Welcome to From Insults To Respect.
As I write this post, we are into the third week of the trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin. The trial involves Mr Chauvin’s use of force with George Floyd, which began when a store employer from Cup Foods was paid by Floyd with a counterfeit $20 bill to purchase some cigarettes. When a store employer demanded that Floyd return the cigarettes, he refused, and consequently the employer called the police.
At 8:08, police officers Kueng and Lane arrived, briefly entered Cup Foods, and then crossed the street to Floyd’s SUV. At 8:12, a mere four minutes after arriving, the two officers had handcuffed Floyd, and Kueng had assisted Floyd to sit on the sidewalk against the wall in front of a restaurant.
At 8:13, Kueng and Lane told Floyd he was under arrest and walked him to their police car across the street. When the officers tried to get Floyd to enter the back of the police car, Floyd fell to his knees, clearly not wanting to enter the vehicle, and he explained, he was not resisting, but that he was recovering from COVID-19, that he was claustrophobic, had anxiety, and that he did not want to sit in the car. Despite this, Kueng and Lane continued to try to put him in the car, while Floyd begged them not to, repeatedly saying “I can’t breathe” and offering to lie on the ground instead.
At 8:17, officers Chauvin and Thao arrived in another police car, joining Kueng and Lane and two other officers who arrived in another police car, with Chauvin assuming command. By 8:19, two minutes after arriving, Chauvin pulls Floyd away from the police car, Floyd falls to the pavement, and while Floyd lay on his chest with his cheek to the ground, still handcuffed, Chauvin begins to press his knee against Floyd’s neck. Meanwhile, Kueng applies pressure to Floyd’s torso, and Lane applies pressure to Floyd’s legs.
By now, anyone reading this post well knows that after more than nine minutes with Mr Chauvin holding his knee against Mr Floyd’s neck, Mr Floyd ends up dead.
A Call For More De-Escalation Training
Shortly after this awful incident, the media became awash with calls for police to learn de-escalation strategies. According to a Scientific American article, “de-escalation aims to decrease the use of force against civilians by teaching officers techniques to slow things down and use time, space and communication to find an alternative.” Moreover, the article reports that:
In 2016 Campaign Zero—a law-enforcement reform initiative developed by Black Lives Matter activists—helped conduct an analysis of 91 police departments in the largest U.S. cities. The study found that de-escalation mandates were associated with lower rates of police killings and fewer officers being killed or assaulted in the line of duty—even after accounting for a number of departmental and social factors.
I found myself pleased to see so many were thinking about de-escalation after this awful incident. Nevertheless, I became frustrated because none of the articles bothered to describe in a detailed manner what a de-escalation approach would look like starting at the point Chauvin arrived to arrest Floyd. So, I thought it would be worthwhile for me to offer one approach for your consideration.
A Proposed De-escalation Approach For Dealing With The Type Of Situation Chauvin Faced
In the situation we are discussing when Chauvin arrived and assumed command, Floyd had no weapon and his hands were handcuffed behind his back. Let’s imagine it was me who assumed command in this type of situation.
Me to officers on the scene: What’s going on?
Officer Lane: We are trying to arrest Mr Floyd for allegedly trying to pass a fake $20 bill to buy cigarettes. Mr Floyd is reluctant to be placed in the patrol car.
Me: Did he explain why?
Officer Lane: He said he is recovering from COVID-19, that he’s claustrophobic, has anxiety, and when we tried to get him in the car he began to cry out that he is having trouble breathing. He says he is willing to lie down on the ground instead.
Me: Okay, let’s stop trying to push him into the car, and give me some time to discuss this with Mr Floyd. [I go over to Mr Floyd, and say] Hi Mr Floyd, I’m Officer Jeff Rubin, how are you?
Mr Floyd: I can’t get into the car, I’m claustrophobic, and when they try to put me in there, I start to have trouble breathing.
Me: I see. I understand being claustrophobic can bring on an anxiety attack, and that can make breathing hard. I’m here to see if I can help. Let’s slow things down. I’m not going to rush you to do anything. Take some time to catch your breath. Is there anything I can get for you, a drink, or something else?
Mr Floyd: No, I just need to settle down for a few minutes.
