As some of you may know, Bob Dylan has a show called “Theme Time Radio Hour.” As the title suggests, each episode is centered on a theme. He begins his episode on madness as follows:
“Let me ask you a few questions, friends. Are you disinterested in work or family life? Do you suffer from sleep disruption? Have you had significant changes in appetite? Have you had paranoid thoughts? Thoughts of grandeur or invincibility? Any feelings of persistent anxiety or perhaps panic attacks? Are you hearing voices or seeing people who are not there? Do you have thoughts of dying? Do you exhibit strong or violent anger? Do you have the inability to pursue a normal life, normal activities or normal relationships? Well, I’m no doctor, but perhaps you’re mad as a hatter; crazy as a loon. Have you lost your morals? Are your bats in the belfry? Maybe you’re nutty as a fruitcake? Crazy as a coot? Taxed in the head? Bunkers? Bananas? Deranged? Are you crackers or daffy? Unhinged or loco? Not all there or all around the bend? Maybe you’re cuckoo or buggy or simply non compos mentis? Do you talk to yourself? Do you ever binge out on food? Do you swing suddenly from one mood to another? Do vague acquaintances treat you as though they know you far better than you would expect?
Allan Ginsberg
“Allan Ginsberg once said that he had seen the best minds of his generation destroyed by madness. Now for the next hour we’ll be providing the sound track. We’re going to look at madness, insanity, and craziness.”
Introducing his theme in this way may seem like quite a mouthful for Bob, but he manages to carry it off rather well. There is deep, dungeon-like music in the background, and he varies his voice in a manner that is full of concern and dramatic interest. Besides, if you think Bob’s description of his theme is lengthy, take a gander at the latest American Psychiatric Association’s description of a related topic. In its book titledDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition,over 900 pages are consumed describing various “mental disorders.”
The theme of “madness” is relevant to this blog’s theme because when people seek to insult others, we commonly hear words like, “You’re mad,” “You’re crazy,” “You have a mental disorder,” and “You’re mentally ill.” Negative consequences often flow from such name calling. Individuals flinging these efforts to insult often become less respected by those who are their targets. Those who are their targets sometimes end up having less respect for themselves. From here, conflicts can escalate, leading to losing friends, problems at work, and even violence.
Dylan’s First Madness Song
Bob introduces the first song for his show on madness as follows:
“If craziness was a country, this would be the national anthem. Here’s Patsy Cline in a little number written by Willie Nelson–“Crazy.”
Patsy Cline
Patsy’s beautiful voice, accompanied by gentle piano riffs, drifts into its melancholy words–“I’m crazy, I’m crazy, for being so lonely. I’m crazy, I’m crazy for being so blue.”
The song goes on from here to weave the sad story of a woman calling herself crazy for loving a man whom she knows will soon be leaving her. She feels she’s crazy for worrying when he’ll leave, and crazy for trying, and crazy for crying, and crazy for loving this man.
Here we learn of just one type of experience that falls under the enormous umbrella of madness.
Connecting Madness With Genius
As the song phases out, Bob begins to tell us that according to Aristotle, “No excellent mind is without a tincture of madness,” a position with which Bob heartily agrees. He declares that “There is a thin line between genius and madness.” Defending this, he introduces us to several individuals who had been declared mad by some, and yet achieved at impressive levels in many valued fields. Thus, he tells us about the brilliant writer, Ernest Hemingway:
Earnest Hemingway
“Ernest Hemingway, for example, was convinced that people were out to assassinate him. His wife, Mary, tricked him into a mental hospital by telling him it was to treat his high blood pressure. He got shock therapy and maybe a dozen other treatments. It didn’t help. It left him more paranoid, delusional and depressed. He was afraid that his wife would put him away again, which many people believe is what led him to take his own life with a shotgun in July of ’61.”
Bob then tells us about the great jazz musician, Charlie Mingus:
Charlie Mingus
“Charlie Mingus spent some time away, although he later claimed he only had gone in to get papers declaring he was incompetent to get out of a contract with the gangster, Joey Gallo. Whatever the reason, he spent some time in Bellevue and was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic.”
After this, Bob tells us the story of two more jazz greats–Bud Powell and Charlie Parker. Both at times were troubled by demons.
Then there was a comic writer:
One man that was no stranger to madness was Bill Gates. He was the editor of E. C. Comics. He had a series of horror comics in the ’50s, but then he was targeted by the government who said that his comics were ruining the morals of America’s young people. He was supposed to water down all of his books. He had one humor comic he called “Mad.” He changed it to a magazine so it wouldn’t be subjected to the comics’ code of authority. It became a huge hit and generations of kids got their first lessons on comedy from the usual gang of idiots that he assembled. He never sold advertising in the magazine while he was alive and there were no sacred cows. Bill Gates, madman of free speech.”
Bob soon moves on to the story of a hell of a fine baseball player:
“One guy that was accused of cracking up was Jimmy Piersall. He became a professional baseball player at 18, signing with the Boston Red Sox in ’48. On May 24, 1952, just before the game against the New York Yankees, he got into a fist fight with Yankee infielder, Billy Martin. After that, he scuffled with his teammate, Mickey McDermott. The final straw came when Jimmy Piersall spanked the four-year old son of his teammate, Burnt Stevens during a game in the Red Sox clubhouse. The four-year old had tried to tweek his nose and poured lemonade down his shirt. You can see Jimmy’s position–Boy, you need a spanking. There were a number of incidences like this and he was sent down to the minor leagues. He got into a lot of trouble down in the minor leagues, and spent some time in the West Borough State Hospital. He was diagnosed with manic depression, but he still returned to baseball by the opening of the ’53 season. And get this, he finished ninth in the voting for the MVP award, and the next year he was the Sox’s regular center fielder.”
