Category: criticism

Fear, Cowardliness, and the Military

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date June 4, 2014
2 Comments on Fear, Cowardliness, and the Military

Last week my blog post asked, “Does Your Fearfulness Make You a Coward?” While attempting to answer this question, I pointed out that viewing yourself as a coward when you experience fear consumes time and energy. Moreover, it is way too simplistic. Fear is actually a highly valuable emotion. It motivates us to take some wise precautions. And the fact that some people can fearlessly perform a task that would make you quake actually indicates, when properly considered, that diversity in what people fear is helpful for the survival of our species. When it comes to fear, we are wiser to seek to learn to skillfully utilize it, rather than to seek to insult ourselves.

Within three days of my writing that post on fear, NBC Nightly News presented a video of Secretary of State John Kerry calling Edward Snowden, the NSA document leaker, a coward. I found this rather ironic because John Kerry, as a younger man, demonstrated against the Vietnam War. Such demonstrators were repeatedly called cowards by those who supported our military’s war efforts. And so I guess that makes both John Kerry and Edward Snowden cowards, at least in the eyes of some people who choose to use this name calling strategy when they believe it suits them.

John Kerry Protesting Against the Vietnam War

What’s up with this Name Calling?

When we call someone a coward, we are not making a scientifically objective distinction as we do when, for example, we call a snake a reptile rather than an insect. People use the word “coward” as a strategic move to actually increase fear in the hopes of achieving their personal desires. I know that this can seem counterintuitive at first, but with a little thought, this becomes simple to understand.

Many people are afraid to put themselves in a position in which others are publically calling them cowards. Thus, Sec. Kerry, by calling Mr. Snowden a coward on national television, sought to discourage others with access to secret government information from revealing what they know for fear that they, too, would be branded a coward. And those who called Sec. Kerry a coward when he was a younger man protesting against the Vietnam War sought to discourage others from doing likewise lest they, too, would be subjected to such name calling.

When we think of the military we often think about how it honors certain individuals who act fearlessly in the face of danger. Typically this is done in a ceremony during which medals are handed out and an inspiring speech is presented. It stirs our hearts to participate in these events.

Although we may think that courage and bravery is the driving force of the military, far more often utilized are strategies designed to actually increase fear. It is worth taking a good hard look at these strategies because when people become more aware of this, their simplistic kneejerk reaction of construing any fearfulness that they personally experience as a sign of their cowardliness can be dispelled. A more realistic understanding of these experiences can then take its place, thus aiding people to make better informed choices as they seek to achieve their most treasured desires.

The Military’s Use of Fear

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, it was the fear that our country would be conquered by another country that led men to enlist in the various branches of the military in record numbers. But even when our country is not actually attacked, those who seek military intervention artfully manipulate fear to achieve their ends.

Those of us who lived through the period during which the Vietnam War mounted, recall how our fear was heightened by repeated references to the “Domino Theory.” This theory claimed that if one country in a region came under the influence of communism, then the surrounding countries would follow in a domino effect. Thus, fear was aroused that if South Vietnam was to fall to the communists, other countries in the region would soon follow. And then these countries would enter into a vast policy of conquest. The Philippines, the Hawaiian Islands, and the whole of our coast west of the Sierra Passes would be swamped by the invaders in rapid succession. If we fail to act decisively in Vietnam, the rest of America would, in but a few short years, be enslaved by the conquerors, our women raped, and our children brainwashed.

A dismal forecast indeed! And yet, just plausible enough to rile up enough Americans to wage a terribly costly war.

In the end, the U.S abandoned its effort to keep South Vietnam from falling to the communists. And yet none of the fearful projections about our own country being swamped by foreign invaders came to pass. Among the effects of the fear campaign were approximately 58,000 US combat deaths and a million Vietnam combat deaths. Several million others were seriously wounded and according to Vietnam’s government, the U.S. herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, conducted during the Vietnam War, led to 400,000 people killed or maimed as a result of after effects, and 500,000 children born with birth defects. To this day, our own country continues to provide treatment to thousands of American veterans who were wounded in Vietnam battles or have been suffering from the effects of exposure to Agent Orange.

More recently, as a result of the military’s leadership that drummed up fear of “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, we fought a war costing billions of dollars, the lives of 4,486 U.S. soldiers, and approximately 100,000 Iraqis. Many more are still suffering from serious injuries.

Once people begin to serve in the military, fear is a dominant driver of carrying out one’s duties. Military personnel quickly become aware that insubordination can lead to prison time and various forms of name calling, including being branded a coward. Fear is further heightened by knowledge of the possibility of being disgraced with a dishonorable discharge, or shot for desertion. If soldiers don’t carry out their duties under fire, this can increase the likelihood of the enemy either killing them along with their fellow service personnel or to being captured and subjected to possible torture. All of these fears are strategically heightened by the military so that these fears, when combined, will be greater than the competing fear that comes from the sounds of bombs going off, bullets flying overhead and knowing that severe injury or death may come at any moment.

Now, of course the military doesn’t just rely on fear to achieve its ends. It provides training, initially under relatively easy conditions, and then under more and more arduous ones, eventually requiring trainees to perform with live bullets flying overhead. This increases the military personnel’s confidence that they can indeed perform under highly stressful conditions. Stories are told of simple soldiers who achieved great acts of bravery. Military personnel are provided with leaders who have distinguished themselves as individuals of great intelligence and character. And there are rewards for carrying out one’s duties—a salary, cheers from one’s comrades, an honorable discharge, veteran’s benefits, etc. Nevertheless, the idea that there is no place for fear in the military is a bunch of hogwash.

Conclusion

Bob, experiencing fear as he prepares to perform with his band in front of a large audience, initially observes his thoughts going off into a chain of insults. “I’m such a coward. Why can’t I be like a brave soldier, never experiencing any fear even in the face of bullets raining down from the enemy?”

But then it dawns on Bob that soldiers actually do experience fear. With this knowledge, he decides to let his thoughts continue for a few more minutes, but he simply nonjudgmentally observes them passing by without attaching any belief in them. Soon, they pass. He gets on with the work before him. He spends some time practicing his performance. He recalls some stories he heard about other performers who experienced fear before shows and yet managed to thrill their audiences. And, from time to time, he reminds himself that if it turns out that the life of a musician ends up not suiting him, there are other paths he can take to create a worthwhile life.

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

Tags armed services, conflict management, conflict resolution, cowardliness, criticism, dispute management, disrespectful, Edward Snowden, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, insults, John Kerry, military, name calling, Secretary of State John Kerry, Vietnam War, wisdom

African American anger assertiveness Bullied bullying conflict management conflict resolution criticism emotional intelligence emotional maturity free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts Jr. Martin Luther King N-word Name calling psychological maturity respect social intelligence taunting wisdom

On Responding to the N-word

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date April 7, 2014
No Comments on On Responding to the N-word

Leonard Pitts, Jr. is a columnist, author of three novels and winner of numerous awards including the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary. When I heard that he was speaking at Flagler College, having enjoyed reading his insightful column for many years, I eagerly went to see him.

Mr. Pitts’s formal presentation was well received. Then, he began to take questions from the audience. His responses to each were like a laser in that his answers were precisely on point–that is, until I asked my question.

My Question

When I first stepped up to the mike, I explained that I had worked with teenagers for many years, and sometimes a white student would seek to insult a black student by calling him the N-word.

Often the response was a physical fight that would lead to a school suspension.

Before returning to school, in some cases both students were asked to meet with me. I saw each separately at first and usually I’d discuss Martin Luther King, Jr. For the black students, at some point in our discussion I would ask, “Do you understand that Martin Luther King, Jr. was all about non-violence when dealing with injustice?”

“Sure, I know that, man!” was a common reply.

Then I would say something like, “When you were called the N-word, you started to physically attack the guy who called you that. That’s a violent approach to the injustice you had faced. If it happens again, can you think of some other way to deal with this, some way that would respect Martin Luther King, Jr.’s memory?”

I would then typically get the following type reply: “If Martin Luther King, Jr. lived in my neighborhood, he’d have realized that if anyone called him that, the only way to respond is to bloody the guy up good!”

Having had experiences like this, I asked Mr. Pitts, “As a respected black man, how would you respond to someone who called you the N-word, and how would you advise black people to respond in the event that someone called them the N-word?”

