Welcome to From Insults to Respect.
Regular readers know that I have been presenting the theory that a powerful way to increase the respect that others have for you, and the respect you have for yourself, is to become a master at responding to criticism. 
To that end, I have presented a model that describes five levels of maturity for responding to criticism (see HERE and HERE). In this model, level 1 is viewed as the least mature, level 2 is viewed as more mature, and so on up to level 5. In addition to describing each of these levels, I presented the case that this model makes sense (see HERE and HERE), and I have, from time to time, provided examples of people using the most mature level in order to help individuals who choose to perfect this skill (see HERE, HERE, and HERE). Today, we will once again look over all five levels, and then, after a quick look at a level 5 example we discussed in an earlier post, we’ll then take an in depth look at a fresh new example.
Let’s take a look at these five levels.
Five Levels of Responding to Criticism
1. This level requires displaying one or more of the following:
Weeps or sobs with tears or pouts without also using level 4 response- 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.
An Old Example and A New Example of a Level 5 Response
Old Example: Here’s a quick example of my responding to criticism at level 5 that I discussed in an earlier post. My wife, Andrea, and I were getting dressed to go to a party. 
When Andrea saw what shirt I put on, she criticized my choice, saying, “That’s not quite right for this occasion.”
Although I disagreed with her, before I began to tell her I disagreed, I silently asked myself, “Can I steer in the direction of Andrea’s criticism?”
I quickly realized that I have two other shirts that I would enjoy wearing to this party as much as the one I initially picked out. And so, I pulled them out of my closet and said, “Well, since you don’t like the one I picked out for this evening, how about either of these two?”
“Oh,” she says, “the one on the left would be perfect. Thanks, dear.”
Notice that despite disagreeing with Andrea’s criticism, I found a way to reach an agreement with which both of us were satisfied. Andrea felt that I listened to her concern and was appreciative that I would make an adjustment to please her.
New Example: 
Today’s new example comes from a beautifully written book I happened to be reading, The Known World, by Edward P. Jones. The story takes place in Virginia mostly before the Civil War. In this part of the story, a conflict has sprung up in the county involving Harvey and Clarence.
Harvey has sold to Clarence for $15 a scrawny cow with practically no meat on its bones. Prior to the deal, Harvey had lied to Clarence, claiming that the cow was a good milker, though in fact more milk fell from the sky than from the cow. After the sale, when Clarence found this out, he was getting pretty frustrated, but then one day, all of a sudden, the cow turned into an excellent milker, and continued to be so. When Harvey found out about this, he wanted the cow back because a cow flowing with milk was not what he had taken $15 for.
When Clarence refused, a feud began, with threats and guns being fired, some of the bullets landing pretty near the children. So, Clarence’s wife, Beth Ann, went to Sheriff John Skiffington. “We will kill him or he will kill us,” she cried.
When Sheriff Skiffington gets Clarence, Beth, and Harvey together to try to settle the conflict…
“You sell Clarence and Beth Ann that cow?” Skiffington asked Harvey.
“Yes, I did, John.”
“Well, that should be the end of it, Harvey,” Skiffington said. “The law is on Clarence’s side. Square bargain. Clean deal.”
It is at this point Harvey begins to criticize Sheriff John Skiffington’s position.
“Now wait here a minute, John,” Harvey said. “Maybe I shoulda got to you first and pled my case, steada bein second to testify like I am.”
“John, you can see what we had to wrestle with out here,” Beth Ann said. “This kinda talk and bullets to keep em company.”
“The only bullets were from your side.” Harvey looked at Skiffington. “Or are you to believe all her side on that too? Maybe if Clarence would stiffen up a—”
“I take no side but the right one,” Skiffington said to Harvey, and if you don’t believe that then you can turn around and go home.” He waited. “I ain’t got time to waste on this cow business, Harvey.” He and Harvey were now facing each other. Beth Ann knew enough about life to know when things were dancing their way so she was quiet. Skiffington stepped to Harvey so that they were but two feet apart. You tell me this, Harvey, if that cow had died a day after you sold it to him, a day after now. No, not a day, not even a day. One hour after you sold it to him, just long enough for Clarence to lead the thing from your place, over the rise to his place so all them hooves are standing on his land and he owned it free and clear and then it up and drop dead on him, would you give him his money back? Would you think you sold him a dead cow and give him his money back? Now would you?”