Feeling That We Are Crazy Is A Common Experience
In addition to describing these individuals who were thought to be mad by some and yet achieved greatness in various valued arenas, Bob provides diverse examples of regular Joes and Jills who displayed behaviors that were viewed as crazy by either themselves or others. These examples touch a chord in the listener because they illustrate experiences that are pretty close to what we have all experienced at different points in our lives.
Thus, the show’s take away lesson, as I see it, is that if you catch yourself calling yourself names such as “crazy” note that many of the most talented people have had similar experiences. Note, as well, that such criticism is too vague to be helpful. Learn to become more aware of these thoughts, to stand back and simply observe them passing through your mind–“Oh, there I go again calling myself mad.’ In time, you will come to a point at which you will formulate some more specific approach to make improvements in your life. The practice of meditation can help you to learn this skill.
If you are tempted to call someone else these types of names, remember that such names are way too vague, encompassing thousands of unusual and usual experiences. For criticism to be truly helpful, it is usually best to craft a statement that avoids name calling and statements about what someone did wrong, and instead provides specific suggestions for what the target of the criticism can do to improve. If you can not come up with such a statement right away, perhaps it would be best to delay the criticism until you have some time for your creative impulses to come up with something better than “You’re a crazy, mentally ill fool!”
Although these are my take away lessons for today’s post, let’s end with how the more poetic Bob Dylan ends his madness show:
“Time flies when you’re talking crazy, and we gotta get out of here. But before we do I want to leave you with the words of the man who is the voice of the barroom, poet of the gutter, and Shakespeare of the alleyway. Here’s a poem by Charles Bukowski called “Some People.”
some people never go crazy.
me, sometimes I’ll lie down behind the couch
for 3 or 4 days.
they’ll find me there.
it’s Cherub, they’ll say, and
they pour wine down my throat
rub my chest
sprinkle me with oils.
then, I’ll rise with a roar,
rant, rage –
curse them and the universe
as I send them scattering over the
lawn.
I’ll feel much better,
sit down to toast and eggs,
hum a little tune,
suddenly become as lovable as a
pink
overfed whale.
some people never go crazy.
what truly horrible lives
they must lead.”
——————————-
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 clickHERE.
“I’m very interested in your point of view, Judy. Please tell me more specifically about what you disagree with in those posts.”
John Stewart Mill
“Well, you talk about this John Stuart Mill. According to him, if people criticize us, even for holding an opinion we are very sure of, we should thank them for it, open our minds to listen to them, and rejoice. That’s ridiculous! If you don’t have something nice to say to somebody you should keep your stupid mouth shut! And, as far as I’m concerned, unless I give someone permission to criticize me, that person has no right to inflict it upon me!”
The rest of that post provides my response to Judy. As brilliant as that response is, it is my considered opinion that my readers and I benefit from hearing a variety of views on these types of issues. And so, with that in mind, I went about seeking these views by introducing the post to the Facebook groups that I belong to. Thus, I wrote for each group the following:
Some say that unless you are invited to provide criticism, you should keep your mouth shut. How wise is that?
Then I provided the link to my post. It led to quite a few excellent insightful discussions. My favorite happened to appear on the wonderful group, The Brain Cafe. To our good fortune, several of its participants graciously granted permission to use their comments for the current post. These permissions do not mean they are providing a blanket endorsement of this blog or its writers. And, with that, let’s take a look at the discussion that had taken place.
The Brain Cafe Discussion
Brad Esau, prior to reading my blog post wrote: Uninvited “advice” makes me go thermo nuclear. Uninvited criticism is courting death. Perhaps I should read this.
I, Jeffrey Rubin, replied: Please do read it, Brad Esau, and then let me know what you think.
Barry Kort: I suppose the context matters. As a retired academic, I hang out in Internet venues where my fellow academics schmooze with each other and with interested lay people who are arm-chair aficionados of the subjects on the table. In academia, we have a scholarly culture such that we routinely peer-review each other’s work in a collegial and congenial manner. I view this culture as being characterized by an informal tacit social contract that defines a scholarly culture.
There is, on the other hand, the unscientific (or non-scientific) political culture which has its own inscrutable ground rules which admit of some rather dicey and sleazy practices.
What is the lay person to do in these Social Networks? Clearly we find a mix of behavior that spans the spectrum.
I don’t mind conscientious scholarly criticism of the sort one would expect in academia. I’m not fond of the kind of snarky or mean-spirited dismissals that one finds in our ofttimes toxic political culture….
Brad Esau: This seems to be a cultural thing. I’ve noticed Americans (I’m Canadian) seem to have this notion that they have the “right” to speak out about anything at any time. This is much different than most cultures.
I happen to believe a) I – or anyone – absolutely has the right to deny anyone’s “right” to offer “criticism” or “input” and b) through much, much, much hard won experience, I learned that most people’s “criticism” was largely invalid and of poor construct. In other words, they had no idea what they were talking about.
I am very, very open to critique – if it’s from someone whose expertise or experience I trust and they’ve *earned* my trust. Otherwise, I have no time to waste on most people’s hot air.
So while I think your approach is valid for within American culture, it should be limited to that.
