Welcome to From Insults to Respect. Today, we once again take up the topic of crying and its relationship to respect.
Perhaps some might wonder why more than one post was not sufficient to amply cover this tearful topic. I would have been among those who wondered about this a few years ago, but then I wrote a post titled, “Responding to Criticism: Four levels of Maturity.” There, the most immature level was originally described as:
1. This level requires displaying one or more of the following:
- Weeps or sobs with tears or pouts
- Physically attacks the criticizer
- Damages property
I had derived this level along with the three higher levels by first making a lot of TV shows with a variety of actors. In each show, the actors respond to criticism in different ways. Then I asked others to view the shows. Together, the viewers and I discussed our reactions to the way the actors in the video recordings handle criticism.
I soon became very familiar with what people thought of as immature and mature responses. I then put them in order from the least to the most respected. Then, when I published the post that described these four levels of maturity, I began to get a great deal of criticism because I included the crying description as one of the most immature responses.
To address the criticism, I wrote a follow-up post titled “Responding to Criticism by Crying: Is it a Sign of Immaturity?” It became one of my most popular posts immediately upon my publishing it over seven years ago. Since then, people every single day continue to find it through search engines and regularly provide thoughtful comments. Apparently, the post touches a sensitive nerve, and raises new questions that I have tried to answer in follow-up posts.
After considering the feedback, I wrote a follow-up post titled, “My Answer to the Question, Are People Who Cry When Criticized Immature?” There I declared that in response to the feedback, I decided:
Weeping, sobbing and crying will only be viewed as the lowest level of maturity if the person responding to criticism does nothing else but that, or if he or she does that along with the other lowest level responses such as physically attacking the criticizer or damaging property. If, after crying, he or she then begins to display responses consistent with level 4, crying will no longer be viewed as a sign of immaturity.
With that change in my “Responding to Criticism” model, I thought that had put an end to the topic of crying, but then I noticed how embarrassed many folks are if they cry in front of others, typically apologizing and feeling guilty. 
So I wrote a post about this titled, “I’m Sorry For The Tears.” That post also led to some heartfelt responses. For example, one reader wrote:
I think it is great to get a conversation going about crying. I actually became so emotionally cut off for a period that I didn’t cry for about 10 years. When I began to let my emotions move again though and started to be able to let some tears fall again, I felt that it actually was extremely healthy for me. The tears seem to help emotions move and process through me far better than just forcing them down inside myself like I did for so long. I think the stigma against crying is an unhealthy one, and yes I feel that it is great to develop other tools for processing emotions as well, so that we can have many options for processing the hard things in our lives.
Incredibly, the topic of crying continues to be brought up by readers of this blog, thus leading me to write several additional posts delving into more and more subtle domains. Examples of these can be found in posts titled “Am I Bad for Feeling Sad?” and “Tears at the U.S. Open.”
And now, recently, I was listening to Bob Dylan’s Street Legal album and the song, “Baby, Stop Crying” came on. It led me to to think about today’s question, “Is it okay to ask someone to stop crying?”
Dylan’s Song, “Baby, Stop Crying”
To begin thinking about this, let’s take a quick look at some of the lyrics of Dylan’s song, which he sings, it seems to me, with a bit of annoyance, although we can see in the lyrics he’s trying at the same time to be compassionate:
You been down to the bottom with a bad man, babe
But you’re back where you belong
….
Baby, please stop crying, stop crying, stop crying
Baby, please stop crying, stop crying, stop crying
Baby, please stop crying
You know, I know, the sun will always shine
So baby, please stop crying ’cause it’s tearing up my mindGo down to the river, babe
Honey, I will meet you there
Go down to the river, babe
Honey, I will pay your fare
….
If you’re looking for assistance, babe
Or if you just want some company
Or if you just want a friend you can talk to
Honey, come and see about me
….
You been hurt so many times
And I know what you’re thinking of
Well, I don’t have to be no doctor, babe
To see that you’re madly in loveBaby, please stop crying, stop crying, stop crying
Baby, please stop crying, stop crying, stop crying
Baby, please stop crying
You know, I know, the sun will always shine
So baby, please stop crying ’cause it’s tearing up my mind
How well did the character in the song handle this crying situation? In thinking about this, I think we can agree that when someone is crying, there are times when it can be annoying. For example, I was once in a hotel room, extremely tired, trying to fall asleep. A baby on the other side of my wall began to let it all out at the top of her or his lungs. I recognized that it wasn’t the baby’s fault, and as a parent myself, I felt some compassion for what was going on. Nevertheless, I sure wished that baby would please stop crying.
