In our society, the idea of self-reliance is often viewed positively. And yet, it is our nature to benefit in numerous ways from others. As Albert Einstein beautifully articulated in a book titled, Living Philosophies: A Series of Intimate Credos:

Einstein in his later years

“From the standpoint of daily life…there is one thing we do know: that man is here for the sake of other men–above all for those upon whose smile and well-being our own happiness depends, and also for the countless unknown souls with whose fate we are connected by a bond of sympathy. Many times a day I realize how much my own outer and inner life is built upon the labors of my fellow-men, both living and dead, and how earnestly I must exert myself in order to give in return as much as I have received. My peace of mind is often troubled by the depressing sense that I have borrowed too heavily from the work of other men.” (p. 3)

Despite all that we benefit from the lives of other human beings, there are times when we come into conflict with them. How we handle conflicts can have an enormous effect on how much respect we have for ourselves, and others have for us.

An important step toward learning how to better handle conflicts, is to come to understand more precisely than most people what a conflict is. This will lead to a deeper understanding of how conflicts are connected to blame, guilt, and responsibility, and how this understanding can be used in a practical manner. We’ll then return to the example of Einstein, looking at how he utilized the skills that were discussed today, and how this led to the high degree of respect that millions have long had for him.

What is a Conflict?

According to the DIG CONFLICT MODEL that we have been utilizing on this blog, From Insults to Respect, a conflict occurs when the following three conditions occur:

Party A desires an act will occur.
Party A perceives that another party is likely to act in a manner that interferes with the desire.
Party A perceives that the other party would be guilty of doing something wrong if he or she carries out the interfering act.

Notice that each of the three conditions has a key word italicized—desire for the first condition, interference for the second, and guilt for the third. If we take the first letter of each of these key words and put them together, they spell DIG; hence the DIG Conflict Model’s name.

Party A, in the above definition, indicates the individual who is theoretically engaged in a conflict and from whose perspective the conflict will first be described.

The word “DIG” provides us a way to remember a technique to quickly and succinctly describe a conflict. First, we describe the “desire,” then the “interference,” and then the “guilt” condition.

The DIG model is also helpful because sometimes we can come up with an idea to make a change in just one of the easier to understand parts that then leads to the rest of the conflict becoming easier to manage. In earlier posts we looked at examples that illustrated using these ideas, and in one particular post we focussed particularly on ways to change the guilt condition (see here).

Since I wrote that post, I received some feedback indicating that there is some confusion about the nature of blame, guilt, and responsibility. Thus, today I shall undertake an effort to reduce this confusion, and then relate this understanding to respect.

Blame, Guilt, and Responsibility

Why does Lucy, in this comic, go out of her way to get people she knows to absolve her of all blame regardless of what happens? Here’s my take on this.

The word, blame, has a variety of meanings. So, to avoid confusion, on this blog when we are discussing the DIG Conflict Model we’ll be sticking to one particular meaning, e.g., “When a person blames someone, that person has the belief that someone is guilty of doing something wrong and deserves some type of punishment.”

Punishment is typically not a pleasant experience to undergo. In the above comic, perhaps Lucy wants to avoid punishment by absolving herself from blame.

According to the DIG Conflict Model, when someone has a conflict with you, or you have a conflict with yourself, part of what is going on is that the person who has a conflict with you believes that if you carry out the interfering act you would be guilty of being wrong, and therefore you would deserve to be punished. If you can transform that guilt into something other than guilt, it would eliminate one of the essential conditions of a conflict and thus resolve it.

One way to transform guilt, is to take responsibility for what went wrong. When we do so, we have some of the same very strong feelings that go along with guilt, but rather than believing punishment is the proper response, another is offered; we admit that we played at least a part in what went wrong, and then make it clear that we will take steps to improve our actions in the future. The genuine feeling that comes with taking responsibility, leads us to do a search for improvements.

What are the benefits that come from resolving a conflict in this way? There are many, but on this blog we’re all about how to transform insults into respect, so let’s focus just on this issue.

The Benefits of Transforming Guilt into Responsibility, and then, into Respect

David Coleman is a Senior Research Fellow at the National Security Archive. His most recent book is The Fourteenth Day: JFK and the Aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

From his research, David found that President John F. Kennedy enjoyed very high public approval ratings compared with most modern presidents. Over the whole of his presidency, Kennedy averaged a 70.1 percent approval rating, comfortably the highest of any post-World War II president. By comparison, the average for all presidents between 1938 and 2012 is 54 percent.