Me: That’s fine. Take your time. Please keep in mind this whole incident involves a fake $20 bill and a few cigarettes. The last thing that you want to do is to end up with a resisting arrest charge, or even worse, an assaulting an officer charge, both much more serious charges. If we bring you in without any more trouble, I’ll write in my report that you had some anxiety about getting into the police car but after a little breather, you were fully cooperative. That would be enormously helpful for you. So, take all the time you need to settle down, and let me know if I can be of any help in any way. [Then I would wait, planning to not say anything for up to fifteen minutes, unless Floyd begins to show some indication he wanted to express his anxiety about what he is experiencing.
If so, I would empathize with his feelings. To illustrate this, let’s see what that might look like in our next exchange].
Mr Floyd: Oh, man, when my brother Philo finds out about this, man, he’s gonna kill me. Oh, man!
Me, showing concern: You’re worried how your brother is going to take this.
Mr Floyd: Man, he’s gonna go nuts!
Me: It’s not a pleasant feeling when someone in your family gets upset with you, is it?
Mr Floyd: Man! (Then, after a brief pause) He’ll stick by me though, he always does.
Me: Nice.
Me, after 15 minutes has passed: How are you doing now, Mr Floyd?
Mr Floyd: I still need a few more minutes.
Me: OK, take a little more time. Keep in mind that we can move you into the car real slow, and I’ll go with you for the ride if you want. We can talk the whole way, and the whole ride will be over in 5 minutes. You want to give that a try?
Mr Floyd: Oh my God, my kids! What am I gonna do about them?
Me: It sounds to me like you really care about your kids (said in a warm and concerned tone).
Mr Floyd: I got five of them, and two grandkids. When I lost my job because of Covid, man, I haven’t been much help.
Me: This Covid virus has really turned a lot of lives upside down (said sadly).
Five minutes later, me: Are you starting to get ready?
Mr Floyd: Not yet, I still need some time to deal with this. Maybe I could use a drink of water.
Me: Officer Lane, please go in the store and buy a bottle of water for Mr Floyd. I’ll reimburse you out of petty cash.
Discussion
By now, you have gotten a sense of how I would have handled the situation. Every 15 minutes I would ask Mr Floyd how he is doing, empathize, and then ask him calmly if he was ready to give it a try to go to the station. From time to time I would tell him that if he starts to try and becomes too anxious, he could sit back down on the pavement until he is ready to try again.
Now, this approach may seem like it would take way too long for busy police officers to carry out, but bear in mind that the way Chauvin handled the situation, hundreds of hours and millions of dollars have been consumed. Also bear in mind that most people who are being arrested quickly cooperate with police officers to avoid being charged with resisting arrest. From my experience, typically the approach I’m advocating comes to an end within 15 to 30 minutes because people get tired of just sitting on the pavement with pedestrians passing by with puzzled looks on their faces.
So, there you have it, one specific description of what a de-escalation approach might look like. I present it as a jumping off point for further discussions on this deeply troubling episode. To my readers, please, if you will, chime in with suggestions about what you don’t like about this approach, and what might be an improvement.
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 and social intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Imagine your thirteen-year-old teenage daughter begins to express a concern about being depressed. Many in the psychiatric profession, heavily backed up by the pharmaceutical industry, would urge you to make an appointment with a psychiatrist as fast as you can. That approach typically leads to the doctor encouraging your daughter to take pills referred to as “antidepressants.” The main argument that is made for beginning this type of treatment is, “untreated depression is associated with an increased risk of suicide.”
This fear arousing comment frequently works because parents tend to jump from this statement to the thought that treatment with so-called antidepressants either eliminates this risk or significantly reduces it. But a large body of 
Moreover, these drugs are associated with a number of troubling side effects, and many find that once they start using them, stopping them can lead to some awful withdrawal reactions that are far worse than the initial experience of depression.
Your letter came last night and explained sufficiently the cause of your long silence. You have evidently been in a bad state of spirits again, and dissatisfied with your environment; and I judge that you have been still more dissatisfied with the inner state of trying to consume your own smoke, and grin and bear it, so as to carry out your mother’s behests made after the time when you scared us so by your inexplicable tragic outcries in those earlier letters. Well! I believe you have been trying to do the manly thing under difficult circumstances, but one learns only gradually to do the best thing; and the best thing for you would be to write at least weekly, if only a post-card, and say just how things are going. If you are in bad spirits, there is no harm whatever in communicating that fact, and defining the character of it, or describing it as exactly as you like. The bad thing is to pour out the contents of one’s bad spirits on others and leave them with it, as it were, on their hands, as if it was for them to do something about it. That was what you did in your other letter which alarmed us so, for your shrieks of anguish were so excessive, and so unexplained by anything you told us in the way of fact, that we didn’t know but what you had suddenly gone crazy. That is the worst sort of thing you can do. The middle sort of thing is what you do this time—namely, keep silent for more than a fortnight, and when you do write, still write mysteriously about your sorrows, not quite open enough.
