Welcome to From Insults to Respect.
My last couple of blog posts see (HERE & HERE) explored why criticism often leads to defensiveness. Shortly after I published these, one of my readers, Bob Parker, PhD, responded with an email saying,
Bob then invited me to have a phone conversation to further discuss this topic which I took him up on. Among the issues we discussed was his psychotherapy sessions approach to providing feedback to his clients. He prefaces his comments with the following words–“I’d like to make some suggestions. Are you OK with that?”As I thought about this, my mind went to how I would present ideas to my clients over the years, ideas that could be interpreted as criticism. I’m retired now from providing direct counseling service, instead providing free recommendations about handling criticism and enhancing respect through my blog. Reflecting back to my counseling days, I didn’t first ask for permission. Nor did I bother trying to make some distinction between criticism, critique, or suggestion. Instead, I would say something like, “I’m wondering if such and such would lead to a better outcome?” Then I would listen empathetically to my client, avoiding taking the position that I was right and my client was wrong. I often would say during these exchanges, ” I encourage you to consider whatever I say as a question, rather than a statement, because what might be right for one person might be wrong for another.”
So, hopefully you are beginning to get a sense of how people differ when providing feedback. Because these types of situations can ignite anger, defensiveness, and reactance, I’m thinking it might deepen our understanding of these situations by exploring this topic a little further. So, to that end, I decided to ask my two sons and my wife two questions–Do you prefer, when getting feedback, someone first asked you for permission? And do you have a preference for the words criticism, critique, or suggestion when someone provides feedback to you? So, let’s see what they had to say.
My Older Son, Lennon
Lennon, in his late-thirties, responded,
I think that’s a complicated question and depends on the situation, my emotional state at the time, and the person giving the criticism. For example, in my work environment, I don’t need any of my colleagues to ask permission to give work related criticism. I work in a very collaborative and professional environment where feedback is commonplace and I trust my colleagues to do it in a professional manner. However, if a random stranger wants to walk up to me to criticize the clothing that I’m wearing when I’m already having a bad day, I would appreciate them asking first so I could tell them no.
When asked if he prefers criticism, critique, or suggestion, he replied, “I prefer ‘suggestion.’ ‘Criticism’ and ‘critique’ feel too formal for the vast majority of situations.”
My Younger Son, Jack
Jack, in his mid-thirties, responded,
For things that are sensitive I prefer to be asked prior to receiving criticism. Mainly because if I’m in a vulnerable state around something the criticism potentially can do more harm than good. For things I’m not too invested in I don’t care as much. If someone isn’t sure about if something would be sensitive or not, I’d suggest they err on the side of caution and ask permission.
When asked about any preference regarding criticism, critique, or suggestion, he replied, “I don’t have a preference. Suggestion is probably the least loaded though.”
My Wife, Andrea
The audience and tone of voice are factors for me. I’m open to hearing most criticism, critique, suggestion, or feedback – no preference there – if presented in a kind manner. From experience, asking permission to give or take feedback first seems to help soften defensiveness. Engaging in brief conversation, allows me and hopefully others, to use the information from the encounter for reflection.
My Personal Approach
I use to get quite defensive in my earlier years, but through studying some wisdom traditions, and perhaps from just getting more mature, I’ve learned to experience criticism as pleasant exchanges and helpful. In fact, I often find it fun.
There is no need, when someone criticizes me to pull any punches, or beat around the bush, just come out with it as you like. I can see why some would prefer the word suggestion, but as for me, call it whatever you prefer.
As I discussed in my previous post on this topic, like John Stuart Mill in his brilliant book On Liberty, I have become convinced that when people criticize us, even for holding an opinion we are very sure of,
….let us thank them for it, open our minds to listen to them, and rejoice…. In the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him; to profit by as much of it as was just, and expound to himself, and upon occasion to others, the fallacy of what was fallacious. Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind.
And I like that this approach moves us to an authoritative approach to issues in contrast to an authoritarian approach. There are times when I do get a hit of angst, but it is received with confidence that I can use the angst to deepen my search to find a better response.
As I explained in earlier posts, to my mind a helpful response to criticism looks like this:
The person being criticized listens to the criticizer in a supportive, warm, friendly style, and then makes it clear that he or she fully understands what was said by summarizing it. The person, moreover, puts the criticizer at ease by indicating the wise learn from criticism. Some time is spent on showing that he or she is thinking about the criticism. If, after processing, the criticism is deemed to be correct, a statement is frankly made indicating, “I can see your ideas have merit and I intend to use them in the future.” If, after processing, the criticism is deemed to be incorrect, a statement is made designed to disagree without being disagreeable. More specifically, a sense of humor, some empathic listening, 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, there you have it, some thoughts on this challenging topic. I’d love to get reactions from readers.
Until next time, have a great week.
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.