E. C.: Well said Brad! (also a “fellow” Canadian). Love your courage for taking this on Jeffrey. And Brad, you make me THINK
Brad Esau: Thanks, E. C. After growing up in polite Canada and spending a decade and a half around Asians (Japanese, Taiwanese and Chinese) where this kind of “right” to openly criticize is unthinkable, I still find this jarring. Most of my online exchanges are with our friends south of the 49th. Just could never get used to their unrestrained forwardness.
And thank you for the compliment.
Barry Kort: What stood out for me in that vignette was that Judy was enacting a practice that she abhorred when the roles were reversed. About the only scenario where that’s kosher is in scripted psychodrama as a theatrical performance.
Brad Esau: Thinking on this further, I think unsolicited criticism is warranted in cases where intervention is needed. Somebody is clearly going about things in ways that will harm their future or… their chances at their goals, and then I think it’s quite correct to voice some well founded constructive criticism….
The thing with most people, they’re not nearly as “smart” or “wise” or “expert” as they believe themselves to be and most of their “criticism” or “advice” is nothing more than egotistical bluster and hot air.
After some time had passed, Brad added: I now just sort of have this iron clad rule for when anyone – and I mean anyone – offers “advice” or “criticism” I ask for or dig into their credentials and poke into what their motivation might be. 98% of people don’t pass those simple tests.
Of course the trick then is to learn to check one’s own premises and to see if whatever criticism or feedback they might have had to offer was warranted.
There are so many variables at work here!
I could fill a city with people crippled by the criticism they received all their lives from their mothers. Hell, maybe a whole continent. I’d have to say raising motherly criticism is invalid.
Judges are different – you purposely go there to be judged. The topic here is *unsolicited* criticism and how to deal with it.
E. C.: No one wants or needs to hear “bad things” about themselves. That is not constructive criticism. What is helpful is solicited advice on how I can improve on something. That is entirely different, and it requires the “advice giver” to have to actively listen to what it is I am asking and what information I am giving as far as what I need advice or help with.
Lyra Alves: I agree that it is highly determined by our cultural background, but we surely can work our way out of having it as “taboo” and adapt to it. I find criticism, from whatever source it comes, from people who know me or not, who have something interesting to say or not, an incredible gift for my personal growth. I trust much more people who are straight forward than those who are over-polite. I also tend to feel that often those who resist to criticism or those who only accept it if it comes from certain “certified” sources may have self-confidence issues, some hidden insecurities to be sorted out. Every chance we receive some criticism is a chance we have to review various concepts we have about ourselves, about what is the best or not. I think it is always a valuable chance to expand our view on the world and increase our ability to empathize.
Susan Clemens:I have a Facebook rule: Your wall; your opinion. Other than that, constructive criticism can be offered if you have a relationship with the person, if the person is otherwise at risk of injury, or if you are approaching a business from the customer perspective. “Pat them-poke them-pat them” works best. I have a few friends who welcome criticism and others who can’t stand it. I try to respect them and vice versa.
Brad Esau<irony>
I’ve recently posted a piece critical of America and Americans along with my own well founded views.
Going by the universal angry responses and denial I’ve gotten so far, it seems like the people who enjoy criticizing the most and defend their “right” to do so, are most uncomfortable with criticism of themselves.
</irony>
Jeffrey Rubin:Brad Esau, I’ve noticed the same thing–that many people who hate to be criticized are among the quickest to criticize, and often are the ones who are the nastiest criticizers as well.
E. C.:I wonder, am I the only one who kind of “bristles” at the word “Criticism?” I am all for constructive feedback but for some reason framing it as “criticism” feels far less helpful and like others have said does become more about the person giving it than about the person needing it. Jeffrey Rubin – do you see a difference? If so, why or why not?
Jeffrey Rubin:Hi E. C. I see the difference that you are trying to make, and it is an important and worthwhile distinction to make. I don’t see that that difference has to be made by using the word “feedback” for one and “criticism” for the other. However, if I am in a conversation just with you, I wouldn’t object to an understanding that we would use the words to mean whatever you would like.
That said, people have a variety of conceptions of these two words (criticism and feedback) and therefore typically it is a good idea to use more than just those words to explain what we mean. Defining our terms beforehand is a good strategy.
For future reference, to me and Daniel Webster, criticism is an evaluation. If you have evaluated something, then you have formulated a criticism of it; and if you tell someone your evaluation, you are providing the person criticism or a critique of something. It can be done in a way so that it is designed to be helpful to someone. Sometimes it is expressed in a manner that is designed to punish someone, or to just hurt someone for a variety of reasons, e.g., because of jealousy or because the person is stressed and irritable.
Concluding Comment
Well, I hope you enjoyed this discussion as much as I did. I hate to end it here, for there is so much more to say, but rest assured that there will be more on this emotionally packed conversation in coming weeks. Until then, here’s hoping that kindness accompanies all of the criticisms that come our way.
——————————-
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.
Anyone who follows the news, has heard about the most recent terrorist act in France. This post, however looks at what occurred earlier this year against those who worked for the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. The magazine had published articles and cartoons that criticize those who believe that the proper response to people making fun of a group’s religious beliefs is to kill them. Although the magazine writers had poked fun at all of the major religions, it was individuals who viewed themselves as followers of the Muslim faith that actually carried out these murders.