Now, my dear little girl, you have come to an age when the inward life develops and when some people (and on the whole those who have most of a destiny) find that all is not a bed of roses. Among other things there will be waves of terrible sadness, which last sometimes for days; and dissatisfaction with one’s self, and irritation at others, and anger at circumstances and stony insensibility, etc., etc., which taken together form a melancholy. Now, painful as it is, this is sent to us for an enlightenment. It always passes off, and we learn about life from it, and we ought to learn a great many good things if we react on it rightly. 
She went on to attend Bryn Mawr College, acted in a couple of plays, married, and had two children. She was viewed as the best of citizens in San Francisco, working with the civil rights group, supporting the Community Chest operations and heading up the Ladies’ Protection and Relief, and devoted her time as war began in 1939 to British War Relief. Throughout her life, she did have two more bouts with depression, but she handled them well. The last one, at her husband’s urging, she went with him hiking in the foothills near Santa Clara, and after a while, the exhilarating experience of being in the wonderful and exhilarating landscape, along with the lively exercise, led to the depression passing. The family legend pronounced this a California cure for a New England psychological illness.
Elsewhere in the letter, James begins to frame Peg’s experience as helpful for producing “an enlightenment,” if “we react on it rightly.” The wrong way, according to James, is to get into the habit of accepting the woe without doing anything constructive about it. The right way is “to jump at every chance to attend to anything cheerful or comic or take part in anything active that will divert us from our mean, pining inward state of feeling.”
I believe that, rather than fighting against melancholy, we should allow ourselves some time to be with it, just as we would if an old friend came to visit. We can spend this time observing, in a nonjudgmental manner, the emotions drifting through us in a manner similar to a scientist observing a flock of birds flying off in the distant sky. When it comes to grief, we need not set some artificial time limit by which we “should be” through with the process.
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 
Weeps or sobs with tears or pouts without also using level 4 response
Glares at the criticizer
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.
When Andrea saw what shirt I put on, she criticized my choice, saying, “That’s not quite right for this occasion.”
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.
“Yes, I did, John.”
“John, you can see what we had to wrestle with out here,” Beth Ann said. “This kinda talk and bullets to keep em company.”
“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?”
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?”
“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.”
“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.
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.
For those of us growing up in the 1950’s and 60’s, Ricky Nelson was a teenage idol. Some would, at the time, have picked Elvis Presley as the teenage idol, but for me, Ricky was right up there with Elvis,
My generation first got to know Ricky when he was 8 years old as one of the stars of the TV series, The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet. In 1957, upon turning 17, he began his long and successful career as a popular recording artist.
But then, on October 15, 1971, many of the early rock stars, including Chuck Berry, George Harrison, John Lennon, and Little Richard, as well as Ricky, joined together to put on a concert at Madison Square Garden, billed as “The Garden Party.” When it was Ricky’s turn to perform, he chose to play The Rolling Stones’ “Honky Tonk Women,” and the crowd began to boo. Those at the concert reported that the booing was not directed to Ricky’s performance, but rather, to police who were dealing with some disturbance. 
Nevertheless, Ricky thought the booing was directed at him because he no longer looked like a teenager and his hair had grown long; or perhaps it was because he chose to play a song that was not one of his own earlier hits.
When I got to the garden party
Bob Dylan, after having great success writing and performing Woody Guthrie-influenced folk music, began in 1965 introducing some rock & roll songs into his sets. His folk fans were not at all happy about this, and their boos were unmerciful. Nevertheless, Bob kept playing the music he wanted to play, and he eventually found a new, much larger, audience that loved his new material. Eventually he impressed the Nobel Prize Committee so much that its members awarded him their prize for literature.
By 1966, they were far and away the most popular band in history, and then John Lennon, during an interview, in an off the cuff comment, stated, “We’re more popular than Jesus.” This led to people threatening to kill the band members, and newscasts showed people flinging Beatle albums into fires. John eventually apologized, and soon after, the Beatles recorded several number one hit singles and the enormously popular album Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, considered by many the greatest album ever.