My generation was the first to benefit from the vaccine Dr. Jonas Salk came up with to prevent these awful infections, and he was hailed as a “miracle worker.” Later, I hurt my leg in a football game and to my extreme distress, I couldn’t walk on it. The doctor I went to took an x-ray and saw I had broken my fibula. He put a cast on my leg, and three months later, I was starring on my high school baseball team with absolutely no pain. Grateful for preventing polio infections and healing my leg, coupled with the respect others in my community had for medical doctors, I had become primed to think that the same model would be helpful for psychological concerns.
In the courses that taught principles of science, I began to see that the definition of “mental disorder” and the various types of “mental disorders” are seriously flawed. Studies were coming out indicating that doctors looking at the same data about a case did not reliably come up with the same diagnosis. When reliability is low, so too must be validity according to well established principles of statistics. 
Meanwhile, the chemical imbalance theory that had been viewed as support for the notion that these concerns were illnesses just like physical illnesses proved to be unsupported by the evidence. In courses on the history of psychology, I learned that utilizing the medical model for psychological concerns led to lobotomies, shock treatment, and drug treatments that, from my scientific literature review, convinced me that they resulted in far more harm than good.
Although they don’t prescribe drugs as a treatment approach, to their dismay, in order to have a viable professional practice, they are required to utilize the same invalid medical jargon as drug prescribing doctors because insurance companies require for reimbursement a mental disorder “diagnoses.”
In one of my classes I began to learn about Abraham Maslow, who had recently been elected president of the American Psychological Association. Rather than treating people as a bag of mental disorder symptoms, he focussed on identifying people who exhibited the most mature aspects of life, and he looked to see how these developed. He referred to those at this highest developmental level as self-actualized.
From Maslow’s model, a major impediment to reaching the highest level of maturity is not having one’s basic needs met. So, in addition to providing a safe place for my clients to get emotional support, which is one basic need, I also focussed on coming up with my clients plans that can better achieve their other basic needs. For example, when seeing someone who was dealing with poverty, and therefore was insecure about food and shelter issues, we would work on a career development plan.
I made a lot of TV shows with a variety of actors, each one depicting a scenario in which someone responded to criticism.
When I showed these videos to students in conflict resolution classes that I had been teaching, they rated the actors who displayed responses to criticism in a style consistent with the higher levels as more likable, respected, and mature.
He then discussed several studies that found life skills and success after the completion of formal education are more closely related to psychological maturity than to scholastic aptitude or grade point achievement. For example, a Ford Foundation study followed for over 16 years a group of “at risk students” who had scholastic aptitude scores about 150 points below average for college students. Estimates of their psychological maturity by counselors and principals when these students were in high school were a more effective predictor of success than their academic record, not only for college itself, but also in the following years.
Finally, Dr. Sprinthall summarized six studies that provide support for the contention that certain education programs can be designed to successfully promote psychological maturity. In all of them, those in the experimental maturity promoting programs improved their level of psychological maturity; those who were not in these programs did not.
Given these findings, I found myself in recent years taking to heart something psychologist George A. Miller promoted in a 
Psychological maturity is “better” in the long run, it considers more variables, and represents more comprehensive cognitive problem solving. Individuals who tend to act at higher levels of psychological maturity can think more critically, logically, and scientifically while acting civilly to people with whom they disagree; they can graciously admit they are wrong when information comes in supporting such a conclusion; they welcome receiving criticism, respond without getting defensive, though they know it can be emotionally concerning for them; they are hesitant to provide uninvited criticism, only doing so when they can formulate it in a way that promises to be specific enough to be helpful, and they do so without insulting tones of voice or name calling; they can role-play and empathize with the emotions of a wide variety of human beings and can process moral dilemmas according to standards of democratic justice and the golden rule; they understand that melancholy and anxiety, rather than symptoms of mental disorders, are part of the natural process of addressing concerns about losses and fears; and they have the ability to puzzle through the tough problems of living, to take a stand, and yet to remain open to possible revisions and new information—thus demonstrating a capacity to make successive approximations toward more efficient, effective, economical, and beautiful accomplishments.
Welcome to From Insults To Respect. As regular readers well know, from time to time I present discussions about the value of dealing with criticism in a manner that can enhance the respect people have for us. I began these discussions by describing how I made a lot of TV shows with a variety of actors displaying different styles of responding to criticism. 
To familiarize readers with the five levels, from time to time, I provide real life examples of people dealing with criticism and then ask readers to rate how the criticism had been handled. This week, while thinking about what my next example might be, a new real life example arose as I watched a tennis match between Serena Williams and Naomi Osaka. The two stars were playing at the U.S. Open to determine which would be the women’s national champion.
Before providing the five levels, I want to make sure that readers understand that they are not to be viewed as items written in stone. There may be some situations that might alter someone’s view of what is an ideal response. And individuals are of course entitled to make their own personal set of levels. Nevertheless, the levels are useful because they are generally viewed by a wide range of people in a variety of situations to match their own perceptions of what is a respected response to criticism. Thus, it provides us a way to debate its flaws and strengths, and in the end, we come away having deepened our thinking about important issues.