Before I go any further, I hasten to point out that Muslim statesmen, clerics and intellectuals have condemned these awful acts. Moreover, the vast majority of those who view themselves as Muslims are not going around murdering anyone, let alone people who voice criticism of their faith. That said, we still have laid before us on the front pages of every media outlet this particular event. I therefore am personally moved to spend some time today throwing around some relevant ideas. Anything that I do say today in no way is meant to imply that I think Muslims, in general, are more violent-prone or immature than other people.
Violence in Response to Criticism
Regular followers of this blog well know that I have put together a tentative model of different levels of maturity for responding to criticism. There are 5 levels. Level one is viewed as the most immature set of responses. Each higher level is viewed as more mature.
If you will, take a look below at the five levels of maturity and see what level of maturity best describes the actions of those who murdered the Charlie Hebdo magazine workers?
This level requires displaying one or more of the following:
Weeps or sobs with tears or pouts unless also displaying responses consistent with either level 4 or 5.
Physically attacks the criticizer (regardless of whatever else is said or done)
Damages property (regardless of what else is said or done)
This level requires displaying one or more of the following:
Insults the criticizer (either with words, hand gestures, the sticking out of a tongue, the rolling of the eyes, or smirks)
Glares at the criticizer
Threatens the criticizer
Punches, kicks, or throws an object without physically hurting someone or damaging anything
Criticizes the criticizer without first fully addressing the original criticism.
This level requires displaying one or both of the following:
Displays defensiveness without directly insulting the criticizer (raising voice’s volume or pitch)
Displays a lack of interest either by verbally indicating this, or with nonverbal cues, or complete silence.
Individuals at this level listen to the criticizer in a supportive, warm, friendly style, and then make it clear that they fully understand what was said. Moreover, they put the criticizer at ease by making statements that indicate that the wise learn from criticism. Some time is spent on showing that they are thinking about the criticism. If, after thinking about the criticism the criticism is deemed to be correct, they make a statement frankly indicating, “I can see your ideas have merit, and I intend to use them in the future.” If they are not sure if they agree, they make a statement indicating that they are very interested in what was said, plan to think a little more about this over the next few days and then they will be ready to discuss this further. If, after thinking about the criticism, the criticism is deemed to be incorrect, a statement is made designed to disagree without being disagreeable. More specifically, a sense of humor, some listening in a caring way and a few smiles help to traverse rough terrain. As the episode winds down, the criticizer is encouraged to feel comfortable communicating suggestions in the future.
In addition to actions consistent with level 4, people acting in a manner consistent with level 5 seek ways to use, whenever they disagree with the criticism, a technique known as steering in the direction the criticizer would prefer to go. That is, rather than just disagreeing without being disagreeable, the criticized person seeks to find a new choice of action that creatively utilizes something suggested from the criticism. Steering cannot be incorporated into all situations, but it is an additional goal of the most mature individuals.
Okay, so now that you looked over the five levels of maturity for responding to criticism, which level do you think best matches those who slaughtered the group of individuals who worked for the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo?
My Response
As I looked over the levels, the task was easy. As far as I’m concerned, level 1 is clearly the best match.
Now some might say, why bother to put the actions of those who did the killing in a developmental framework? For many, just calling them vile names more than suffices.
Well, one reason is that calling someone vile names doesn’t automatically point one to a description of what would be a more mature response, as a developmental model does. Additionally, if you want to talk the language of many experts in human behavior, getting away from the vile name calling fits in with their zeitgeist.
Mustafa Akyol
Consider Mustafa Akyol, author of Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty and the writer of yesterday’s New York Times Op-Ed titled “Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy.” First, Mr. Akyol points out that,
The only source in Islamic law that all Muslims accept indisputably is the Quran. And, conspicuously, the Quran decrees no earthly punishment for blasphemy — or for apostasy (abandonment or renunciation of the faith), a related concept. Nor, for that matter, does the Quran command stoning, female circumcision or a ban on fine arts.
Mr. Akyol explains that religious nationalism is guided by religious law — Shariah — which was developed over 100 of years after the Quran, and it is there that we find clauses about punishing blasphemy as a deadly sin. While Shariah is believed by many Muslims to be rooted in the divine, according to Mr. Akyol, the overwhelming majority of its injunctions are man-made, partly reflecting the values and needs of the seventh to 12th centuries — when no part of the world was liberal, and other religions, such as Christianity, also considered blasphemy a capital crime.
In contrast to Shariah law about blasphemy, the Quran tells its followers: “God has told you in the Book that when you hear God’s revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them.”
Mr. Akyol concludes his Op-Ed piece with the following:
Just “do not sit with them” — that is the response the Quran suggests for mockery. Not violence. Not even censorship.
Wise Muslim religious leaders from the entire world would do Islam a great favor if they preached and reiterated such a nonviolent and nonoppressive stance in the face of insults against Islam. That sort of instruction could also help their more intolerant coreligionists understand that rage is a sign of nothing but immaturity. The power of any faith comes not from its coercion of critics and dissenters. It comes from the moral integrity and the intellectual strength of its believers.
Notice Mr. Akyol’s last paragraph refers to immaturity, and he lays out what he views as a more mature, wiser path. That is the type of model that I, myself, am striving to emulate.
———————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
“Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe.”–Albert Einstein
Einstein as a young man
In the spring of 1914, Albert Einstein left his home in Switzerland to take a job at the University of Berlin in Germany’s capital. He was then, 35.
He took the job with much misgivings. When he was a young boy living in Germany, Einstein had been deeply repelled by the authoritarians, militarism, and bigotry he found all around him. And as a young man, he was appalled by the prejudices, injustices and reactionary ideas found in the heart of many Germans in those days. Nevertheless, working in Berlin provided an opportunity to pursue his research without teaching and administrative obligations and to have ready access to many brilliant fellow scientists and mathematicians.