Some people who experience a booing experience come to think it is the end of the world, and they will never recover from their feelings of rejection. To each of them, I want to suggest that, as these three stories of rock & roll stars suggest, there is at least a chance that you will recover. Just keeping that possibility alive can be enormously helpful.
The technique involves writing over the course of four days, for a minimum of 15 minutes at each sitting, about something that has led to your challenging emotional experience. As you do so, make sure you include not only what happened, but also what you felt when it happened, and how you now feel about what happened. Include your deepest emotions and thoughts about what occurred. Really let go and explore your feelings and thoughts about it. As you do so, recall the sensory experience of these feelings, not just the words that define the experience. In your writing, you might tie this experience to your childhood, your relationship with your parents, people you have loved or love now, or even your career. Explore, as well, how this experience is related to whom you would like to become, whom you have been in the past, or whom you are now.
As he explains on one of his Theme Time Radio Hour shows, whenever he wants to come up with new material, he goes out into the world and sees what people are talking about. If the topic is something that has captured their interest, and if it is of interest to him as well, he soon finds himself writing a song about it. Of course, he adds a little creative flair to it, and this seems to work for him. Like Bob, I have found that when I think about what to write for new posts, listening to what others are currently talking about with interest can be helpful.
As for the Beatles, the lesson here might be that if you offend some folks during your effort to connect with an audience, perhaps a humble apology might help to ease some of the anger. Then, get on with doing your best to come up with fresh, interesting new material.
As some of you may know, my 
My first thought was that using a president as an example of someone who brags too much is a bit tricky because when they run for office, and when they give the annual State of the Union Address, it is perfectly acceptable that they promote what they view are their accomplishments. All presidents during my lifetime have done so, and of course they have speech writers who help to frame such self-promotion in a manner that comes off as eloquent and likable. And then, as I thought about this more, some things Trump has said over the years does seem to take legitimate self-promotion well into the realm of downright, way over the top, bragging.
All of the states, including largely Republican ones, had certified their results, and Trump’s hand picked Attorney General declared Trump’s claims of widespread fraud were not true. Making this brag even more horrendous is that Trump didn’t stop even when it became clear that it was leading to numerous death threats to election officials, and credible sources were relating serious concerns that his rhetoric was inciting white supremacy groups to violence.
The first thing I noticed from my search was that there is about 876,000 hits. This seemed to be a lot, but to check if this was unusual for recent presidents, I did the same search for the president who served right before Trump, and then for the current president. Here are those results:
What made this writer think Biden is a socialist, while Trump is not, apparently has to do with Biden advocating that everyone have access to affordable health care and the minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour. If you think this makes Biden a socialist, while Trump provides welfare to the rich, you are free to decide so, but that is irrelevant to the question before us today–whether or not Trump is a particularly good example of a braggart. As I read over many of the comments I came upon as a result of my internet search, clearly there is wide spread agreement that the answer is affirmative.
Trump has repeatedly claimed he is a genius. For numerous observers, this falls into the category of dubious claims. To take one example, Michael Wolff, referring to numerous interviews he had with people who worked closely with Trump, revealed “everyone around the president questioned his mental capacity, ability to read reports, overall intelligence and fitness for office.”
While working on this post, I happened to be listening to Bob Dylan’s song, “False Profit,” which appears on his new album, Rough and Rowdy Ways. A couple of its lines suddenly caught my attention:
Bob’s lyrics leave a lot to each listener’s imagination, which is true of many of his songs. Therefore, I don’t mean to suggest my interpretation of “False Prophet” is the only proper one. But I humbly invite you to join me to to see if my very personal reaction might be of value.
These lines returned me to when Bob began his musical career. Taken by his songs that so captured the pulse of events that were unfolding during the 1960s, some began to say he was a prophet. There are several definitions of a prophet, so let’s take a quick look at them:
When Bob was asked in a 1965 interview about those who were saying he was a prophet, he laughed and said humbly, “I’m just a song and dance man.” But this didn’t stop many who began to treat him as a kind of holy messenger, and some with this bent of mind began showing up at his home as if they were participating in a religious pilgrimage. Bob tried to disabuse people of such notions, but at the same time, he wanted to promote his career, and to express his emotions, feelings, and personal views in his musical art form. 