Mr. Pitts’s Response

As I had said before, prior to my question, Mr. Pitts’s answers to questions that were being presented to him were right on point. Now, his reply wandered off to related issues, never directly answering my question.

He spoke, for example, of how he objected to hip-hop’s embrace of the word. He related it to how many women in the women’s movement have now embraced the phrase, “She’s my bitch,” as a form of flattery, despite the fact that historically it was used in an unkind manner by sexist men seeking to put down women. And he spoke eloquently about why he personally found the N-word so offensive. I didn’t write down his exact words, but it seemed to closely match the words he used in some of his earlier newspaper columns. For example, in a column published on November 30th, 2013, he wrote:

The N-word is unique. It was present at the act of mass kidnap that created “black America,” it drove the ship to get here, signed the contracts at flesh auctions on Southern ports as mother was torn from child, love from love and self from self. It had a front row center seat for the acts of blood, rape, castration, exclusion and psychological destruction by which the created people was kept down and in its place. The whole weight of our history dictates that word cannot be used except as an expression of contempt for African Americans.

Now, I do want to avoid a too simplistic presentation of Mr. Pitts’s position on the N-word. He does believe that the word can be rightly used in certain situations. For example, in a column titled, “Don’t Censor Mark Twain’s N word” he defended how it is used in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn:

It is, perhaps, the seminal moment in American literature.

Young Huck Finn, trying to get right with God and save his soul from a forever of fire, sits there with the freshly written note in hand. “Miss Watson,” it says, “your runaway nigger Jim is down here two mile below Pikesville and Mr. Phelps has got him and he will give him up for the reward if you send.”

Huck knows it is a sin to steal and he is whipped by guilt for the role he has played in helping the slave Jim steal himself from a poor old woman who never did Huck any harm. But see, Jim has become Huck’s friend, has sacrificed for him, worried about him, laughed and sung with him, depended upon him. So what, really, is the right thing to do?

“I was a-trembling,” says Huck, “because I’d got to decide, forever, betwixt two things and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself:

‘All right, then, I’ll go to hell’ — and tore it up.”

Mr. Pitts wrote this column in response to a publisher who had decided to put out a new edition of this classic story that replaced all 219 occurrences of the N-word with words such as “runaway slave.” Although Mr. Pitts acknowledges the publisher means well, he states that, “…it is troubling to think the state of reading comprehension in this country has become this wretched, that we have tweeted, PlayStationed and Fox Newsed so much of our intellectual capacity away that not only can our children not divine the nuances of a masterpiece, but that we will now protect them from having to even try.”

I liked what Mr. Pitts had said in reply to my question but as I left the auditorium, I wondered why he appeared to avoid answering my question more directly. And I wondered what he would say about the approach that I have been recommending for responding to insults (see for example, “Insulting Criticism: What Can We Do About It?”).

My Alternative to Violence When Responding to the N-word

Although I have given a number of different types of examples of people responding maturely to insults in past posts, I have never described specifically what my approach would look like in the type of a situation we have been discussing today. I, of course, recognize that since I am not an African-American, I lack much legitimacy in offering my opinion on this topic. Nevertheless, just to spur a deeper discussion, very tentatively I am tossing out one alternative to violence.

In the scenario presented below, this is the first time Fred is calling Leroy the N-word. In my view, Leroy’s response would be very different if Fred has begun to repeatedly taunt him. Concerns about how to handle taunting are addressed in my post titled “The Art of Playful Teasing”.

Leroy, an African-American teenager is called the N-word by Fred, a white teenager. Leroy replies by looking firmly into the eyes of Fred and says,”You just called me a nigger. I want to make certain you clearly understand that that word was used in the past by people who believed in slavery and that African-Americans are less than human. Is that what you are trying to say to me, that you believe in slavery, and I’m less than a human being?”

“Yeah, you nigger!” Fred replies.

Leroy pauses to think about this for a moment, looking down in a sad manner. Then, looking squarely into Fred’s eyes, he says firmly, “Why are you trying to insult me, Fred?”

“Because I hate niggers!”

“Fred, I’ve met some black guys who strike me as pretty hateful characters. But from my experience, there are a lot of great black guys out there. I hope in time you’ll change your mind. Anything else you want to say to me?

“Yeah, go to hell!”

“I understand that you’re trying to insult me, Fred. I’m always interested to hear you out. I’m sorry to hear how you feel about black people.”

Well, those are some thoughts I have for you this week. I encourage readers to continue the discussion by posting comments. I know these issues bring up for many of us some very strong emotions.

——————————-

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.

anger Bad Mood conflict resolution criticism free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults wisdom

Insults Because of the Desire to be Left Alone

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date March 30, 2014
3 Comments on Insults Because of the Desire to be Left Alone

In the above For Better or For Worse comic, we can see that a little interference with what Mom wants to be doing might not upset her to any great extent, but there may come a point when enough is enough and suddenly there is a kind of explosion. Even a little before the point of the explosion, some acts that normally wouldn’t be much of an annoyance may begin to feel terribly obnoxious. And she might, therefore, end up suddenly acting in a very disrespectful manner and throw insults at someone. In such a case, the insults that she provides will occur not because she has a desire to encourage someone to do something better or to engage in playful teasing, but because she has fallen into a crabby mood.

When people get hot, are around a lot of noise, or have met up with one too many hassles, they oftentimes become irritable. At such times they are more likely to say insulting things, to start shouting, or to put on a nasty-looking face.

In the millions of years that people have evolved, what survival value might crabby responses have? It seems to me that when people begin to get overwhelmed by environmental or social conditions, there may be value in their sending out a signal that says, “Leave me alone! I need some quiet time!”

Now suppose you come upon Jon in a crabby mood, but you haven’t observed the various annoying events that led up to his mood. Perhaps the heat is getting to him, but you are one of those people who finds heat quite pleasant. If you find that Jon begins to insult you for no apparent reason or for something so trivial that it is hard to believe he is so worked up about it, you might feel puzzled. You might feel that you’ve been mistreated and begin to insult him back. If he’s already in a crabby mood, do you think returning insults will be helpful?

If someone starts to insult you in a manner that doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense, one useful thing to say to yourself is, “Maybe the insults don’t have much to do with me. Maybe the insulter desires to be alone.”

To test your theory it may be helpful to softly ask, “Is everything all right?” Some listening in a caring way, followed by encouraging those close by to keep it down for a while, may be the wisest course of action.

Now I understand that it is no fun when someone is speaking to you in an insulting, disrespectful manner. You may, therefore, be very tempted to try to respond in a very different manner than how I just described. Perhaps you might decide to look firmly into the the insulter’s eyes and assertively say, “It seems to me that it is best to leave you alone for awhile. After you have some time to calm down, I’ll be wanting to talk to you about how you just spoke to me in a very disrespectful manner.”

I have tried out this approach. Most of the time it seemed to work fine. But on occasion things escalated to a point that led to some very ugly comments, and it became far more difficult to fix things up even after a reasonable period of time had passed. And so I recommend that you consider carefully whether it is wiser to avoid any mention of the disrespectful actions until after the insulter has had ample time to calm down.

If you find that you are becoming irritable and desire some quiet time, it’s important to recognize that insulting people may not be the best way to achieve what you want. Insulting may create the very conditions that will lead to the opposite of what you desire. People who are insulted often insult back, and their anger can create very noisy, even violent, interactions.

Instead of insulting the person encroaching on your time, consider saying, “Please, I want to be left alone for a while.” Seek to use a tone of voice that is as calm as you can muster. As you speak, look squarely into the eyes of the person you are speaking to. Attempt to communicate with your eyes that your request is urgent. Then smile and say, “I hope you don’t mind.”

Well, those are some ideas I wanted to share with you this week. May you soon find Mother Nature beginning to do some wonderful things with her paintbrush after this long, hard winter.

——————————-

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

Tags anger, Bad Mood, conflict management, crabby mood, criticism, disrespectful manner, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, insults, wisdom

Beetle Bailey conflict management conflict resolution criticism dig for the conflict emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts Name calling recurring conflict social intelligence types of criticism

RESOLVING RECURRING CONFLICTS

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date February 16, 2014
1 Comment on RESOLVING RECURRING CONFLICTS

One day Beetle Bailey and Sarge have a conflict:

As you can see, eventually the conflict is resolved.