Einstein’s Name-Calling During World War I
Months after Einstein moved to Berlin, in August 1914, the first world war broke loose, creating wholesale death, misery, and hunger. And then, many people with whom he was working signed a manifesto denying that Germany had any responsibility for the war. Instead, the blame fell entirely on Germany’s enemies. The concluding paragraph states:
We cannot wrest from our enemies’ hand the venomous weapon of the lie [that Germany is responsible for the war]. We can only cry out to the whole world that they bear false witness against us. To you who know us, who have hitherto stood with us in safeguarding mankind’s most precious heritage–to you we cry out: Have faith in us when we say that we shall wage this fight to the very end as a civilized nation, a nation that holds the legacy of Goethe, Beethoven and Kant no less sacred than hearth and home.
This type of document along with all that was happening in the world was pretty rough on Einstein. In a letter to Paul Ehrenfest, a physicist and one of his closest friends, he wrote:
Paul Ehrenfest
The international catastrophe has imposed a heavy burden upon me as an internationalist. In living through this “great epoch,” it is difficult to reconcile oneself to the fact that one belongs to that stupid, rotten species which boasts of its freedom of will. How I wish that somewhere there existed an island for those who are wise and of good will! In such a place even I should be an ardent patriot. (From Einstein on Peace, p. 2)
We see in this quote that Einstein, in his anger, chose to refer to the human race as stupid. And yet, some of the people that were supporting the war were among the smartest people of their day, at least in terms of their academic accomplishments.
Of course, Einstein is not the only one to use the word stupid upon becoming angry:
Apparently, for Einstein, the word stupid was meant to mean something different than an inability to master challenging subject matter. What then did he mean?
Such terms are often used broadly, meaning the same thing as other words and phrases thrown at someone in anger, such as “crazy,” “mentally ill,” “jerk,” “piece of trash,” “rotten,” etc. When used like this, they all mean nothing more than the angry party strongly doesn’t like what the other party did. They serve as a type of exclamation point.
For Einstein, I think stupid might have had an added meaning; something like not being able to see something that seems so plainly reasonable to him. War is a terrible thing, Einstein believed, and the justification that Germany used to enter into it clashed with his sense of what was so plainly reasonable.
Einstein’s Approach to Providing Negative Criticism After World War I
Einstein in his later years
Soon after the end of the first world war, Germany saw the rise of Hitler and Einstein fled to America, taking a position at Princeton University. As World War II got underway, Einstein did support military intervention. As he explained it when declining an invitation to prepare a presentation of the pacifist point of view,
I am not what you might call a religious pacifist. Besides, I consider it preferable for men to fight rather than allow themselves to be butchered without lifting a finger. That was just about the alternative in the case of Hitler’s Germany. (Einstein on Peace, p. 553)
But when America became involved in the Korean War, Einstein again experienced anger about a military intervention. Korea had not attacked any country, let alone the United States. Korea was engaged in an internal fight about what type of government it chose to have. US military intervention, Einstein believed, would serve to dramatically increase the loss of life. How did Einstein express his disagreement in his adopted country where most were fierce supporters of the war?
When writing to a trusted friend he would allow himself to let out his raw emotions about what was going on in the world. This occasionally included utilizing words like stupid, idiot, and rotten. But at least in the many public statements that I’ve read of his, it was extremely rare to see him utilizing anything that strikes me as name calling. Typical is a 1953 quote taken from Einstein’s review of a book on Gandhi. The author was Gene Sharp, a 25-year old graduate of Ohio State University who had just received a two-year sentence for defying the draft law during the Korean War. Einstein wrote:
Gene Sharp
How is it possible that a young man was able to create such a mature piece of work? The author’s preface tells us how it was possible. He feels the profound obligation to serve, with all his energies and with unlimited readiness for sacrifice, a purpose which is clearly personified in Gandhi’s unique example: to overcome through an awakening of moral strength the danger of self-destruction which confronts mankind as a result of explosive technological developments. The collapse which threatens mankind is characterized in the volume by the words depersonalization, regimentation, total war, while its salvation is characterized by the words personal responsibility, in conjunction with nonviolence and service to human beings in Gandhi’s sense.
I believe the author is completely right in asserting that every human being is compelled to come to a clear decision with regard to this important matter: there is no middle ground.
In the Nuremberg trials the following principle was laid down: Personal moral responsibility cannot be set aside by national laws. Let us hope that we may soon come to the point where the Nuremberg principle will not only be enforced upon citizens of vanquished nations! (Einstein on Peace, p. 544)
Gandhi
Here, Einstein, rather than calling those who support war insulting names, he instead expresses admiration for two people who had acted to resist participation in military activities–Sharp and Gandhi. He then places their activities in the context of a moral principle that was articulated by the judges at the post World War II Nuremberg trials. These judges convicted Nazi leaders who presented a defense that they were just following orders.
I like this approach of letting people know, by use of a narrative, what actions you do respect. It goes beyond just saying what you don’t like. It adds specificity, and I think people learn ideas better through narrative rather than principles alone. It is this very approach that I tried to create in my three novels.
Okay, there’s my post for this week. Until next time, here’s hoping we all find some helpful ways to bring about a more peaceful world.
Jeff
———————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can clickHERE.