These lines delineate some of the values that Bob has railed against, and upon revealing them in his songs, it has led to his being attacked, and such attacks has led him to go to a very lonely place. It seems to me, in this verse, Bob doesn’t claim to have prophetic powers for the values that he holds, rather, he tells us, “I just know what I know.”
Here, Bob seems to be saying, “I’m not claiming to be better than anyone else, but I am claiming no one is inherently better than me. And people who do claim to be better than me, are greedy, and when they die and get buried, I prays for their souls.”
My interpretation of these lines is that for those claiming he is a false prophet, they are seeing something that really doesn’t exist. He then tries to cool their anger, and perhaps his own anger as well, with the calming imagery of a cool breeze and some pleasant experiences in a garden.
Give a listen to his tender song, “Girl From the North Country” as an example of Bob expressing feelings that are in utter contrast to the angry fellow we hear in “False Prophet.”
I’m sorry I can’t be with you in person, but please know that I am most definitely with you in spirit and honored to be receiving such a prestigious prize. Being awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature is something I never could have imagined or seen coming. From an early age, I’ve been familiar with and reading and absorbing the works of those who were deemed worthy of such a distinction: Kipling, Shaw, Thomas Mann, Pearl Buck, Albert Camus, Hemingway. These giants of literature whose works are taught in the schoolroom, housed in libraries around the world and spoken of in reverent tones have always made a deep impression. That I now join the names on such a list is truly beyond words.
People engage in self-promotional behavior because they want others to hold favorable images of them. Self-promotion, however, entails a trade-off between conveying one’s positive attributes and being seen as bragging. We propose that people get this trade-off wrong because they erroneously project their own feelings onto their interaction partners. As a consequence, people overestimate the extent to which recipients of their self-promotion will feel proud of and happy for them, and underestimate the extent to which recipients will feel annoyed (Experiments 1 and 2). Because people tend to promote themselves excessively when trying to make a favorable impression on others, such efforts often backfire, causing targets of self-promotion to view self-promoters as less likeable and as braggarts (Experiment 3).
Because bragging is rarely viewed as a positive characteristic, in general, I recommend that anytime you are tempted to reveal some information about one of your fine accomplishments or attributes, pause for a few seconds. During the pause, ask yourself how your statement might be received.
There are people you will meet who claim everything they do is perfect, even better than perfect, just stupendously superb. This can get pretty tiresome, and if the person doing the bragging is someone you care about, it can be hurting her or his reputation.
I’d be a little nervous trying this one. I’m pretty sure some will see through the subterfuge and recognize I’ve tired of the person blowing her or his own horn.
I hope all of you are having a fine holiday season. This, of course, is the time of year when the longing for peace on Earth and good will to all is beautifully expressed in songs and stories.
For example, during the American Civil War, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote a poem titled “Christmas Bells.” It begins with pleasant images of the season, but then the reality of the war sets in:
In the earliest period that humans thrived, they were chiefly hunters and gatherers. At that time, it has been estimated that death came as a result of one person killing another about twenty percent of the time. Evidence for this was obtained by looking at the skeletons from that period. Quite often we find fractured skulls and arrowheads embedded in chest cavities.
Another dramatic decrease occurred around the Age of Reason and the European Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries. The invention of the printing press had made pamphlets and books far more readily available, spreading humanistic values throughout the human population. That era saw the first organized movements to abolish slavery, dueling, judicial torture, superstitious killings, sadistic punishment, and cruelty to animals.
Today, the major parts of the world that are most violent prone are at the same psychological developmental level as the largely Christian southern states were just about when the American Civil War began. Let us compare, for example, the highly violent group known as ISIS with that bloody period of American history. The confederate southern states had, like ISIS has today, an ideology that slavery is ok, and outsiders (the northern states) were actively interfering with what they believed is right. Moreover, the confederate states used quotations from their holy book to defend their beliefs and to justify going to war to protect their ideology in a way that is similar to how ISIS utilizes sections of their holy book.
After abolishing slavery, England continued for about a hundred years to use violent force to maintain its hold on colonial labor, but Mahatma Gandhi effectively used nonviolent resistance to put an end to colonial rule. Soon afterwards, colonialism began to end elsewhere.