But a few days later, the two have another conflict.

Again and again other conflicts spring up between these same two individuals. These recurring conflicts come about with a distinctly higher frequency than usual for two people in the types of situations in which they live and interact.

When we see two people having an unusual amount of recurring conflicts, at some point we might want to dig a little below the surface to figure out why.

Using the DIG Conflict Model to Help with Challenging Conflicts

From time to time on this blog, we have been using the word DIG to remind us of a simple way to briefly summarize any conflict. The letters in the word “DIG” reminds us to look for a desire, what is interfering with achieving the desire, and if someone feels that the person who is viewed as interfering with the desire is guilty of doing something wrong. We also noted earlier that the word “DIG” is a useful memory device because sometimes we have to dig below the surface to understand a conflict (see DIG FOR THE CONFLICT and DEALING WITH CRITICISM BY DIGGING DEEPER).

In an earlier post, I discussed two digging tools that help us to find ways of improving our style of providing criticism and resolving conflicts (see WHY IS CRITICISM SO HARD TO BEAR?). There, I mentioned that it is helpful to stay mindful that when people are criticized, their desire to be liked and to maintain their freedom may become threatened. By keeping this in mind, we can often come up with less threatening alternative styles to engage people during our disagreements. During recurring conflicts, these tools for digging can be very helpful.

Today, we are going to look at three other digging tools because they are especially helpful when we notice that we are dealing with recurring conflicts.

Three Digging Tools Especially Helpful for Resolving Recurring Conflicts

The three digging tools we will focus on today are in the form of questions:

1. What desire might be motivating the conflict?

2. What other desires might be motivating the conflict?

3. Why do the people involved in the problem have this desire in this situation?

To familiarize yourself with this aspect of conflicts, please consider the following Beetle Bailey comic:

From this comic, we might get the impression that Sarge views this situation as a conflict he is having with Beetle, a conflict that we might describe from his perspective as follows: Sarge desires Beetle to wait in a certain spot and interfering with his desire, Beetle wants to wait in a different spot. Sarge believes that if Beetle doesn’t follow his order, he will be guilty of insubordination.

Suppose we ask Sarge if, from his perspective, these two sentences capture a conflict he is having with Beetle, and he replies, “Yes! That lazy bum is trying to goof off again!”

At this point, something strikes me over the head, urging me to dig a little deeper than the two-sentence conflict description Sarge has said captures his conflict with Beetle. It seems to me that Sarge and Beetle seem to be having far more conflicts with one another than is usual between a sargent and a private under his command.

Hmmm. To begin digging into this conflict, I put my tools out there where I can easily get at them. In bold letters I write out the following three questions.

1. What desire might be motivating the conflict? 2. What other desires might be motivating the conflict? 3. Why does the party have this desire in this situation?

As I begin to think about this a little more, I wonder if the desire that I identified in my first attempt to describe the conflict is the best that I can come up with. Is this really about Sarge’s desire to have Beetle wait in the exact spot that he has pointed to?

In this situation I don’t see how Sarge thinks Beetle is likely to behave in a manner that is interfering with what Sarge says he desires. Beetle just asks if he can wait sitting in the shade. Sarge knows Beetle well enough by now so that he must realize that once he orders Beetle to wait where he tells him to wait, he isn’t likely to be insubordinate. Moreover, it wasn’t any problem for Sarge to figure out how to get Beetle to wait where he wanted him to wait. All he had to do was bark orders at Beetle, something he’s done numerous times. Perhaps Sarge has some other desire that is part of the reason he is getting so worked up here.

My memory scans over the other recent conflicts I’ve seen happen between Sarge and Beetle. I recall, over and over again, situations that had Sarge perceiving Beetle as lazy.

I also recall seeing many times over the years Sarge becoming furious about Beetle’s laziness.

OK, so in most of the situations that conflicts spring up between the two, laziness is an issue.

Let’s pretend, for instructional purposes, that I can explore with Sarge whether or not we can reword the original conflict description as a recurring conflict.

“Sarge, I’m gonna describe your conflict a little differently than before because I don’t think the original description is as good as we can make it. If you don’t mind, let me know if it is more or less accurate. Earlier I described it from your perspective as follows: You desire that Beetle wait in a certain spot and Beetle interfered with your desire when he indicated that he wants to wait in a different spot. You believe that if Beetle doesn’t follow your order, he will be guilty of insubordination. You agreed that it is pretty accurate. But what if I describe it instead like this: You have a desire to have privates under your command that are energetic go-getters, and after Beetle was assigned to your outfit you have found his laziness has been interfering with this desire. You believe Beetle is, and will continue to be, guilty of laziness.”

“Yes, that is a much better description of my conflict with Beetle than your original description.”

“I thought it might be. Beetle has been in your outfit for years. Specific conflicts arose. To deal with his laziness I’ve noticed that you have yelled at him, given him KP duty that required that he peel potatoes up to his ears, and used all manner of threats and physical attacks.

Beetle at least listens to your orders, though sometimes taking them a bit too literally. But, nevertheless, he is never blatantly insubordinate. Although Beetle continues to be lazy, you found that with a little assertive hollering (“I SAID WAIT HERE, AND I MEAN RIGHT HERE!”) he usually complies even if he has to stand in place while a steam shovel comes roaring by.”

“Yeah, but he keeps acting lazy. It’s driving me BERSERK!”

“I can tell it’s starting to really get to you.”

“You’re telling me!!!”

“This last conflict you had with Beetle was resolved with so little difficulty that it really didn’t qualify as a conflict or even a problem. And yet, Sarge, you remained angry. And this kind of troubling interaction with Beetle has been happening in one situation after another. Something else has to be going on.”

“Sarge, I noticed that in each situation that you get angry with Beetle Bailey, it usually has to do with his laziness.”

“You’re right about that!”

Once Sarge clearly understands the nature of his recurring conflict, he is in a better position to seek out a resolution. Before he understood this, when he would complain to his fellow sergeants about Beetle not doing this or that, they would ask, “Well, did you get him to do it?” When Sarge would answer yes, they would shrug, and say, “At least he’s not insubordinate.” But now Sarge tells his fellow sergeants, “See if you can help me with this problem. I want privates under my command to be energetic, hustling team members, and after Beetle was assigned to my outfit I’ve found his laziness has been interfering with this desire. Beetle continues to be guilty of laziness. Any of you have any ideas to fix this?”

“Well, I had a recruit once by the name of Bob,” says one of the sergeants, “and he was the laziest bum I ever saw in my life. Well, what I did was, I told this here Bob, the next time you do anything that strikes me as lazy, I’m gonna put you on KP duty until you go a whole two weeks without my catching you acting lazy. Then I’m gonna let you off KP duty until I catch ya being lazy again. We’re gonna keep doing this until you stop being lazy. Anyway, it worked like a charm.”

Now I’m not saying this plan is ideal or that it will work every time. I simply lay it out there as a part of a parable designed to give you an example of a recurring conflict and to suggest that by digging a little to better define a conflict, we are oftentimes better positioned to seek more specific, helpful advice.

——————————-

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

Tags Beetle Bailey, conflict, conflict management, conflict resolution, desire, dig for the conflict, dispute management, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, insults, negative criticism, recurring conflict

Chris Christie conflict management conflict resolution criticism free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults politicians Rep. Michael Grimm

THE IMMATURITY OF POLITICIANS

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date February 9, 2014
1 Comment on THE IMMATURITY OF POLITICIANS

Regular readers of this blog well know that I have been advocating that there are some ways of responding to interpersonal situations that are more mature than others. For example, in one post I describe four levels of maturity for responding to criticism. In another, I describe five levels of maturity for providing negative criticism. In those posts, I contend that when dealing with criticism the use of insults and threats tend to lower your level of maturity. Moreover, people who are less mature tend to be less liked and respected, and in the long run, less effective in achieving their goals. Shortly after I began to write these posts, I began to hear from some people who wondered if my levels of maturity don’t apply in the realm of politics. One reflection of this sentiment came from E. Mark Stern who wrote: My wife is in local politics. And though she decided to run for office knowing that there would be political opponents, she had not bargained for the name calling and personal attacks on her being….One may think of such bullying as much in the American tradition – a to be expected risk that elected officials need to grin and bear. But when attacks get personal, and one’s being is fair target, then it gets intolerable and the people one serves suffer for it. After reading these types of comments, I began to think of the many attack ads that we all are exposed to during political campaigns. And then I thought about what I had heard from several TV political analysts over the year–attack ads are used because they work. There is obviously a great deal of money to be made from producing and running these ads for the very same people who hire TV political analysts, so I decided to look deeper into this claim.