Responding to negative criticism with lower developmental level skills can lead to an escalation of conflicts, violence, and the loss of valued friends. Among the benefits of utilizing higher developmental level skills are increases in how much people like and respect us.
To encourage readers of this blog to think about the most helpful ways to respond to criticism, I presented a post titled “Responding to Criticism: Four Levels of Maturity.” A few weeks later, I presented a post describing the fifth level of maturity, which I believe is the most mature level.
In both of those posts, I give examples of people using each of the different levels. In subsequent posts, I provided some additional examples (see here, here, and here). Readers seem to enjoy these, so with that in mind, I offer you a John F. Kennedy example.
John F. Kennedy at the 1960 Democratic Convention
In 1960, the Democratic Convention was held in Los Angeles. In addition to Kennedy, other democratic candidates for president that year were Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, and Wayne Morse.
Lyndon JohnsonHubert HumpheyWayne Morse
On day two of the conference, Johnson and Kennedy had an exchange in front of the entire delegation. Below, is the transcript of part of that exchange, which I obtained from a YouTube video that you can see and hear for yourself at this link, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gefp6OHLns
The actual exchange begins 4 minutes into the Youtube video. There, we see Lyndon Johnson criticizing Kennedy in front of several thousand delegates. Thus, he says:
For six days and nights we had 24-hour sessions, six days and nights I had to deliver a quorum of 51 men on a moment’s notice to keep the Senate in session to get any bill at all. I’m proud to tell you that on those 51 quorum calls Lyndon Johnson answered every one of them, although some men who would be president on a civil rights platform answered none.
On the roll call on that bill there were 45, Lyndon Johnson answered all 45. Admittedly, I didn’t have the problem that some of my people had of opposing Senators Humphrey and Morse in the primaries. But some senator missed 34 of the 45. And I point this out only so those of you who may have been not fully understanding of my entry into the race. That it is my considered judgment that my people had sent me to the Senate to perform the duty of a United States senator for which I was paid $22,500 a year. And my colleagues, including Senator Kennedy and Senator Symington, and 62 other beloved Democrats had selected me as their leader. And I did not think you would reward negligence. I did not think that you would reward me for inattention, nor did I think, as Al Smith put it, that you would penalize me.
Now, if former president, Donald Trump had been criticized in this way, I think we all have a pretty good idea of how he would have responded–probably by throwing nasty insults at Senator Johnson, like crying out that he is a horrible person.
Here’s Kennedy’s reply, which begins about six minutes into the YouTube recording:
I’m glad we are not going to put these speeches to a vote, after looking at Massachusetts’s and Texas’s delegates today. Let me just say that I appreciate what Senator Johnson had to say. He made some general reference to perhaps some shortcomings of other presidential candidates, but as he was not specific I assume he was talking about some other candidate and not me.
Kennedy then breaks out in a huge smile because he knows, and everyone present knows that Senator Johnson’s comments had indeed been directed toward criticizing Kennedy’s record. The crowd clearly appreciates Kennedy’s humor, and then, after the laughter subsides, he continues:
I, uh, found it extremely beneficial serving in the Senate with Senator Johnson as leader. I think if I emerge as successful in this convention it would be as a result of watching Senator Johnson proceed around the Senate for the last eight years.
Kennedy, now turns to Lyndon Johnson and says:
I have learned the lesson well, Lyndon, and I hope it will benefit me in the next twenty-four hours.
Kennedy has now turned back to the larger audience.
It is true that Senator Johnson made a wonderful record in answering those quorum calls, and I want to commend him for it. I, uh, was not present on all of those occasions, uh, no one, I was not majority leader. Lyndon knows I never criticized, in fact on every occasion I said that I thought Senator Johnson should not enter the primary. That his proper responsibility was as majority leader and that if he would let Hubert, Wayne and I to settle the matter we could come to a clearcut decision.
So, I come to you today full of admiration for Senator Johnson, full of affection for him, strongly in support of him for majority leader, and in that position we’re all going to work together. Thank you.
Now, after this reply to Johnson’s criticism of him, Kennedy does something else that we don’t actually see in the YouTube video. Kennedy, behind closed doors, informs Johnson that his criticism, in addition to the issue he explicitly stated, involves two others issues: First, Johnson wants to some day be president, and, second, he also wants to get several bills passed that were close to his heart, especially the civil rights bills. Kennedy explained that right now he, Johnson, was well known in Texas and the Senate, but the public in other regions around the country knew nothing about him. Kennedy then informed Johnson that he had decided to select him to be his running mate if he succeeds at obtaining the nomination. As vice president, Johnson would get to be known throughout the country. This would put him in a better position to seek the presidency in the future. Moreover, as vice president, he would preside over the Senate, and together with Kennedy as president, he could have a much better chance of getting his favorite bills enacted into law. In this way, Kennedy steered in the direction that he felt Johnson’s criticism suggested.
Okay, so that is how Kennedy responded to Johnson’s negative criticism. I shall now present the outline of all five developmental levels of responding to criticism. If you will, look them over and see what level best matches Kennedy’s response.
Five Levels of Responding to Criticism
1. This level requires displaying one or more of the following:
Weeps or sobs with tears or pouts
Physically attacks the criticizer
Damages property
2. This level requires displaying one or more of the following:
Insults the criticizer (either with words, hand gestures, the sticking out of a tongue, the rolling of the eyes, or smirks)
Glares at the criticizer
Threatens the criticizer
Punches, kicks, or throws an object without physically hurting someone or damaging anything
Criticizes the criticizer without first fully addressing the original criticism.