There are some credible reasons for supporters of the most violent regions of the Earth to feel that there has been an ongoing effort to force them to do whatever is in the interest of the US and its allies. Years before the creation of ISIS, for example, meddling in Middle East affairs occurred by the US’s CIA. Then came the US invasion of the largely Muslim inhabited Afghanistan and Iraq countries.
With regards to responding to regions that continue to enslave people, the US would use nonviolent approaches such as boycotting any goods or services that might fund the violent group’s operations, along with boycotting any country or enterprise that does business with such violent groups, while offering a vision for engaging in peaceful commerce as described in step 4.
Therefore, the US would launch an all out peaceful advocacy effort to have the United Nations offer to fund a constitutional convention for all of the stakeholders in the regions where violent groups are operating. Those violent groups’ representatives would be invited to be central players, and incentives to participate would be provided. UN Peace Keepers would be employed throughout the convention period to help decrease the likelihood that some would seek to violently sabotage such efforts.
Professor Steven Pinker provides evidence in his book, 
And in fact, many believe that it is this set of challenges that is the main cause of the region’s violence problems. In mid-day much of these regions are often so hot it could make the Dalai Lama ignite in irritability. Large sections of these regions are as parched as the moon’s surface. But the regions do have some natural resources. For example, they tend to have plentiful sunshine. Nevertheless, they remain rather poor in contrast to the more developed countries.
Professor Pinker notes that prior to the invention of the printing press there were very few books available. Those people who lived in the upper classes rarely had much direct contact with the lower classes. A nobleman’s quick glance while passing by a downtrodden worker often merely left the impression of a filthy, smelly soul, hardly human at all. After novels became available, a nobleman might read of a poor young woman pressed into very sad circumstances by a cruel person of the upper classes, and discover tears running down his cheeks. Discovering that people all over the world, in all classes, and other religions have very similar desires, dreams, and feelings that we can all relate to, increases empathy and the desire to deal with a wider range of humanity in kind and respectful ways.
So, how would we get these kinds of stories before those who are in groups prone to violence? At the two types of conventions I mentioned above that would be funded by the United Nations (constitutional and commerce) short, readable, relatable books would be freely provided that convey these heartwarming stories. International funding for public libraries for regions too poor to provide for them on their own would be provided. Moreover, there are ways to make these types of stories particularly accessible on internet sites that violent groups tend to visit, not only in written form, but also in audio-visual forms as well. And instead of the steady dropping of bombs in regions occupied by violent groups, an international coalition could drop little parachuted packages that include a little tasty healthy treat, a little toy or stuffed animal as a gift to the children, an interesting puzzle that adults would enjoy doing, and the type of stories that I have just described.
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.”
As I write this post, Election Day, with all of its turbulence, has now passed us by. Perhaps now is a good time for us to take some deep calming breaths and reflect on all that transpired.
We knew beyond doubt that our president was an inveterate liar, a business cheat, and a bully, but the debate last week proved that he refuses to adhere to any rules, even those upon which he has himself agreed. Those who counted say he interrupted 71 times in 90 minutes. That should not come as a surprise, since he does not appear to respect any of the laws that everyone else is expected to obey, including our Constitution. Talk about a lack of law and order.
With regard to the environment issue, Trump has repeatedly claimed scientists are perpetuating a hoax when they tell us that urgent action is needed to transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar. My guess is that rather than really believing this is a hoax, Trump promoted it because of how crucial he viewed winning Pennsylvania was for his chances to be elected.
The Keystone State obtains huge economic benefits from its fracking industry, which is a technique that draws the fossil fuel of natural gas from deep below the Earth’s surface. To move forward on a transition plan threatens the livelihood of many state citizens, and consequently, anyone supporting such a plan risks losing a significant number of votes.
I will explain my reasons for this guess shortly, but let’s just pretend, for the benefit of this exercise, that it is true that Trump does respect science but his desire to hold onto the presidency is of greater importance to him. If you were convinced that Trump chose holding on to the presidency over protecting the health and safety of human beings by avoiding further damage to the environment, would that influence how much respect you have for him? How much would it influence you?
In the articles that I came upon in my search, much of the argument that claims Trump does not respect science comes from his statements that contradicted or undermined the pandemic recommendations from science experts within and outside his own administration. Also, in complete contradiction to scientific evidence, he has repeatedly told the American people that the end of the virus’s spread was just around the corner, and continued to do so even as it was increasingly plain to all that the virus was spreading at alarming rates. Nevertheless, as I indicated in the previous section, I doubt that these public statements of Trump are really indicative of his true feelings. Here’s why.