I stayed silent. Some time later, upon reflection, I came to think I probably would have been wise to have called the front desk to see if another room was available, but I just laid there fuming for quite some time until I finally dozed off.
In the Dylan song, the character he created is not a baby, he cares about her, but pleads with her to stop crying. He tries to be helpful by offering to pay her fare to go to a more pleasant place–the river. He also lets her know that if she wants to have a friend to talk with, he’s more than willing to make himself available. He does say please, when pleading for her to stop crying.
Is there anything wrong with this approach?
For me, personally, with the exception of the crying baby in the hotel example, and a few times when I was shopping in a store where a baby was loudly crying in an ear piercing manner, I don’t recall experiencing annoyance from anyone crying. Instead, I welcome the opportunity to offer my empathetic support. To me, empathy is the capacity to feel the experiences, needs, aspirations, frustrations, sorrows, joys, anxieties, hurt, or hunger of others as if they were her or his own. It feels natural to me to remain present and to communicate that I care.
That said, I certainly recognize not everyone is the same as me. So, let me try to put myself in the shoes of the character in the song.
Hmmm. Well, if the person identified as babe in the song is crying and it begins to wear on my nerves, I don’t think I would ask her to please stop crying. I guess what I would do is say something like, “Babe, I’m going to take a walk around the block for a few minutes to deal with some feelings that are coming up within me regarding what you are going through. I’ll be back as soon as I can, and then if you think of anything I can do to help, please let me know.” As I prepare to leave, I might go over to her, give her a tender kiss on the cheek, and a gentle loving touch on the back of her shoulder.
I wonder how others feel about this. I invite your thoughts and expressions of your emotional reactions.
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.
“Crazy” is a concept used when people are puzzled about the actions of others or themselves. By using this type of name calling, it really doesn’t provide any clarification, but to some, they think it does. So, we might hear something like the following conversation:
Nevertheless, I would like you to consider the following possibility.
Trump’s supporters, in addition to being called crazy, have repeatedly been called mentally ill as a way to make sense of what seems to be irrational. Because the mental illness concept is supported by many doctors, including many psychiatrists and psychologists, some folks have been left with the impression that it must be a more sound, scientific concept than “crazy.” Is it?
When psychiatrists use their mental illness classification system and call it a diagnostic system, they do so despite numerous scientific arguments about its shortcomings (see 
You have trouble starting your car. You bring it to Fred, your friendly local mechanic. On hearing your concern, he provides an initial theory of what is causing this—perhaps your car needs a new starter. This is the initial “theoretical” diagnosis. Then, Fred inspects the starter and finds that it is in fine shape. Thus, his original theory of what is wrong proves incorrect. He then theorizes that your spark plugs are dirty. He takes a look and finds that they are indeed dirty. He cleans them up, puts them back in their proper place, and the car starts right up. In the end, he “diagnosed” what was wrong with your car—it had dirty spark plugs.
The psychiatric mental illness diagnostic system is described in a manual published with the title, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). There it refers to itself as a manual for making diagnoses. This masks the difference between the following three types of statements:
The DSM does not claim its so called “diagnostic classifications” are just a theory of what the cause is for the expressed concern; it doesn’t even provide a theory. The manual’s developers explicitly say it is theory neutral. The DSM labels are just type 3 statements, that is, just statements that restate expressed concerns into medical jargon. Thus, the lack of reliability and validity for the DSM classifications and applying the word “diagnosis” to them in a misleading, imprecise manner are just three of its many serious principles of science violations.
Contrast psychiatry’s DSM “diagnosis” system with a diagnosis system used by other doctors. If someone comes to a virologist expressing a concern about being feverish, having difficulty breathing, and loss of taste, the doctor will label these as the patient’s medical complaints, rather then simply translating the complaints into medical jargon and then claiming the jargon constitutes the diagnosis. Instead, the virologist, after writing down the various complaints, will then look for the cause for these complaints. If it is found that there is the presence of the Covid 19 virus, the doctor will say the diagnosis is a Covid 19 infection.
On one fine spring day, I was sitting on a Central Park bench and two women were sitting one bench just to my right reading their newspapers. Suddenly, one of them cried out, “Sophie, can you believe this! The story I’m reading here, oh my God! This young boy, seventeen years old mind you, the same age as my Jonathan, he’s struggling with ideas about suicide. Seventeen years old, his whole life before him and he wants to kill himself. What would lead a boy to this?”