3. This level requires displaying one or both of the following:
Displays defensiveness without directly insulting the criticizer (raising voice’s volume or pitch)
Displays a lack of interest either by verbally indicating this, or with nonverbal cues, or complete silence.
4. Level 4 individuals listen to the criticizer in a supportive, warm, friendly style, and then make it clear that they fully understand what was said. Moreover, they put the criticizer at ease by making statements that indicate that the wise learn from criticism. Some time is spent on showing that they are thinking about the criticism. If, after thinking about the criticism the criticism is deemed to be correct, they make a statement frankly indicating, “I can see your ideas have merit and I intend to use them in the future.” If they are not sure if they agree, they make a statement indicating that they are very interested in what was said, plan to think a little more about this over the next few days and then they will be ready to discuss this further. If, after thinking about the criticism, the criticism is deemed to be incorrect, a statement is made designed to disagree without being disagreeable. More specifically, a sense of humor, some listening in a caring way and a few smiles help to traverse rough terrain. As the episode winds down, the criticizer is encouraged to feel comfortable communicating suggestions in the future.
5. In addition to actions consistent with level 4, people responding to criticism in a manner consistent with level 5 seek ways to use, whenever they disagree with the criticism, a technique known as steering in the direction the criticizer would prefer to go. That is, rather than just disagreeing without being disagreeable, the criticized person seeks to find a new choice of action that creatively utilizes some aspect suggested from the criticism. Steering cannot be incorporated into all situations, but it is an additional goal of the most mature individuals.
Now that you have had a chance to look over the descriptions of the 5 levels, which level do you think best matches Kennedy’s response? Moreover, regardless of what level Kennedy’s response matches, I encourage you to think about whether it is better to utilize Kennedy’s approach, or Trump’s approach, to responding to criticism. My guess is that if you want to get more hits on social media platforms and you don’t mind increasing hate in the world, the approach that Trump tends to use will work better for you; however, if you want to be better respected by family members, friends and people at work, Kennedy’s approach is the way to go.
Thanks for visiting today, and I hope you join us back here soon.
Jeff
———————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can clickHERE.
Readers of this blog well know that I often discuss immature and mature ways to provide negative criticism. Originally, I presented a post titled PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM: FIVE LEVELS OF MATURITY. There, in addition to providing an outline of what I believed was a good starting point to think about this topic, I asked readers for suggestions on how the outline could be improved. Many readers were not at all shy. While this was going on, I continued my own reading, and from time to time, I shared what I had learned. And now, just this week on the internet, I came upon an article that provided a new set of guidelines. I kind of like them, and therefore, decided to see what kind of reaction they might lead to. But first let’s quickly review what we already covered.
THE ORIGINAL FIVE LEVELS OF MATURITY FOR PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM
Below you will find preliminary descriptions of how people at five developmental levels of maturity provide negative criticism, that is, criticism that points out what we don’t like about someone’s actions, beliefs, or appearance. Level one is the most immature and uses observations of babies as its starting point. Each successive level is more mature:
This level requires displaying one or more of the following:
Cries without stating what the crying is about
Physically attacks the person being criticized
Damages property
Although these three descriptors may not sound like providing criticism, in some situations we can see that it is the very beginning of the development of this skill. Let’s say Jill takes baby Bob’s crayon away believing he is done with it. Bob begins to cry and takes a swipe at Jill. She manages, by moving away, to avoid Bob’s swipe. Bob now looks even angrier and crumbles up a piece of paper and flings it on the floor. An observer to this may conclude that Bob, in a sense, is criticizing Jill for taking the crayon.
2. This level requires displaying one or both of the following:
The criticizer does not explain what the offending behavior is, but instead expresses displeasure with glares, insults, shouting, silence, or threats that do not involve bodily harm. (For example, someone might be making too much noise and the criticizer might turn to the noise maker and glare, or cry out, “Jerk!”)
Threatens bodily harm regardless of what else is said.
3. The criticizer clearly states the criticism with enough detail so the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance, but couples it with glares, insults, shouts, or threats that are not about bodily harm.
4. The criticizer states the criticism without bodily attacks, damaging property, glares, insults, threats, or shouts, and with enough details so that the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance. If the person receiving the criticism becomes defensive or angry, the criticizer empathizes without returning glares, insults, threats, or shouts.
5. When the criticizer provides criticism, he or she does so in a manner very similar to a level four response, but beforehand, the criticizer considers the person who is the target of the criticism and the situation that he or she is in. As a result of such considerations, the criticizer may decide to alter the criticism.
IDEAS THAT FOLLOWED
After proposing the five levels of maturity, several additional ideas came my way. One person suggested:
Hey there. One thing that potentially could be even better than a level 5 way to provide criticism would be to ask the person permission to offer them a criticism. You could say like, “hey, would it be alright if I make an observation about the way you handled that situation” or “do you mind if I offer you a couple constructive criticisms about your song” or whatever. Then, if the person says yes, they won’t feel like they are being attacked because they’ve given consent. Or they’ll have the opportunity to say “you know what? I’m really sort of feeling on edge so maybe another time would be better for us to talk.” That way, instead of gauging for yourself whether or not the person is in a state to tolerate the criticism, you can let them decide for themselves. What do you think about this idea?
I responded:
I like your idea. It goes along with considering person variables. For me, personally, I’m almost always up to hearing criticism, even if it may sting. Therefore, always asking me for permission would eventually become tiresome. But until you know someone well, starting off the relationship as you suggest, makes sense. And if, in time, you learn the person is very sensitive about criticism, continuing asking for permission would be the wise course of action.