First of all, on Bob Woodward’s tape recordings, Trump repeatedly admitted, based on the information he received from his expert scientists, just how deadly and contagious the virus is. Thus, on February 7 he told Woodward the disease is “deadly stuff.” In an April 5 interview with Woodward, Trump explained, “It moves rapidly, Bob. It moves rapidly and viciously. If you’re the wrong person and if it gets you, your life is pretty much over if you’re in the wrong group.” During his April 13 interview with Woodward, Trump told the journalist that the virus is “so easily transmissible, you wouldn’t even believe it.”
With regard to his financial interests, it is well known that Trump is heavily invested in hotels around the world. When Trump heard about the pandemic from his advisors, when he asked about what needed to be done to contain it, he was told that the public has to stay home and only leave their homes for absolutely essential reasons. This is not at all good news for someone in Trump’s financial situation. And keep in mind, he has repeatedly faced bankruptcy, a pretty awful experience, especially for someone who hates the image of a loser.
Although Trump claims he has been playing down the seriousness of the virus because he doesn’t want to cause a panic, this is implausible. If he was in a reasonable state of mind, he would have known the general public would hear from plenty of experts an accurate account of the risks that are involved.
The most plausible reason to me is because many of his base supporters delight in claiming the news is fake. We see them at his rallies throwing up their arms in jubilation each time he mentions the “awful lying fake media.” Many of them, just like him, are in denial about the dangers of the pandemic because a full shut down of nonessential businesses has terrible consequences for their own businesses, and the thought of not partying at bars is, to them, completely unacceptable.
For this part of today’s exercise, I’d like you to rate Trump’s style of responding to criticism. To help guide you in coming up with your rating, below is one model that describes five different responding to criticism styles. I put them in order from the least respected to the most respected. Each higher level is viewed as more mature, likable, and respected by a wide group of individuals who watched video recordings depicting different people displaying the five different styles.
Weeps or sobs with tears or pouts without using any of the higher level skills
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.
For this part of today’s exercise, I’d like you to rate Trump’s style of providing criticism. As I did when I asked you to rate his style of responding to criticism, to help guide you in coming up with your rating, below is one model that describes five different styles placed in order from the least respected to the most respected.
Well, there you have it, an exercise designed to deepen your idea about the nature of respect. As I mentioned above, you are of course free to create your own conceptualization of respect according to your own lights. Nothing that I’ve said throughout this exercise is designed to be presented in a dogmatic fashion.
As regular readers to this blog know, when I want to take a few minutes to enrich a topic, I often look to see if Nobel Laureate Bob Dylan explored this topic on one of his Theme Time Radio Hour shows. This has worked well, for his show is so much fun, and I receive a great deal of positive feedback whenever I do this.
Welcome back to Theme Time Radio Hour. Put the apples away for we’re not trying to keep the doctors away this week. A matter of fact we’re gonna invite them in, ‘cause for the next hour, we’re gonna discuss that noble occupation of the followers of Hippocrates. 
The first song Bob plays for us is “Dear Doctor,” by the Rolling Stones. It’s about a guy none too happy about getting married. Here’s some of the lyrics:
This connection between doctors and God comes about, I think, from the association of both apparently being capable of performing miracles. A “miracle” is a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency. But, is it wise to put doctors on the same level as God? Is that too much respect to put on anyone? Hmmmm.
The first doctors can be seen in ancient cave paintings, some of them thousands of years old. They show men in animal masks performing ritual dances. 
From Bob’s little history, we see that for many centuries, healing was often bound up with religious practices. Healers would seek to draw upon the favors of their God or Gods using a variety of rituals.
I swear by Apollo Healer, by Asclepius, by Hygieia, by Panacea, and by all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will carry out, according to my ability and judgment, this oath and this indenture.
If push comes to shove, and you find yourself wanting to find someone who could do what the doctor couldn’t, here’s “The Five Blind Boys From Mississippi” doing “You Done What the Doctor Couldn’t do.” 
Everyone will give you different medical advice. People tell you what to eat, what medicine to take, how to avoid illness, how to cure illness. But if you want to know the truth for me is that we’re all gonna go. All you can do is try to make it as interesting as possible.