On April 17th, 1961, Kennedy ordered what became known as the “Bay of Pigs Invasion”: 1,500 U.S.-trained Cubans, called “Brigade 2506”, landed on the island in an attempt to overthrow the country’s dictator, Fidel Castro. The plan failed within three days.

By April 19, 1961, the Cuban government had captured or killed the invading exiles, and Kennedy was forced to negotiate for the release of the 1,189 survivors. After twenty months, Cuba released the captured exiles in exchange for $53 million worth of food and medicine.

When the invasion had failed, many felt Kennedy was guilty of doing something terribly wrong, and more than a few insults were being hurled at him. However, when he went before the press, he took responsibility for the failure, and pledged to take several specific steps to make sure that what happened would never happen again. Immediately afterwards his approval rating spiked, going up to 83 percent, the highest level of his presidency.

From my own experience, I have learned that using a similar type of response can be very helpful. When I find that someone has a conflict with me because of something that I have done, I have often been able to turn those angry feelings that come along with a conflict into a respectful resolution by making it clear that I recognize my responsibility in what happened and I plan to take some action to improve.

Back to Einstein

Returning to Einstein, let us ask, what was it about this man who lived many years ago and somehow still captures the respectful imagination of so many of us? Surely, his awe-inspiring achievements in science is a major reason for this. But today, I would like to ask whether it has, as well, something to do with his profound sense of responsibility to his fellow human beings, a sense of responsibility that led him to set aside, for periods of time, his passionate interest in his research so that he might speak out against injustice, and to put forth his vision for a more peaceful world.

———————————
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.

Responding to negative criticism with lower developmental level skills can lead to an escalation of conflicts, violence, and the loss of valued friends. Among the benefits of utilizing higher developmental level skills are increases in how much people like and respect us.

To encourage readers of this blog to think about the most helpful ways to respond to criticism, I presented a post titled “Responding to Criticism: Four Levels of Maturity.” A few weeks later, I presented a post describing the fifth level of maturity, which I believe is the most mature level.

In both of those posts, I give examples of people using each of the different levels. In subsequent posts, I provided some additional examples (see here, here, and here). Readers seem to enjoy these, so with that in mind, I offer you a John F. Kennedy example.

John F. Kennedy at the 1960 Democratic Convention

In 1960, the Democratic Convention was held in Los Angeles. In addition to Kennedy, other democratic candidates for president that year were Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, and Wayne Morse.

On day two of the conference, Johnson and Kennedy had an exchange in front of the entire delegation. Below, is the transcript of part of that exchange, which I obtained from a YouTube video that you can see and hear for yourself at this link, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gefp6OHLns

The actual exchange begins 4 minutes into the Youtube video. There, we see Lyndon Johnson criticizing Kennedy in front of several thousand delegates. Thus, he says:

For six days and nights we had 24-hour sessions, six days and nights I had to deliver a quorum of 51 men on a moment’s notice to keep the Senate in session to get any bill at all. I’m proud to tell you that on those 51 quorum calls Lyndon Johnson answered every one of them, although some men who would be president on a civil rights platform answered none.

On the roll call on that bill there were 45, Lyndon Johnson answered all 45. Admittedly, I didn’t have the problem that some of my people had of opposing Senators Humphrey and Morse in the primaries. But some senator missed 34 of the 45. And I point this out only so those of you who may have been not fully understanding of my entry into the race. That it is my considered judgment that my people had sent me to the Senate to perform the duty of a United States senator for which I was paid $22,500 a year. And my colleagues, including Senator Kennedy and Senator Symington, and 62 other beloved Democrats had selected me as their leader. And I did not think you would reward negligence. I did not think that you would reward me for inattention, nor did I think, as Al Smith put it, that you would penalize me.

Now, if former president, Donald Trump had been criticized in this way, I think we all have a pretty good idea of how he would have responded–probably by throwing nasty insults at Senator Johnson, like crying out that he is a horrible person.

Here’s Kennedy’s reply, which begins about six minutes into the YouTube recording:

I’m glad we are not going to put these speeches to a vote, after looking at Massachusetts’s and Texas’s delegates today. Let me just say that I appreciate what Senator Johnson had to say. He made some general reference to perhaps some shortcomings of other presidential candidates, but as he was not specific I assume he was talking about some other candidate and not me.

