. Brehm published a remarkable book entitled, A Theory of Psychological Reactance. In a nutshell, it states that people become motivationally aroused by a threat to or elimination of a behavioral freedom. This motivational state is what is called psychological reactance.
The words Sally uses when she hollers at Snoopy are interesting— “And who asked you?” It suggests that Sally feels that if she did not ask Snoopy for his opinion, he has no right to be giving his opinion. Sally’s view is quite common.
Welcome to From Insults To Respect. As regular readers well know, from time to time I present discussions about the value of dealing with criticism in a manner that can enhance the respect people have for us. I began these discussions by describing how I made a lot of TV shows with a variety of actors displaying different styles of responding to criticism. 
Then I asked a wide range of people over several years to watch the shows and discuss their reactions.
To familiarize readers with the five levels, from time to time, I provide real life examples of people dealing with criticism and then ask readers to rate how the criticism had been handled. This week, while thinking about what my next example might be, a new real life example arose as I watched a tennis match between Serena Williams and Naomi Osaka. The two stars were playing at the U.S. Open to determine which would be the women’s national champion.
Before providing the five levels, I want to make sure that readers understand that they are not to be viewed as items written in stone. There may be some situations that might alter someone’s view of what is an ideal response. And individuals are of course entitled to make their own personal set of levels. Nevertheless, the levels are useful because they are generally viewed by a wide range of people in a variety of situations to match their own perceptions of what is a respected response to criticism. Thus, it provides us a way to debate its flaws and strengths, and in the end, we come away having deepened our thinking about important issues.
In the first set, Naomi looked impressive, beating the enormously talented Serena, 6-2.
Serena, upon hearing that a warning had been issued, approached chair umpire Ramos and, from her comments, it became apparent she believed Mr. Ramos had criticized her for cheating. Thus she said assertively, “You may have thought that was coaching, but I’m telling you it was not. I don’t cheat to win. I’d rather lose. I’m just letting you know.”
Throwing a racket is an automatic code violation, and because it was Serena’s second violation, Naomi gained a point for the next game. Ramos had clearly announced, “Code violation, racket abuse, point penalty, Mrs. Williams.”
When Ramos explained that Serena had a point penalty for smashing her racket, she calmly said, “Yeah, that’s a warning.” Then chair umpire Ramos explained that she already had a warning for the coaching violation, and here Serena raised her voice, and looking exasperated, cried out, “I didn’t get coaching! I didn’t get coaching! I didn’t get coaching! You need to make an announcement that I didn’t get coaching. I don’t cheat. I didn’t get coaching!”
Finally, returning to play, Serena loses the next game, and the game after that, handing the lead over to Naomi, 4-3.
Ramos said something I couldn’t make out, and then Serena yelled, “You will never, ever, be on the same court as me as long as you live!” She then called Ramos a liar as he is looking squarely at her, and leaning his body to her, clearly listening to what she had to say.
Ramos can then be seen in video recordings complying with this request, turning his body and eyes to face a direction away from Serena.
She didn’t seem to understand this, so Ramos called both players over to his chair and clearly explained what the situation is. Serena responded by laughing, and asked, “Are you kidding me?”
Serena now began to make her case to the highest official at the U.S. Open, during which she began to cry. “You know my character,” she said, “and this is not right. This has happened too many times, this is not fair. To lose a game for saying that, this is not fair. Do you know how many men do much worse than that, this is not fair. Because I’m a woman, you are going to take this away from me. You know it, and I know you can’t admit it, but I know you know it.”
When Serena returned to play, it was Naomi’s turn to serve. Naomi easily won that game, and, consequently, the match and the U.S. Open Championship.
After the final point, Serena, graciously walked over to Naomi and gave her a hug.
Moments later, the master of ceremony announced it was time to present the trophies, and another round of boos were heard. Naomi once again began to cry. Serena put her arms around Naomi, smiled, and said she was proud of her and that she should know that the crowd wasn’t booing at her. Naomi returned a genuine smile.
When it was Serena’s turn to say something during the awards ceremony, she graciously said, while choking back tears, “She played well, and this is her first grand slam, and I know that you guys were rooting, and I was rooting too, but let’s make this the best moment that we can. We’ll get through this, but, let’s give everyone the credit where credit is due, and let’s not boo anymore, we’re going to get through this and let’s be positive. Congratulations Naomi. No more booing. Thank you to my team, you guys are amazing.” Serena, begins to wipe away her tears, which were streaming from her eyes. She manages to continue, saying, “Thank you to the crowd, you guys are the best in the world. Thank you so much, and I really hope to go again to continue to play here again. We’ll see. It was a tough year for me, but thank you so much.”
Mr. Ramos listened attentively, and nodded his head. Serena then went back to the game.
If there was less pressure to proceed with the game, I would have liked her to have said to Ramos something like, “I think that the coaching code violation means you are accusing me of being a cheater. Is that right?” I say this, because the phrase in the level 4 description which states, “make it clear that they fully understand what was said,” means that the person criticized would first restate the criticism, as he or she understands it, and then ask if this restatement is correct. If Serena had done so, I think Ramos would have said something like, “I’m not accusing you of cheating. I’m saying your coach has violated, in my opinion, the code that says there is to be no coaching during a U.S. Open match. It was entirely on this basis that I issued you a warning.”
The next such act occurred when Serena hit a backhand into the net for an unforced error, allowing Naomi to win her second game of the second set. At this point, Serena was still in the lead, 3-2. Nevertheless, her response to losing that game was to fling her racket into the ground, breaking it. Thus, it seems to me, that she had criticized herself for her unforced error, and responded by destroying her property. This is clearly a level one response. Ramos penalized Serena one point for the next game.
This example of dealing with criticism provides us a fine example in which people, when criticized, are not just upset because of the criticism, but also the consequences of receiving the criticism. Oftentimes the consequences are not as obvious as in this case. Here we plainly see that Serena received a warning, which was, at the time, reasonably assumed to be of little consequence. However, when she broke her racket, because she already had a warning, she now had lost a point. When she called Ramos a thief, the clear consequence was losing an entire game, and, consequently dramatically increased the chances of losing the entire match. She was also subsequently docked by the tournament referee’s office $17,000 ($10,000 for “verbal abuse” of chair umpire Carlos Ramos, $4,000 for being warned for coaching, and $3,000 for breaking her racket).
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.