In the first set, Naomi looked impressive, beating the enormously talented Serena, 6-2.
Serena, upon hearing that a warning had been issued, approached chair umpire Ramos and, from her comments, it became apparent she believed Mr. Ramos had criticized her for cheating. Thus she said assertively, “You may have thought that was coaching, but I’m telling you it was not. I don’t cheat to win. I’d rather lose. I’m just letting you know.”
Throwing a racket is an automatic code violation, and because it was Serena’s second violation, Naomi gained a point for the next game. Ramos had clearly announced, “Code violation, racket abuse, point penalty, Mrs. Williams.”
When Ramos explained that Serena had a point penalty for smashing her racket, she calmly said, “Yeah, that’s a warning.” Then chair umpire Ramos explained that she already had a warning for the coaching violation, and here Serena raised her voice, and looking exasperated, cried out, “I didn’t get coaching! I didn’t get coaching! I didn’t get coaching! You need to make an announcement that I didn’t get coaching. I don’t cheat. I didn’t get coaching!”
Finally, returning to play, Serena loses the next game, and the game after that, handing the lead over to Naomi, 4-3.
Ramos said something I couldn’t make out, and then Serena yelled, “You will never, ever, be on the same court as me as long as you live!” She then called Ramos a liar as he is looking squarely at her, and leaning his body to her, clearly listening to what she had to say.
Ramos can then be seen in video recordings complying with this request, turning his body and eyes to face a direction away from Serena.
She didn’t seem to understand this, so Ramos called both players over to his chair and clearly explained what the situation is. Serena responded by laughing, and asked, “Are you kidding me?”
Serena now began to make her case to the highest official at the U.S. Open, during which she began to cry. “You know my character,” she said, “and this is not right. This has happened too many times, this is not fair. To lose a game for saying that, this is not fair. Do you know how many men do much worse than that, this is not fair. Because I’m a woman, you are going to take this away from me. You know it, and I know you can’t admit it, but I know you know it.”
When Serena returned to play, it was Naomi’s turn to serve. Naomi easily won that game, and, consequently, the match and the U.S. Open Championship.
After the final point, Serena, graciously walked over to Naomi and gave her a hug.
Moments later, the master of ceremony announced it was time to present the trophies, and another round of boos were heard. Naomi once again began to cry. Serena put her arms around Naomi, smiled, and said she was proud of her and that she should know that the crowd wasn’t booing at her. Naomi returned a genuine smile.
When it was Serena’s turn to say something during the awards ceremony, she graciously said, while choking back tears, “She played well, and this is her first grand slam, and I know that you guys were rooting, and I was rooting too, but let’s make this the best moment that we can. We’ll get through this, but, let’s give everyone the credit where credit is due, and let’s not boo anymore, we’re going to get through this and let’s be positive. Congratulations Naomi. No more booing. Thank you to my team, you guys are amazing.” Serena, begins to wipe away her tears, which were streaming from her eyes. She manages to continue, saying, “Thank you to the crowd, you guys are the best in the world. Thank you so much, and I really hope to go again to continue to play here again. We’ll see. It was a tough year for me, but thank you so much.”
Mr. Ramos listened attentively, and nodded his head. Serena then went back to the game.
If there was less pressure to proceed with the game, I would have liked her to have said to Ramos something like, “I think that the coaching code violation means you are accusing me of being a cheater. Is that right?” I say this, because the phrase in the level 4 description which states, “make it clear that they fully understand what was said,” means that the person criticized would first restate the criticism, as he or she understands it, and then ask if this restatement is correct. If Serena had done so, I think Ramos would have said something like, “I’m not accusing you of cheating. I’m saying your coach has violated, in my opinion, the code that says there is to be no coaching during a U.S. Open match. It was entirely on this basis that I issued you a warning.”
The next such act occurred when Serena hit a backhand into the net for an unforced error, allowing Naomi to win her second game of the second set. At this point, Serena was still in the lead, 3-2. Nevertheless, her response to losing that game was to fling her racket into the ground, breaking it. Thus, it seems to me, that she had criticized herself for her unforced error, and responded by destroying her property. This is clearly a level one response. Ramos penalized Serena one point for the next game.
This example of dealing with criticism provides us a fine example in which people, when criticized, are not just upset because of the criticism, but also the consequences of receiving the criticism. Oftentimes the consequences are not as obvious as in this case. Here we plainly see that Serena received a warning, which was, at the time, reasonably assumed to be of little consequence. However, when she broke her racket, because she already had a warning, she now had lost a point. When she called Ramos a thief, the clear consequence was losing an entire game, and, consequently dramatically increased the chances of losing the entire match. She was also subsequently docked by the tournament referee’s office $17,000 ($10,000 for “verbal abuse” of chair umpire Carlos Ramos, $4,000 for being warned for coaching, and $3,000 for breaking her racket).