How Effective Are Attack Ads?

According to an August 8, 2013 article in Scientific American: “A comprehensive literature analysis published in 2007 in the Journal of Politics examined the effects of political ads. The authors reported that negative ads tended to be more memorable than positive ones but that they did not affect voter choice. People were no less likely to turn out to the polls or to decide against voting for a candidate who was attacked in an ad.” The Scientific American article goes on to say that the reviewed studies all had some drawbacks and therefore evidence on the effectiveness of negative political ads is best viewed as inconclusive. After looking at the scientific evidence for the insulting actions that politicians regularly engage in, I wrote two posts that tried to throw some light on this topic–one back on October 13, 2012 about two presidential debates, and a more recent one on January 13, 2014 about New Jersey’s Governor Chris Christie’s use of insults. Since I wrote those posts, a couple of particularly vivid examples came to my attention. The first again involves Governor Christie; the other involves US Congressman Michael Grimm.

The Governor Christie Example

This example I first learned about it on the Feb. 6, 2014, edition of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show. According to Rachel’s report, on Nov. 17, 1996, Chris Cristie, who had recently been elected to be a Morris County Freeholder, made a public apology and retraction to two people who ran against him in the Republican primaries. He had claimed in attack ads that they were under investigation for their part in some corruption scandal. Here is his apology: Dear Cissy and Ed, I am writing to express my sincere apology to both of you and your families concerning two political advertisements which ran on my behalf during the Freeholders Primary Election Campaign in May and June, 1994. The commercials ran over 400 times on cable TV. He goes on to state that “the ads were not appropriate. They should not have been part of my campaign when I ran against you. I fully intend, in any future campaigns in which I am involved, to be more sensitive to the impact of such tactics. I hope you will accept this heartfelt apology in which it is made.”

Rachel reported that the “spirit in which that apology was made is that it was legally required of Chris Christie after he was sued over those ads.” Although the ads were declared false after the election was over, Rachel expressed her belief that they worked for Christie who won that race. I’m not really sure I agree with Rachel that the ads worked. We really don’t know for a fact that Christie wouldn’t have won the election anyway. In addition to the apology, as part of settling the law suit, Christie had to pay money to the people that he ran the ads against. After the voters heard what he had done, they failed to reelect him when he ran again for the same seat. Moreover, he tried to get elected during that same period to another office, and again he lost. Christie was only able to get back into politics after that incident after raising a great deal of money for George W. Bush during Bush’s run for president, who then rewarded Christie by naming him top federal prosecutor of NJ even though he was never a prosecutor before at any level. The years went on, and finally Christie again ran for office–this time for Governor of New Jersey–and won.

The Rep. Michael Grimm Example

About a year or so ago, Rep. Grimm was being interviewed by Michael Scotto, a NY1 reporter, about President Obama’s State of The Union speech. When Scotto tried to turn the conversation to the subject of a two-year federal investigation into allegations of a campaign finance violations investigation, Grimm told him, “I’m not speaking about anything that’s off topic. This is only about the President,” and then he walked away. But as Scotto was talking to viewers back in New York, the Congressman stormed back into the shot and threatened and insulted him. “Let me be clear to you, you ever do that to me again I’ll throw you off this f—–g balcony,” Grimm said. “Why, why, I just wanted to ask you …?” Scotto responded. “If you ever do that to me again …,” the Representative shot back. “It’s a valid question,” Scotto said in his defense, but Grimm replied: “No, no, you’re not man enough, you’re not man enough. I’ll break you in half. Like a boy,” according to the NY1 transcript. The next day, Grimm issued a public apology: “I was wrong. I shouldn’t have allowed my emotions to get the better of me and lose my cool. I have apologized to Michael Scotto, which he graciously accepted, and will be scheduling a lunch soon. In the weeks and months ahead I’ll be working hard for my constituents on issues like flood insurance that is so desperately needed in my district post-Sandy.”

Discussion

I began this post by contending that: 1. there are some ways of responding to interpersonal situations that are more mature than others 2. when dealing with criticism the use of insults and threats tend to lower your level of maturity 3. people who are less mature tend to be less liked and respected, and in the long run, less effective in achieving their goals. If I am correct, why then do so many politicians regularly display behaviors that I characterize as immature?

One reason that we looked at was that many people have a financial interest in selling the idea that smear tactics do work. In actuality, the best scientific evidence currently available suggests that this claim is false. Since this evidence is not perfect, the best that we can say for the claim is that there is no convincing evidence to support it despite years of research that has focused on addressing this issue.

After discussing this research, I then presented two examples of politicians using immature ways to criticize others. Chris Christie used a smear campaign against his opponents in a Republican primary. Although he won the election, he had to issue a public apology, pay a financial settlement and he became unelectable for several years afterwards. Rep. Grimm desired to not have to publicize the fact that there has been an investigation into allegations regarding his campaign. When he criticized a reporter for bringing the topic up in front of a TV camera, he included in his criticism, threats and insults. Like Christie, he too had to issue a public apology. Moreover, because of his immature actions, the press publicized the story to a far greater audience leading to far more people learning about the investigation.

The levels of maturity for responding or providing negative criticism are most relevant to your interpersonal relationships. The relationship between politicians and their voters is best viewed as an intergroup relationship, rather than an interpersonal one. This intergroup relationship involves the group of people who might potentially vote for him, the group of people who have a vested interest in getting the politician elected, and the groups of people who are working to get someone else elected.

Although I contend that the levels of maturity are relevant in intergroup relationships, other issues often become more important. When people decide on who to vote for, they consider many issues, not just whether or not the candidate insults anyone. If some voters recognize that Governor Christie insults others a bit more than other candidates, they may feel that his stand on keeping taxes low is a far more important issue for them. Politicians, moreover, are not seeking to develop a sound interpersonal relationship with you. Instead, they are seeking your vote. They know very well that not everyone is going to vote for them. If they anger 49 percent of voters, but 51 percent end up voting for them, they achieved their goal, at least in the short run. When it comes to interpersonal relationships, if you act in a manner that leads to 49 percent of the people you personally know not liking you, those who don’t like you can begin to say things behind your back to people who actually personally interact with you. Some of what they say can be untrue and very unfair. You may find that when people that you like have parties, you no longer get invited. When you used to be invited to go bowling, now someone else is getting invited instead. These types of consequences have far more direct effects on your personal life than anything that is likely to happen as a result of a typical election. And so, for these reasons, I hope that you don’t come to believe that because many politicians act in insulting ways throughout their careers that this means that the notion of maturity is irrelevant to your own interpersonal relationships.

———————

Tags anger, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, Governor Chris Christie, Governor Christie, insults, interpersonal relationships, maturity levels, Michael Scotto, negative criticism, politicians, Rachel Maddow, Rachel Maddow Show, Rep. Michael Grimm

conflict management conflict resolution criticism free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts MATURITY negative criticism social intelligence types of criticism wisdom

LEARNING TO HANDLE CRITICISM MATURELY: A PRACTICE SESSION UTILIZING COMIC STRIP EXAMPLES

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date January 26, 2014
2 Comments on LEARNING TO HANDLE CRITICISM MATURELY: A PRACTICE SESSION UTILIZING COMIC STRIP EXAMPLES

In an earlier post, eight reasons were given for why someone might criticize or insult you. Becoming familiar with the various reasons is helpful because once you identify the reason, it becomes easier to choose a plan to maturely deal with the criticism. If you see that someone is just playfully teasing you, just a smile may be all that is needed as a response. If someone is criticizing you because he or she is in a bad mood, all that might be needed is a gentle, sympathetic response such as, “Is everything okay?”

One of the most frequent reasons why people might criticize you is to encourage you to make some type of improvement. For example, let’s say we’re going out to dinner at a fancy restaurant. I see that you have a stain on your shirt. I might say, “Your shirt has a stain on it.” In this example, I criticized your shirt because I want to encourage you to change your shirt for something that I think would be an improvement.