“I’d feel it was the right thing maybe, seeing as how…I mean after all, the cow didn’t live long anough…”
Skiffington was disappointed in the answer but he knew he should not have been. He took Harvey’s shoulder and they walked away from everyone. “You sold him the cow, Harvey, and there ain’t a thing I can do. There ain’t even nothing President Fillmore can do.
You know that if I thought there was something wrong, that if Beth Ann and Clarence was wrong in any way, I would stand up for you. I would move heaven and earth to make it right for you Harvey. Do you understand me?”
“Yes, John, I do.”
“I’m sorry. I don’t want any more bad things between you two men, not a one. Do you understand me, Harvey?”
“Yes, John, I do.”
“I’ll say this to you: Twice a week you send two of your chaps over here with whatever they can carry to take back some milk . But only two of them chaps, Harvey, and just twice a week. No return trips for that day. One trip and that’s all. And never you or your wife are to come.”
Harvey wiped his mouth with his hand, then wiped his brow with his sleeved arm. His eyes teared because he had gotten the worst of it after setting out with a plan five weeks before that should have left him on top with $15. He nodded.
“Stand here,” Skiffington said and went back to Clarence and Beth Ann, who agreed to what he had told Harvey.“John, am I gonna have any more trouble outa him, shooting trouble?” Beth Ann asked.
“Will this end it, John?” Clarence asked.
“There won’t be no more. No more of this.”
“By whose word then, John?” Beth Ann said. “His word or your word.”
“First his word, then backed up by my word,” Skiffington said.” Good,” and she shook Skiffington’s hand and then he shook her husband’s hand.
Skiffington went back to Harvey. “If things stay peaceful, then there might be more days with milk for you, Harvey, but that has to come from Clarence and Beth. They can give you more days ’cause it’s their property.” Harvey nodded. He turned to leave. “And, Harvey, if someone shoots at Clarence again, I will come out to get you, and it will be a different world for you, your wife and your chaps.”
Discussion
In the above scenario, Harvey has a conflict with Clarence and Beth. When Sheriff John Skiffington is asked to help resolve the conflict, the sheriff expresses his opinion that the law is on Clarence and Beth’s side and therefore the sale of the cow is final and that should be the end of the conflict. It is at this point that Harvey criticizes the sheriff, saying in essence, that the sheriff has offered his opinion by just hearing Clarence and Beth’s side of the story, and not hearing his side. Now, to be fair to the sheriff, he had already asked what he felt was the pertinent question directly to Harvey, and Harvey replied by admitting he did indeed sell the cow to Clarence and Beth. Nevertheless, Harvey indicates he has more to say on the matter and should be listened to before the sheriff draws any conclusion.
Now, at first the sheriff is rather abrupt when he says, “I take no side but the right one, and if you don’t believe that then you can turn around and go home.” After a pause, the sheriff goes on to say, “I ain’t got time to waste on this cow business.” To be fair to the sheriff, behind this scene’s plot of the novel the sheriff is under enormous pressure to be attending to some other very serious law enforcement issues. Nevertheless, upon reflection, the sheriff decides to take some more time to address Harvey’s criticism.
First, he tries to reason with him, by simply asking him what he would have done if the cow had suddenly died immediately after he had completed the sale with Clarence and Beth. Harvey replies that maybe he would have returned the money.
Because of incidences earlier in the novel, the sheriff has learned enough about Harvey’s personality to conclude he is lying. Nevertheless, Sheriff Skiffington does not call Harvey a liar, nor does he call him any other name, or seek to insult him in any other manner. Instead, he guides Harvey away from the others involved in the conflict to see if he could better resolve the conflict. The sheriff’s approach involves letting Harvey know that if he was right in this matter, he would take his side and even move heaven and earth to help him if he could, but the law is completely on the side of Clarence and Beth. And then, even though the sheriff believes he is right on this point, he nevertheless seeks to steer in the direction Harvey would like, by offering to get some milk from the cow each week in a manner that would not be much of a hardship for Clarence and Beth. This isn’t an ideal solution in Harvey’s mind, but the simple fact that the sheriff made some effort to do a little something on behalf of him, does lead to the conflict becoming resolved. As the novel continues, there is no more trouble between these antagonists.