With that explanation, the two women nodded to one another, and continued on to another story, seemingly satisfied that they now knew why the boy was dealing with this issue.
In my opinion, even a play, which lasts but two or three hours, can only provide in its narrative a simplified account of what real life stories are all about. And yet, in today’s world, for many people a very different type of play is sufficient for providing the reason why someone is dealing with a challenging concern. This new type of play begins with the curtain rising. A character says to the audience he is struggling with feelings of suicide. A psychiatrist then proclaims the character has the mental disorder known as major depressive disorder, and then the curtain comes down. That’s the whole play. And people walk away fully satisfied that an adequate explanation has been provided.
That said, I leave you with the following suggestion: If you have a theory of why people continue to support Trump and his continued claims that he won the 2020 presidential election by a landslide, let those with whom you want to share your theory know it is a “theory,” and forgo the mental illness name calling. By doing so, you may not get as many cheers from people who agree with you. Nevertheless, among people truly seeking to deepen their understanding of this difficult to understand phenomenon, you will be more respected. Moreover, for those who may disagree with your theory, they will appreciate your ability to distinguish fact from theory. You’ll come across, I theorize, as more open-minded and you will be modeling a higher level of discourse than what we have been hearing from many of our political leaders.
Welcome to From Insults to Respect. Today we examine a conflict witnessed by millions that involves U.S. Congressman Jim Jordan at a U.S. House Coronavirus Hearing angrily questioning infectious disease expert Dr. Fauci. It can be viewed on YouTube 
Briefly, Congressman Jordan desired to defend the U.S. Constitution and the liberty of Americans. In his view, interfering with his desire are a set of recommendations developed by the CDC that Dr. Fauci has given voice to as part of the job the current president has hired him to do. Jordan appears to believe Dr. Fauci is guilty of promoting recommendations that interfere with liberty and the Constitution. At the same time, Dr. Fauci desires to do his job without facing personal attacks and a style of questioning that he referred to as ranting.
At first, Dr. Fauci is reluctant to describe the objective measure, explaining it depends on a variety of ever changing conditions, such as the percentage of people who will agree to be vaccinated, how resistant new emerging variants of the virus will be to the available vaccines, and other factors that can sprout up. But, after making clear that any estimate that he gives must be viewed as very tentative, Dr. Fauci finally provides his best guess–when the number of daily infections drop to 10,000 a day, which may very well be reached by early to mid summer if the vast majority of people are vaccinated.
You said that when Texas ended their lockdown, ended their mandates, this was inexplicable and this would, quote, “lead to a surge in cases.” But Texas is at the bottom of the 50 states. But all of the states at the top are lockdown states. So, that guess didn’t look too good. What explains why Texas is so darn low as compared to the rest of the states. Lockdown states have a much higher rate than the state of Texas which over a month ago said that we’re not going to have all these lockdowns and all of these mandates that you say we have to have a lockdown.
Jordan: Dr. Fauci, when is the time? When, in your written statement you say, “Now is not the time to pull back on masking, physical distancing, and avoiding congregating settings. When is the time? When do Americans get their freedom back? 
Dr. Fauci: When we get the levels of infection in this country low enough that it is not a really high threat.
Jordan: What measure. I mean, are we just going to continue forever. When do we get to the point? What measure, what objective outcome do we have to reach before Americans get their liberty and freedom back? 
Jordan, his voice has become louder: You don’t think that American liberties have been threatened the past year, Dr Fauci? They’ve been assaulted, their liberties have.
At this point, Jordan again interrupts in the middle of Dr. Fauci’s sentence and begins to list examples of Americans loss of liberty, and among them, he says, “The governor of our third largest state meets with physicians and that video is censored because it dared to disagree with Dr. Fauci, so I just want to know when Americans are going to get their liberties back.”
Dr. Fauci: My answers are consistent with [cross talk] may I answer the question please. My recommendations are not a personal recommendation. They are based on the CDC guidance and which are underscored by…
Dr. Fauci: Right now we have about sixty thousand infections a day, which is a very large risk for a surge. We’re not talking about liberties, we’re talking about a pandemic that has killed 560,000 Americans. That’s what we are talking about.