When we discussed handling this type of criticism, I proposed that there were:

Five levels of maturity for responding to this type of criticism (see posts titled RESPONDING TO CRITICISM: FOUR LEVELS OF MATURITY and RESPONDING TO CRITICISM: THE MOST MATURE LEVEL).

and

Five levels of maturity for providing this type of criticism (see post titled PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM: FIVE LEVELS OF MATURITY).

Today we will have some fun practicing identifying what level of maturity is being displayed by a comic strip character and then describing what the character would have to do to earn a more mature rating. By diligently working on the following exercises, you will find that you will be far better at applying these skills to real life situations.

Exercises with Comics

These exercises require that you read a comic and then respond to one or more questions. After you create each of your answers, you will have the opportunity to compare it to how I would go about analyzing the situation.

Here’s an interesting one. Linus criticizes his sister, Lucy, in the hope that this will encourage her to make an improvement. How would you rate Lucy’s response to Linus’s criticism?

MY ANSWER:Of the FIVE LEVELS OF MATURITY FOR RESPONDING TO CRITICISM, the lowest level is described as follows:

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

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

Because Lucy hits Linus, she deserves a rating of 1, the lowest level of maturity.

It is interesting that after she hits Linus, Lucy does begin to ask for more information about the criticism he had provided. This is encouraging from a developmental point of view. It suggests that Lucy is at least trying to come to some understanding about the criticism. Mature individuals do process the criticism they receive rather than just ignore it. But once Lucy has shown Linus that she is likely to slug him when he provides her criticism, he is unlikely to be willing to provide her even more criticism out of fear he would get slugged again. And so, even though Lucy is interested in learning more about this “talking too much” issue, she may not get a fair and accurate report. The fact that we silence people from providing important information to us when we hit them is one of the reasons hitting leads to a very low rating. Wise people encourage criticism rather that discourage it.

Although Lucy’s interest in the criticism does suggest that maturity is beginning to blossom within her, the rating system calls for a rating of 1 if she hits someone regardless of what else she does. However, if you would like to give her a little higher rating because she shows some real interest in the criticism, that’s fine with me.

In the next comic, Charlie Brown is provided two types of criticism, first positive and then negative. How would you rate each of Charlie’s two responses?

My Answer: As Patty is telling Charlie what’s on her mind, he seems to be smiling, and then he says, “Well, thank you, Patty…I appreciate the compliment.” This seems to be very consistent with a level 4 response.

Patty then replies, “Don’t mention it…I think that’s the least a person can say about you…” Charlie appears to be offended by this. There is a hint of a lowered eyebrow in the final picture (Mr. Shultz often used a lowered eyebrow to convey anger). Also, Charlie’s mouth is wide open, and the word, “LEAST” is in bold letters, followed by an exclamation mark. I’m going to give Charlie’s second response a 3 because it matches the level 3 description, which states:

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.

I think Charlie’s response matches level 3 because he made it pretty clear to Patty, without hitting her or calling her any names, that he has become defensive as a result of her second criticism. If Charlie had said the same words, but with a twinkle in his eyes, followed by a friendly smile, I would have given his response pretty close to a level 4.

Let’s do a Calvin and Hobbes comic; they’re so much fun. As you read it, please take a look to see how Susie handles Calvin’s criticism and then give her response your rating.

My Answer: After Calvin criticizes Susie’s statement about Hobbes looking cuddly by saying, “HA!”she does not cry, hit Calvin, destroy any property, insult or glare at him, nor does she indicate that she is uninterested in his criticism, so she doesn’t deserve to get a 1, 2, or 3 rating for her response. She begins by saying, “Ferocious?” This indicates to me that she has heard at least a part of the criticism and is giving it some thought. Summarizing the criticism is one way to show that whatever was said by the criticizer has been heard, and this is an important part of a level 4 response (“…the person criticized makes it clear that he or she fully understands what was said.”).

Later in her response, Susie indicates that she disagrees with Calvin’s criticism by saying, “No, he’s not. He’s a big cutie.” Then she hugs Hobbes and smiles sweetly.

Level 4 responses permit people to disagree, but it must be done without being disagreeable. I’m not sure if Calvin completely sees Susie’s style of disagreeing with him as not being disagreeable, but it strikes me as rather sweet.

In the last scene, Calvin and Hobbes argue and Hobbes says, “I was beguiled by her feminine charms, yow.” Because we, the readers, know Hobbes is really a stuffed animal, the words of Hobbes really are designed to capture a little of how Calvin feels inside. Thus Calvin recognizes at some level that Susie’s responses in the interaction he had with her were somewhat beguiling. I guess I’m leaning toward giving Susie a rating pretty close to a level 4. She could have been a little warmer to Calvin and showed some empathy for his desire to have a stuffed tiger that looks ferocious, so I’ll remove some fraction of one off her level 4 rating and give her a 3.8. If Susie was a student of mine, I’d provide her rating in the following format—“I gave you 4 points because your plan best matches the level 4 description, and then I subtracted .2 points because you didn’t show you fully understood Calvin’s criticism. Therefore you earned a 3.8.”

In the following Baby Blues comic the wife is angry about something.

It looks pretty obvious to me that the wife is angry because her husband is relaxing while she is doing one chore after another. Pretend that you are her and you decide to criticize your husband. This leads you to pause to consider how you are inclined to do this. You see within yourself that you plan to act nasty to him. Please rate that plan and then see if you can come up with something more mature.

My Answer: If I was imagining I was the wife in this situation, I would rate the plan that is used in the comic a 2 because it best matches the level 2 description:

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
Threatens bodily harm regardless of what else is said

In seeking to figure out a more mature response, I think I might end up creating something like this— I’d say to my husband, “When I’m cleaning around the house and you are relaxing, I prefer that you get up and get your own drink. Are you okay with that?” Then I would listen to his response in a caring manner, show him that I heard what he said, and then, if I wanted to provide some additional negative criticism to him because I disagreed with his response, I would pause to rate the response I am inclined to make, and try to create something more mature.

Well, this concludes our little practice session for today. I hope you had some fun.

———————————-

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

Tags Calvin and Hobbes, Charlie Brown, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, insults, maturity, negative criticism, types of criticism

anger Bullied bullying conflict management conflict resolution criticism free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts MATURITY Name calling negative criticism playful teasing psychological maturity respect social intelligence taunting teasing types of criticism wisdom

PUTTING DOWN NON-GROUP MEMBERS

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date January 20, 2014
4 Comments on PUTTING DOWN NON-GROUP MEMBERS

On this blog, I have often discussed various reasons why someone might throw insults at you, and, depending on the reason, how to maturely deal with these challenging experiences (see for example, “Insults: A Comic Strip Guide“). If John is throwing an insult at you because he is in a bad mood, just asking in a concern manner, “Is everything OK, John, you sound like something is bothering you?” might be a useful way to begin to respectfully deal with this type of situation. You might want to respond differently, however, if you see that John is insulting you because he hopes it will encourage you to make a change he thinks you need to make. In this type of situation, beginning your response by initially ignoring the insult and instead summarizing his concern could be more helpful than asking if everything is OK or making a big thing about the insult.

In earlier posts, we have discussed eight different reasons why people throw insults at others, and mature responses to deal with each of these situations. Today let’s focus on some ways to deal with situations in which you might find yourself being insulted by those in a group because they view you as a non-group member.

Putting Down Non-group Members

Many people have a desire to join together in a common cause. This can dramatically increase their own personal power. And it is one of the big reasons why playing a game like baseball can be so much fun. Hit a homer or even a ground ball that brings in the winning run, and your group is patting you on the back and cheering.

When immature people join together, however, because of their lack of empathy, they often join together to put down and humiliate non-group members–particularly if the non-group members are a minority or viewed as too powerless to defend themselves.

Sometimes we see this sort of behavior occur when a new girl starts a new school.

When someone faces these types of difficult situations, what is a respectable way to respond? No single blog post can fully answer this question, but I would like to throw out some ideas for your consideration. Let’s begin with a parable.

The Parable of Jason and Ron

As you look at the four pictures of this parable, let me add some details. When Jason says, “I’m sorry you feel that way, Ron,” he looks squarely into Ron’s eyes. Then he gives Ron a slight nod of his head and goes on his way. Throughout the interaction between Jason and Ron, Jason remains friendly, while at the same time, self-assured.