Others argued that unless you are invited to provide criticism, you should keep your mouth shut. And others argued that even if you are invited to provide criticism, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all. I address these issues in a post titled, UNSOLICITED CRITICISM: GOOD OR BAD? Very briefly, I agreed that these ideas were worthwhile to consider before providing criticism, but after this consideration there were times when providing uninvited criticism makes sense.
Thomas Jefferson
In a post titled “PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM: A LESSON FROM THOMAS JEFFERSON” I explained that recently I had been reading an excellent biography of Jefferson by Jon Meacham. There, I learned that early in a relationship Jefferson typically avoided mentioning any fault in his new companion. He felt that later, once the relationship was well developed, was a better time to discuss differences of opinion. As Meacham describes Jefferson’s style, “people often talk too much and listen too little, which can be self-defeating, for in many instances the surer route to winning a friend is not to convince them that you are right but that you care what they think. Everyone wants to believe that what they have to say is fascinating, illuminating, and possibly even epochal.” In that line of thinking, Jefferson advised a daughter: “Much better…if our companion views a thing in a light different from what we do, to leave him in quiet possession of his view. What is the use of rectifying him if the thing be unimportant; and if important let it pass for the present, and wait a softer moment and more conciliatory occasion of revising the subject together.” Now Jefferson clearly recognized there was exceptions to this general rule, but nevertheless it makes a great deal of sense that whenever we are tempted to provide negative criticism careful consideration of this idea makes sense.
Another set of comments came from a few parents who argued that although the five levels of maturity made sense when adults were interacting with other adults, when parents provided negative criticism to their children, yelling, and even hitting were perfectly permissible. I responded to this in a post titled, PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM: DEFENDING THE FIVE LEVELS. The issues this raises are simply too complicated to summarize here, so I’ll just refer interested readers to that post.
Finally, someone on Facebook presented the idea that it is helpful to use the sandwich approach to providing negative criticism. Here you begin with a slice of some positive comment, then you put on top of that the negative criticism, and then, on top of that, you provide another slice of positive criticism.
OK! So, basically, in a very abbreviated manner, those are some ideas we have already discussed. Now, to a new set of guidelines.
Philosopher Daniel Dennett’s Approach to Providing Negative Criticism
You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
I kind of like this. Whereas it is not inconsistent with the original five levels of providing negative criticism, it provides some additional ideas to consider.
Over the course of a week or two I’ll come up with some specific examples that demonstrate Dennett’s approach. Until then, my best wishes to you all,
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.
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.
One day I happened to be flipping through the New York Times when I came upon a story titled Dealing With Digital CrueltybyStephenie 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
——————–
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.
As some of you may know, Bob Dylan has a show called “Theme Time Radio Hour.” As the title suggests, each episode is centered on a theme. He begins his episode on madness as follows:
The theme of “madness” is relevant to this blog’s theme because when people seek to insult others, we commonly hear words like, “You’re mad,” “You’re crazy,” “You have a mental disorder,” and “You’re mentally ill.” Negative consequences often flow from such name calling. Individuals flinging these efforts to insult often become less respected by those who are their targets. Those who are their targets sometimes end up having less respect for themselves. From here, conflicts can escalate, leading to losing friends, problems at work, and even violence.
One man that was no stranger to madness was Bill Gates. He was the editor of E. C. Comics. He had a series of horror comics in the ’50s, but then he was targeted by the government who said that his comics were ruining the morals of America’s young people. He was supposed to water down all of his books. He had one humor comic he called “Mad.” He changed it to a magazine so it wouldn’t be subjected to the comics’ code of authority. It became a huge hit and generations of kids got their first lessons on comedy from the usual gang of idiots that he assembled. He never sold advertising in the magazine while he was alive and there were no sacred cows. Bill Gates, madman of free speech.”
“One guy that was accused of cracking up was Jimmy Piersall. He became a professional baseball player at 18, signing with the Boston Red Sox in ’48. On May 24, 1952, just before the game against the New York Yankees, he got into a fist fight with Yankee infielder, Billy Martin. After that, he scuffled with his teammate, Mickey McDermott. The final straw came when Jimmy Piersall spanked the four-year old son of his teammate, Burnt Stevens during a game in the Red Sox clubhouse. The four-year old had tried to tweek his nose and poured lemonade down his shirt. You can see Jimmy’s position–Boy, you need a spanking. There were a number of incidences like this and he was sent down to the minor leagues. He got into a lot of trouble down in the minor leagues, and spent some time in the West Borough State Hospital. He was diagnosed with manic depression, but he still returned to baseball by the opening of the ’53 season. And get this, he finished ninth in the voting for the MVP award, and the next year he was the Sox’s regular center fielder.”
In addition to describing these individuals who were thought to be mad by some and yet achieved greatness in various valued arenas, Bob provides diverse examples of regular Joes and Jills who displayed behaviors that were viewed as crazy by either themselves or others. These examples touch a chord in the listener because they illustrate experiences that are pretty close to what we have all experienced at different points in our lives.
The practice of meditation can help you to learn this skill.“Time flies when you’re talking crazy, and we gotta get out of here. But before we do I want to leave you with the words of the man who is the voice of the barroom, poet of the gutter, and Shakespeare of the alleyway. Here’s a poem by Charles Bukowski called “Some People.”
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 
n a sweet face. Not so when all you see is some letters.