Dr. Fauci: Well, you just said people can’t assemble in their own homes. They can. That’s a CDC recommendation. [after some crosstalk Dr. Fauci continues] You are going to see a gradual, from, right now we are at an unacceptable high level, regardless of who you are. We’re going to see, as more and more people are vaccinated and we get over three million people a day, you are going to see the level of infection go down and down, and gradually there will be more flexibility to doing the things you are talking about. 
Dr. Fauci: You are asking for a number. If I have a number, it would have to be my best estimate, and that would be that when the number of infections a day are well below ten thousand a day. At that point, there would be a gradual pulling back of a number of the restrictions you are talking about, particularly when people are vaccinated more and more because a combination of, if you are vaccinated you are protecting yourself for sure, and the more people who get vaccinated in the community, the lower the number of infections will be.
Dr. Fauci: You’re ranting again.
Let’s begin with Congressman Jordan. Most of his questions were relevant and initially he doesn’t sound particularly belligerent. In my opinion, he could have done better throughout by asking his questions in a warm and friendly manner. When Dr. Fauci made a few comments that Jordan objected to, rather than utilizing the conflict resolution skill of disagreeing without being disagreeable, he instead angrily raises his voice and repeatedly interrupts Dr. Fauci in mid-sentence. What would disagreeing without being disagreeable have looked like in their exchange? I think by empathetically providing statements from time to time that indicated he knows Dr. Fauci has been the bearer of bad news throughout the pandemic and that’s a rough situation to be in, could have helped to traverse some of the roughest terrain of this conflict.
Now, let’s turn to critiquing Dr. Fauci’s handling of the conflict. With the exception of three brief moments, I think he kept his tone of voice in a matter of fact manner that was fitting for this occasion. Where he faltered on this score will be discussed shortly.
swered the questions posed to him in a manner that struck me as fair given the number of factors in steady flux. His biggest mistake, in my opinion, occurred by not taking advantage of making a connection with Jordan on their shared values.
I share with you the love of liberty and freedom, Congressman Jordan, and well recognize the enormous frustrations that have been ongoing during this pandemic. The restrictions about family gatherings have been awfully hard, numerous people who have a business ended up with devastating losses, people have lost their job, and on and on, all of this has been terribly difficult to deal with emotionally as well as financially. And yet, according to the best scientific data we have available, if we did nothing to try to decrease the spread hundreds of thousands of more people would have died, and hospital personnel would have been even more overwhelmed than they had become at the height of the U.S. experience with this pandemic. 
In its preamble it states its purpose is, and I quote, “…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” 
Now we are engaged in providing a common defense to battle this pandemic, a battle that has led to the deaths in one year of nearly twice the total number of deaths that occurred during the four years of World War II. Sacrifices are being made. I’m not happy about them, but I was hired by the president to provide my recommendations based on science and a vetting process involving experts at the CDC, to decrease the spread of the virus. Consistent with our Constitution, it is up to our elected officials to decide which recommendations to make mandatory. Citizens have the right to file a suit in court if they believe their rights are being violated. 
If Dr. Fauci would have made these types of connections with Jordan’s values, it may very well have taken the wind out of Jordan’s sails, tempering his ire.
In conflict resolution we often teach people to make “I” statements rather than insisting on an opinion. Thus, Dr. Fauci might have done better if instead of saying, “No, you are. That is exactly what you are doing,” he said pleasantly, “Well, although you don’t view it as a personal thing, I’m experiencing it as exactly that. To be clear, I did not advocate that the video be censored, and I fully support freedom of speech.”
I get why Dr. Fauci was exasperated at this point. He believed he had provided the best answer available, but I do think Jordan was in his rights to ask for a more specific guess. Dr. Fauci eventually did provide more specifics that came when Jordan made this request.
Dr. Fauci’s frustration with Jordan’s interruptions and his angry tone of voice is understandable. And though ranting may have been an accurate description, most people would view Dr. Fauci’s comment as an insult. Insulting someone in the middle of a conflict just leads to more trouble than it is worth. I think Dr. Fauci would have been better off just saying something like, “Congressman Jordan, I am having a hard time dealing with your tone and frequent interruptions. I understand you have strong feelings about this, as I certainly do. Maybe we need a break so I can deal with how I’m feeling.”
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 8:17, 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.
Shortly after this awful incident, the media became awash with calls for police to learn de-escalation strategies. According to a Scientific American 
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 
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: 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?
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: I got five of them, and two grandkids. When I lost my job because of Covid, man, I haven’t been much help.
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.