When I was in school, one day I noticed a boy handle a similar situation like Jason. The other students seemed to respect how the boy handled the teasing. So I began to rehearse this style in front of a mirror over the course of a few days. The next time one of the older students teased me, I gave it a try. It ended up working just fine.

The “Give The Teasers What They Want” Approach

Now I understand that the approach described in “The Jason and Ron Parable” might not work perfectly in every situation. Acting self-assured might actually increase the desire by group members to prove that they are powerful and the person being insulted is nothing but a pile of trash. To try to prove this, they might insult you even worse than if you said nothing, or they might even physically attack you. Because of this risk, many people faced with insults from a larger, more powerful group choose to give the teasers what they want–to feel they are more powerful than others. People using this approach, when faced by these teasers, keep their eyes down toward the ground, and try to walk away as quickly as they can without saying anything. In this way, they don’t challenge the teasers sense of power in any way.

I’ve seen people use the “Give the Teasers What They Want” approach and it sometimes works to a certain degree. The immature group members, with their lack of empathy toward others, after saying a few mean things, let the teased person walk by, and there is no more of these incidences. The group members feel that they had a little fun and the teased person gets away without any physical harm. His or her feelings might feel hurt, but this passes before too long.

I must admit that I used this approach a few times when I was young. It bothered me that I didn’t stand up for myself in a more “manly” manner, but at the same time I was glad that I got home safe.

The “Physical Attack” Approach

Now in contrast to the approach used in the “Jason and Ron Parable” and the “Give The Teasers What They Want” approach, some people have made the case that if anyone insults you, the only proper way to deal with this is to start swinging with everything you got. It doesn’t matter if you end up getting ganged up, beaten severely, or evenbeing killed, you must physically attack to maintain your dignity. Consider Mike’s story.

Mike’s Story

One day, I received a comment on my blog by a young man who recalled an incident that he had had when he was a new kid at school. “On the school bus,” he wrote, “I began to get picked on. I was not the kind of mature kid who ignored the situation and so I ended up getting into fights as a result. I’d like to preface my next statement with the following–I am not condoning fighting and do not recommend fighting as a solution to any type of verbal altercation. That being said, after showing the bullies that I’d stand up for myself, not only did the bullying come to an abrupt end, but I ended up becoming friends with several of them and seemed to garner the respect of many of the other kids on the bus. Again I’m not condoning fighting but am suggesting that in some cases a show of strength can be an effective way to resolve conflict.”

Here’s how I responded to Mike:

Hi Mike,

You are absolutely right. In some situations a kid who starts to get picked on will physically go at those doing the tormenting. The tormentors end up backing down, others end up respecting the kid who shut the tormentors up, and the kid even ends up making friends with the tormentors. This is a real possibility. Now, let’s consider other possibilities of a kid physically going at his tormentors so all of us can make an informed decision about how best to handle these types of situations.

In one case that I’m familiar with, a boy that we will call Cal, went to his dad and complained in a choked up voice of a bully picking on him on the bus. The dad, having had a very similar experience when he was young that you had, Mike, began to holler at his son. “If someone picks on you, you go at him with everything you have and that will shut him up. That’s how I handled that type of situation and it worked every time. I can’t believe you didn’t do that. Here you are crying over it. I’m ashamed of you!”

What the dad didn’t know at the time was that Cal had already witnessed another kid on the bus who was bigger and stronger than him try to do just what his dad had said to do. The bully quickly grabbed the arm of this kid, twisted it behind his back until it was excruciatingly painful. After the kid tried his best to get free, the twisted arm was twisted tighter and the kid let out a scream. The bus driver yelled to quiet down. The bully then loosened his grip on the kid, slapped him on the side of his face, and said, “If you ever start in with me again, I’ll catch you after school and you’ll really be sorry.”

Cal, seeing this happen to someone he knew was stronger than he is, became increasing depressed and when he began to talk about killing himself, he ended up in my office. Before long he blurted out all that he was going through.

Now, here’s another possible outcome of a kid going physically at bullies. The kid ends up winning the fight, or at least does enough harm to the bullies, that they settle down for the remainder of the trip. But the bullies belong to a gang, and having embarrassed the bullies on the bus, the gang decides to get revenge. The kid gets attacked and ends up with serious injuries, or even dead.

Or the bullies, seeing that they can’t get the kid to kowtow to them, end up working up their fury until they begin to get revenge by doing some things behind the kid’s back. The kid discovers his backpack has been slashed and in the crowd that is looking on, he sees the bullies smirking. Then the kid’s bike is stolen. Again the bullies have smirks on their faces. The kid tries to get even, the conflict escalates, and before long someone gets knifed or a gun explodes.

These are just some of the other outcomes that have occurred when someone has decided to physically attack bullies. Each person has to consider the situation and decide what is right.

Since writing the above reply to Mike, I read Malcolm Gladwell’s bestselling book, Outliers. In one of his chapters, I learned that communities that have a higher than average percentage of people who hold the attitude that the only way to deal with people being disrespectful to you is to physically attack them tend to have higher than average murder rates. Is that the type of community you wish to live in. Some of the bullets that fly by in those communities end up striking people who are not even involved in the anger arousing situation, including children. And so, I think people should think seriously about this issue.

Making a choice between which type of approach to use in any given situation requires some deep thought. I hope this post gives you some useful material as you go about deciding for yourself what makes the best sense.

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

Tags anger, bullied, bullies, bully, bullying, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, dispute management, disrespectful, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, insults, maturity, non-group members, out groups, psychological maturity, types of criticism, wisdom

bullying Chris Christie conflict management conflict resolution criticism emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults Name calling respect social intelligence wisdom

GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE’S USE OF INSULTS

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date January 13, 2014
1 Comment on GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE’S USE OF INSULTS

In earlier posts on this blog I have advocated that it can be helpful to become familiar with five levels of maturity for responding to negative criticism and five levels of maturity for providing negative criticism (see for example Providing Negative Criticism: Five Levels of Maturity). In those posts, I have contended that when responding or providing negative criticism the use of insults tends to lower your level of maturity. Moreover, people who are less mature tend to be less liked and respected.

If the arguments that I have made in those earlier posts are accurate, how then can I explain the successful career that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has had? Here is a man who is well known to use insults when he is criticized and when he is criticizing others. Here is a man who likes to characterize his use of insults as his way of being “blunt and direct” even though a person can surely be blunt and direct without seeking to insult people. Here is a man who has managed to get himself elected as a county legislator in New Jersey’s Morris County, appointed as United States Attorney for New Jersey, elected Governor of New Jersey twice, and viewed as one of the front runners for the next U.S. presidential election. Here is a man that many people have come to admire.

By addressing this apparent paradox between my proposed levels of maturity and the success of Gov. Christie, readers will have an opportunity to come to a more refined, precise understanding of how to utilize the levels of maturity as a guide for dealing with interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships.

Explaining the Paradox

First of all, as I have explained in earlier posts, the five levels of maturity for responding or providing negative criticism are most relevant to your interpersonal relationships and your intrapersonal relationships. As I define these terms, your interpersonal relationships are your interactions with people with whom you have direct, face to face interactions on an ongoing basis; your intrapersonal relationships involve interactions that you have with yourself.

The relationship that Gov. Christie has with his voters is best viewed as an intergroup relationship, rather than either an interpersonal or intrapersonal relationship. This intergroup relationship involves the group of people who might potentially vote for him, the group of people who have a vested interest in getting the governor elected, and the groups of people who are working to get someone else elected. Although the five levels of maturity are relevant in intergroup relationships, other issues often become more important.

In an interpersonal relationship, if you attempt to insult the person whom you are interacting with, that person might insult you back and the interaction can escalate into violence. When we see Gov. Christie seeking to insult someone, he almost always has a group of supporters standing behind him and a team of armed security personnel well trained to intervene if an insulted party makes any moves at all that can be viewed as violent. Under this set of circumstances, it is far safer to play the part of a tough guy who doesn’t take any crap from anyone than if you, personally, seek to insult someone with whom you have an interpersonal relationship.