Kennedy then breaks out in a huge smile because he knows, and everyone present knows that Senator Johnson’s comments had indeed been directed toward criticizing Kennedy’s record. The crowd clearly appreciates Kennedy’s humor, and then, after the laughter subsides, he continues:

I, uh, found it extremely beneficial serving in the Senate with Senator Johnson as leader. I think if I emerge as successful in this convention it would be as a result of watching Senator Johnson proceed around the Senate for the last eight years.

Kennedy, now turns to Lyndon Johnson and says:

I have learned the lesson well, Lyndon, and I hope it will benefit me in the next twenty-four hours.

Kennedy has now turned back to the larger audience.

It is true that Senator Johnson made a wonderful record in answering those quorum calls, and I want to commend him for it. I, uh, was not present on all of those occasions, uh, no one, I was not majority leader. Lyndon knows I never criticized, in fact on every occasion I said that I thought Senator Johnson should not enter the primary. That his proper responsibility was as majority leader and that if he would let Hubert, Wayne and I to settle the matter we could come to a clearcut decision.

So, I come to you today full of admiration for Senator Johnson, full of affection for him, strongly in support of him for majority leader, and in that position we’re all going to work together. Thank you.

Now, after this reply to Johnson’s criticism of him, Kennedy does something else that we don’t actually see in the YouTube video. Kennedy, behind closed doors, informs Johnson that his criticism, in addition to the issue he explicitly stated, involves two others issues: First, Johnson wants to some day be president, and, second, he also wants to get several bills passed that were close to his heart, especially the civil rights bills. Kennedy explained that right now he, Johnson, was well known in Texas and the Senate, but the public in other regions around the country knew nothing about him. Kennedy then informed Johnson that he had decided to select him to be his running mate if he succeeds at obtaining the nomination. As vice president, Johnson would get to be known throughout the country. This would put him in a better position to seek the presidency in the future. Moreover, as vice president, he would preside over the Senate, and together with Kennedy as president, he could have a much better chance of getting his favorite bills enacted into law. In this way, Kennedy steered in the direction that he felt Johnson’s criticism suggested.

Okay, so that is how Kennedy responded to Johnson’s negative criticism. I shall now present the outline of all five developmental levels of responding to criticism. If you will, look them over and see what level best matches Kennedy’s response.

Five Levels of Responding to Criticism

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

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

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

Insults the criticizer (either with words, hand gestures, the sticking out of a tongue, the rolling of the eyes, or smirks)
Glares at the criticizer
Threatens the criticizer
Punches, kicks, or throws an object without physically hurting someone or damaging anything
Criticizes the criticizer without first fully addressing the original criticism.

3. This level requires displaying one or both of the following:

Displays defensiveness without directly insulting the criticizer (raising voice’s volume or pitch)
Displays a lack of interest either by verbally indicating this, or with nonverbal cues, or complete silence.

4. Level 4 individuals listen to the criticizer in a supportive, warm, friendly style, and then make it clear that they fully understand what was said. Moreover, they put the criticizer at ease by making statements that indicate that the wise learn from criticism. Some time is spent on showing that they are thinking about the criticism. If, after thinking about the criticism the criticism is deemed to be correct, they make a statement frankly indicating, “I can see your ideas have merit and I intend to use them in the future.” If they are not sure if they agree, they make a statement indicating that they are very interested in what was said, plan to think a little more about this over the next few days and then they will be ready to discuss this further. If, after thinking about the criticism, the criticism is deemed to be incorrect, a statement is made designed to disagree without being disagreeable. More specifically, a sense of humor, some listening in a caring way and a few smiles help to traverse rough terrain. As the episode winds down, the criticizer is encouraged to feel comfortable communicating suggestions in the future.

5. In addition to actions consistent with level 4, people responding to criticism in a manner consistent with level 5 seek ways to use, whenever they disagree with the criticism, a technique known as steering in the direction the criticizer would prefer to go. That is, rather than just disagreeing without being disagreeable, the criticized person seeks to find a new choice of action that creatively utilizes some aspect suggested from the criticism. Steering cannot be incorporated into all situations, but it is an additional goal of the most mature individuals.

Now that you have had a chance to look over the descriptions of the 5 levels, which level do you think best matches Kennedy’s response? Moreover, regardless of what level Kennedy’s response matches, I encourage you to think about whether it is better to utilize Kennedy’s approach, or Trump’s approach, to responding to criticism. My guess is that if you want to get more hits on social media platforms and you don’t mind increasing hate in the world, the approach that Trump tends to use will work better for you; however, if you want to be better respected by family members, friends and people at work, Kennedy’s approach is the way to go.

Thanks for visiting today, and I hope you join us back here soon.

Jeff

———————

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