At the end of the scenario, the sheriff tells Harvey that if he shoots at Clarence again, he’ll come out to arrest him. This may seem to be a threat, and because threatening a criticizer is, according to the model presented above, a level 2 response, should you conclude the sheriff handled this situation in an immature manner? Here’s why I don’t think this is the correct way to interpret this situation.
In my opinion, the sheriff’s statement was neither a threat nor a response to Harvey’s criticism. Rather, it was part of his duty as a sheriff to inform Harvey of the consequences he would be obligated to carry out under the law.
So, overall, I’m leaning toward giving the sheriff a rating of 4.7. It wasn’t perfect, in my estimation, so I took a little off the 5, but I feel, overall, he did a pretty good job under the circumstances.
Some might wish to make some suggestions regarding how the sheriff could have handled his response to Harvey’s criticism even better than he did. I think discussing those suggestions would be worthwhile, and I hope to hear from readers about this. At the same time, I’m hoping this post might be of help in better understanding the nature of steering, and how it can be used to better respond to criticism.
——————–
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.
Interestingly, even if Andy deliberately tried to punish her by acting rude, if Marsha didn’t react by feeling humiliated or wounded, with the definition that I’m currently considering, I would say that he did not insult her.
“Judy, it’s so nice to see you,” I say as she comes into my office and sits down on my couch.
“Well, Judy, I didn’t mean to be discourteous or rude. I certainly am not trying to do anything that tears you down–just the opposite.”
“Now, during my training on how to help people with this type of concern, I had professors who viewed themselves as developmental psychologists. These professors view people as going through different developmental stages or levels, moving from relatively immature levels to more mature levels. They didn’t merely name each level, they did their best to go beyond the name to describe each higher level so that people, if they chose to do so, could have enough information to make some life changes.
For example, one approach would have you stop reading my blog, and when you visit my office I’ll listen to you in a caring, supportive way. From time to time, I’ll ask you a few questions to challenge you to think more deeply about the issues that you are raising. When you reply, I won’t give you my opinion. Instead, I’ll listen and empathize with what you are experiencing.”
“All right, Judy. Another thing that we can try is this. Some people, when they are provided negative criticism, always feel insulted even when the criticism is provided without any name calling, insults and shouting. Other people, even when they are provided negative criticism with name calling, insults and shouting don’t feel insulted. Attempts to insult them are like water off of a duck’s back. These people can hear the negative criticism that comes with efforts to humiliate and wound their feelings, and they can seek to learn something from the criticism. Sometimes they do experience some strong emotions that arise when they hear the negative criticism, but this is experienced not as humiliation, but, instead, as an experience that helps them to come up with more efficient, effective, economical and beautiful accomplishments. If you want, over the next few weeks we can work on this.”
On this blog, I have been making the case that how we respond to criticism can have an enormous influence on how much respect others have for us. To support this position, from time to time I provide a tentative outline of five levels of maturity for responding to criticism, with level 1 being viewed as the most immature, I give specific examples of people using the different levels, and I discussed the consequences of responding at each level.
A very disturbing example of someone responding to criticism has now crashed upon the international stage. I am referring to the actions of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. According to the US CIA and many others who have reviewed the evidence, the Prince ordered the murder of the Washington Post reporter Jamal Khashoggi because the reporter criticized him. The details are gruesome, with those who carried out the deed actually using a bone saw to cut him into pieces.
1. This level requires displaying one or more of the following:
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.
The Saudi Kingdom, an absolute monarchy, has long imprisoned its own citizens who criticize the government. However, entities outside of the Kingdom, when criticizing the Saudis, found that it was typically handled quietly, with the Saudis usually ignoring them. Things began to change when the Prince gained power.
In August 2018, when Canada criticized the recent arrests of Saudi rights activists, the Prince threatened to break trade agreements with Canada and to break off trade with other Western countries if they, too, spoke out about political repression in the kingdom. An additional threat involved an unspecified, tit-for-tat response to further criticism, 
The Prince’s threats, it seems to me, clearly results in a rating of 2 because it matches the level 2 phrase, Threatens the criticizer. His other actions clearly results in a rating of 1 because actions such as breaking off trade and withdrawing thousands of students are costly, thus they are a fairly good match with the level 1 phrase, Damages Property. The murder is clearly a level 1 response because it matches the level 1 phrase, Physically attacks the criticizer. Overall, I think the Prince deserves a rating of 1.