Here’s another difference between what typically happens during your interpersonal relationships and the intergroup interactions that involve the governor. When someone directly seeks to insult you, unless you are well trained in handling this in a peaceful manner, you are likely to take the insult personally. The emotions that arise in this situation are more likely to be stronger than if you see on TV, or in a large arena, the governor throwing insults at someone you are not likely to personally know.

The governor, moreover, is not seeking to develop a sound interpersonal relationship with you. He is, instead, seeking your vote. He knows very well that not everyone is going to vote for him. If he angers 49 percent of voters, but 51 percent end up voting for him, he’s achieved his goal. In the last election, the governor managed to get 60% of the vote and not only did this mean that he was reelected, but the media repeatedly described his win as a landslide victory. This victory meant that 40% of the voters voted for someone else. Now, when it comes to interpersonal relationships, if you act in a manner that leads to 4 people out of 10 not liking you, this can lead to far more direct problems for you then if 4 out of 10 people don’t vote for you in a statewide election. Those who don’t like you can begin to say things behind your back to people who actually personally interact with you. Some of what get says can be untrue and very unfair. You may find that when people that you like have parties, you no longer get invited. When you used to be invited to go bowling, now someone else is getting invited. These types of consequences have far more direct effects on your personal life than anything that is likely to happen as a result of a New Jersey election.

When people decide on who to vote for, they consider many issues, not just whether or not the candidate insults anyone. When Gov. Christie insults someone, many voters are apt to say to themselves, he isn’t doing anything different than all the other politicians. They therefore decide to choose a candidate based on other issues. If some voters recognize that Governor Christie insults others a bit more than other candidates, they may feel that his stand on keeping taxes low is a far more important issue for them.

Gov. Christie’s popularity, in my opinion, is largely based on his positions on the issues and, indeed, on some of his personal characteristics. Although the media plays up, and repeatedly show instances in which he insults people, if you really follow his career, you find that the vast majority of the time he conducts himself in a manner very consistent with the highest levels of maturity. When someone criticizes him, most often he listens without getting defensive, clearly shows that he understands the criticism, and when he agrees with the criticism, he says so. When he disagrees, in a warm and friendly style he very articulately explains why he disagrees. People who have not made up their minds on a particular issue have an opportunity to see his take on the issue and a significant amount of undecided voters end up becoming convinced that the governor’s position is correct.

Gov. Christie has demonstrated that he knows how, when he is criticized or when he criticizes others, to act in the most mature manner. When he does choose to throw an insult at someone, in the vast majority of cases he is very careful to do so when it is unlikely to harm him politically. You can be sure that when he was the United States Attorney for New Jersey, any time he disagreed with one of the judges involved in a case he was working on he never chose to directly insult the judge. If he had, his career would have taken a tailspin.

The governor knows full well that there are voters in New Jersey who will never vote for him no matter what he says. And so, when he chooses to insult someone, it is almost always directed at that group of people or the positions that they tend to believe in. By doing so, his supporters come to see him as a leader who will be a strong defender of the positions they hold dear.

In recent events involving some lane closings on the George Washington Bridge into New York City that created gridlock traffic in Fort Lee, New Jersey, Gov. Christie began to use his style of insults in a very different manner than I had become accustomed to, and it has landed him in a heap of trouble. The lane closings appeared to some reporters as a “get back” strategy designed to punish someone who didn’t support Gov. Christie in his latest run for reelection. When questioned about this, the governor became sarcastic, and he sought to insult the questioners, saying they were “obsessing” over a minor issue, and claiming that the questioners must “having nothing else to do.”

This incident does demonstrate that using the most mature levels of dealing with criticism can be important even in the political arena. If the governor, when he was being criticized for how he was handling the bridge lane closings incident, instead of responding with insults, replied in a manner consistent with a 4 or 5 level of maturity, his response would have looked something like this:

“I understand your concern. Those lane closings led to thousands of people being inconvenienced for several days. If it was one of my kids who ended up missing two hours of school for no apparent good reason, I would have been very upset, and as someone who cares about my fellow New Jersey citizens, I am very upset. Making this situation worse was that police and ambulances had difficulty getting to where they were needed. This is a very serious issue, and I am bound and determined to get to the bottom of what happened.”

Such a response would have shown the questioner and all that listened in that he shared their concerns and had empathy for those who were involved in the mess. Because of his more immature responses, a few days ago, after it became more and more apparent that his administration was indeed involved in a “get back” scheme, the governor had to apologize for his insulting actions. In his nearly two hours of addressing the criticism in a national televised press hearing, the governor did not even once attempt to insult those who were publicly criticizing him as they asked their questions. Instead, the governor modeled the most mature levels of responding to criticism. Will it be enough to overcome all that he created when he responded at the lowest levels? We’ll have to wait and see.

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

Tags anger, bully, bullying, Chris Christie, conflict management, criticism, disrespectful, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, insults, interpersonal relationships, maturity levels, respect, wisdom

anger comic strip conflict resolution criticism free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum positive criticism

THE MOST MATURE LEVEL OF PROVIDING POSITIVE CRITICISM: TWO EXAMPLES

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date January 6, 2014
2 Comments on THE MOST MATURE LEVEL OF PROVIDING POSITIVE CRITICISM: TWO EXAMPLES

Last week I provided readers a post on positive criticism—that is, criticism that points out what we like about someone’s actions, possessions, or appearance. There, I explained that I think that just as there are immature and mature ways to provide negative criticism (see PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM: FIVE LEVELS OF MATURITY), there are immature and mature ways to provide positive criticism. When it comes to providing positive criticism, getting familiar with just three levels of maturity is usually enough to help us to design helpful feedback for people. I described the three levels as follows:

Level 1, the most immature form of positive criticism, is described as either:

a. too much positive criticism for something that is just too minor to warrant positive criticism

b. vague flattery.

Level 2, the more mature way to provide positive criticism involves providing enough detail so that the person being criticized ends up knowing what is viewed favorably, and it avoids giving too much positive criticism for minor efforts.

Level 3 individuals seek to provide positive criticism in a manner similar to the level 2 individuals but first consider the situation, the person who is the target of the positive criticism and others who are likely to hear about it.

Although in my earlier post I gave an example of individuals using each of the three levels, one of my readers asked for more level 3 examples. That’s a reasonable request.

A Linus and Lucy Example

Here we see Linus as he begins to write a letter designed to provide positive criticism to his grandparents. He is very specific about what action that they did that he likes–sending him a dollar for Christmas.

In thinking about what rating that Linus deserves, in addition to noting that his positive criticism was very specific rather than vague flattery, I also considered the following:

I’ve been reading the Peanuts comic strip for years, and I’ve never gotten the impression that Linus gives out too much positive criticism for minor efforts. This, along with how specific his positive criticism was to his grandparents, led me to think Linus deserves at least a level 2 rating.

In this example, as Linus begins to provide his positive criticism to his grandparents, he begins to consider his situation, noticing that his sister is becoming angry with what he is doing. He could just ignore her. Instead, he wisely decides on adjusting his letter in a manner that provides the positive criticism to his grandparents, and at the same time, eliminates Lucy’s anger. Nice!

For all of the reasons mentioned above, I’m giving him a level 3 rating.

Another quick example

Recently the New York Times publicly provided some positive criticism to Edward Snowden. Referring to him as a heroic whistle-blower who exposed wrongdoing by U.S. government spy agencies, the Times went on to say,

“When someone reveals that government officials have routinely and deliberately broken the law, that person should not face life in prison at the hands of the same government. President Obama should tell his aides to begin finding a way to end Mr. Snowden’s vilification and give him an incentive to return home.”

The Times declared that Snowden’s disclosures — the largest unauthorized publication of national security secrets in U.S. history — had proven that the NSA has “exceeded its mandate and abused its authority.”

In considering what level the Times deserves, I noted that it does frequently publish too much positive criticism for minor accomplishments, but only for the products and services that occur in advertisements. Readers can distinguish pretty well what is being said by the newspaper’s advertisements and what is being written as news and editorials. And so, leaving this advertisement issue aside, the positive criticism of Snowden is, in my opinion, specific enough and major enough so that the Times deserves at least a level 2 rating.

I really don’t know what went on behind the doors of the Times editorial staff as they thought about publishing their Snowden editorial, but for educational purposes, let’s pretend that I do and this is what took place.

“Before we publish this,” said the chief editor, “let’s consider the situation. Many of our readers will become angry, and some of them might cancel their subscription.”

“We might lose some but gain some new readers,” said one of the chief’s staff members.

“Perhaps,” said another staff member. “What if we also include in the same edition that we publish our editorial, a piece that presents the other side of this issue, something that brings out all of the arguments that Snowden should be treated like a traitor? That way, we come across to our readers as a newspaper that provides them with a full and balanced overall position so we enable them to make up their own minds on the issue.”

“I like that,” said the chief. “New York Congressman Peter King has been calling for the harshest penalties to be leveled against Snowden. Let’s include an article featuring King’s position in the same edition as our editorial.”

If this type of conversation indeed occurred at the Times, then the paper deserves a Level 3 rating.

Conclusion

In both the Linus and Times examples, those who plan to provide positive criticism don’t only avoid giving too much criticism for minor accomplishments, they provide very specific positive criticism. Additionally, they take into account the situation and people involved, and are open to adjusting how they go about providing the criticism so it better achieves their desires.

Becoming a master at providing both negative and positive criticism requires the consideration of many, many examples of people using the highest levels of maturity. In future posts, I’ll be, from time to time, writing posts to provide these types of examples. In the meantime, I want to encourage readers to provide their own examples in the “Leave a Reply” box that appears below each post.

Have a great week!

Jeff

Tags conflict management, criticism, Edward Snowden, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, Linus, New York Times, Peanuts comics, positive criticism, positive criticism rating system, wisdom

Blondie comic strip conflict management conflict resolution criticism emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum positive criticism types of criticism wisdom

PROVIDING POSITIVE CRITICISM: THREE LEVELS OF MATURITY

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date December 29, 2013
2 Comments on PROVIDING POSITIVE CRITICISM: THREE LEVELS OF MATURITY

Earlier on this blog, I provided a post that describes what I view as the five levels of maturity for providing negative criticism. Now let’s turn our attention toward providing positive criticism.

With positive criticism—that is, criticism that points out what we like about someone’s actions, possessions, or appearance—our task of distinguishing mature responses from immature ones is considerably easier than when it comes to doing likewise for providing negative criticism. That’s because people are far less likely to become defensive when you inform them that you like something related to them. I think just three levels of maturity are sufficient.

Level 1, the most immature form of positive criticism, is described as either:

A. too much positive criticism for something that is just too minor to warrant positive criticism

B. vague flattery.

In the above Sally Forth comic, the coach is giving so much positive criticism about good hustling for the girls’ slightest efforts that they are becoming sick and tired of hearing it. Thus, this is an example of positive criticism that best matches level 1.

If, instead, the coach just cried out, “Great job” to one of the players without saying anything more specific about what she had done that was great, his positive criticism would also match the level 1 description.

Now oftentimes it is so obvious why someone is saying “Great job” that there is no necessity to explain the reason for the compliment. For example, if one of the girls just hit a home run and the coach then says, “Great job,” everyone is quite clear why he is saying it. In such cases, the positive criticism would be rated higher than level 1 even though he didn’t explain his reason for his comment.

Level 2, the more mature way to provide positive criticism, involves providing enough detail so that the person being criticized ends up knowing what is viewed favorably and it avoids giving too much positive criticism for minor efforts.

To say to an actor, “Your performance was divine!” might be pleasant to the actor, or it might be viewed as shallow—something said to flatter, and nothing more. It is simply too vague to be really helpful. Better to say something like, “During your performance, when you are supposed to be upset, the way you wring your hands and the way you twist the muscles in your face, they really dramatically capture your anxiety; well done!”

Level 3 individuals seek to provide positive criticism in a manner similar to the level 2 individuals but first consider the situation, the person who is the target of the positive criticism and others who are likely to hear about the criticism.

Consider this Big Nate comic:

What does Nate mean by a Q score?

When Nate provides Teddy with a Q score of 96 and Francis a score of 93, these are pretty positive ratings. But because Nate provides a higher score to Teddy in front of Francis, a conflict begins to erupt.

In the future, Nate might decide that it would be wiser to provide his Q score only in situations in which he has privacy. He also might want to consider that within his school situation, even if he shares his Q ratings in private only to fellow students who promise to keep their score a secret, some will probably reveal the secret. Once this happens, he may find himself in heaps of conflicts.

As I pointed out above, in addition to considering the situation in which positive criticism is provided, it is also important to consider the person whom you wish to provide positive criticism before deciding on how to provide the criticism.

Nate attempts to provide Mrs. Godfrey positive criticism by letting her know that he is pleased to see her. His style of doing this is to provide her a friendly greeting that includes a chuckle. It turns out that Mrs. Godfrey is very sensitive about being laughed at. Now that Nate has learned this, in the future, whenever Nate wants to provide positive criticism to Mrs. Godfrey, he would be wise to take her sensitivity about being laughed at into consideration and avoid any sounds that might come across as a laugh.

Let’s take a little time to practice using this three-point providing positive criticism rating system.

PRACTICE

Consider the following Blondie comic.

What rating do you think Blondie’s comment to Dagwood deserves?

If you gave Blondie a rating of 1, you matched my own rating.

Here’s a Luann comic that has Mrs. Horner offering Luann some positive criticism. Do you think Mrs. Horner’s comment in the first box matches the level 1, or the level 2 description?

I think Mrs. Horner’s comment best matches the level 2 description. If she had just said, “Luann, you are so sweet,” I’m pretty sure a young lady like Luann would experience the comment as pleasant, and most likely she would know why the white-haired woman was saying she was sweet. Nevertheless, when Mrs. Horner makes it clear that she thinks Luann is sweet for “taking her to the store” this type of communication, as a general rule, is less likely to lead to confusion and doubts.

Here’s a little tricky one. In the last panel of the below comic, Quill provides Luann some positive criticism. Would you say it is at level 1, 2, or 3?

If I didn’t know what happened before the last panel, I would think Quill deserves a 1. After all, he just says while providing the positive criticism, “And now you sound it, too,” implying she now sounds pretty. But, by knowing what came before his statement that provides the positive criticism, I think he deserves a mature rating of 2. That is, at first he provides Luann some negative criticism. He does so by giving her very specific criticism. She has been singing to her toes, which has led her to sing through her nose. He then provides some specific advice about what she can do to correct the problem. When Quill ends up giving her positive criticism—indicating Luann now sings pretty—she is perfectly capable of putting together what he had just said moments before during his negative criticism with the positive criticism. She therefore no doubt understands that Quill thinks she sounds pretty because she now plants her shoulders back, chin up a bit, while singing. Given the context of his positive criticism, I think Quill deserves a mature rating. Quill doesn’t show us any clear signs that he has considered any situation or person variables before providing his positive criticism, so I’m going to stick to a 2 rating.

In this Big Nate comic, the principal provides Nate with some positive criticism. Do you think the principal’s comment best matches the level 1, 2, or 3 description?

In this context, the principal’s comments best match the level 2 description. Nate had just mentioned some very specific thing that he did, and when the principal says, “wonderful,” he is obviously referring to that specific thing. The principal, moreover, goes beyond Nate’s own description and adds some details about what he likes—initiative and leadership. This is quite clearly a level 2 style of providing positive criticism.

Let’s try another Big Nate example. The bald man with chin whiskers is Nate’s dad. He provides Nate some positive criticism. Does the criticism match the level 1, 2, or 3 description?

I think the father’s positive criticism is specific enough for me to say it matches the level 2 description. If he had just said, “I’m very proud of you,” a boy like Nate probably would experience these words as pleasant, and he probably would know what specific behavior of his that they relate to. Nevertheless, I contend that it is a good habit to get into the practice of being specific because it decreases the likelihood of confusion.

Nate’s dad adds to his positive criticism the statement about a celebration. Positive criticism is often designed to encourage someone to continue to do something. Did Nate’s dad add to his positive criticism the celebration after considering what works best to encourage his son? If so, Nate’s dad would deserve a rating of 3.

Okay! There you have it–some of my thoughts on positive criticism. Any thoughts? I’d love to hear from you.

Have a great week and a wonderful new year.

Jeff

Tags conflict management, criticism, dispute management, feedback, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, positive criticism, positive criticism rating system, psychological maturity, wisdom