OPENNESS TO THE OTHER: BYPASSING ANGER BY REMAINING CONFIDENTLY ENGAGED

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date October 13, 2013
8 Comments on OPENNESS TO THE OTHER: BYPASSING ANGER BY REMAINING CONFIDENTLY ENGAGED

This week we have a special treat, a guest blog post by Dr. Robin Lynn Treptow, PhD. Dr. Treptow describes herself as a peace psychologist who lives in Montana with her family. She believes that sustainable world-wide peace is achievable via psychological wisdom, and she labors one-on-one in each human interaction towards this goal.

Here’s a little background to Dr. Treptow’s post:

A couple of weeks ago, I published a post titled FROM ANGER TO CHALLENGE: A STEP TWO EXAMPLE. That post provided a parable in which Audrey, a young woman, has just graduated from law school. When her father begins to urge her to begin her career at his Wall Street firm, Audrey becomes angry, and cries out, “Dad, we discussed this already! I’m going to get a job in the Department of Justice!”

Dr. Treptow, it just so happens, believes that it would be helpful for my readers to see the character in my parable act in a different way, one in which Audrey displays the principles of “Openness to the other” (The Virtue of Multiculturalism Personal Transformation, Character, and Openness to the Other, by Blaine J. Fowers and Barbara J. Davidovin, September 2006, American Psychologist, Vol. 61, No. 6, 581–594). I feel my readers could benefit from this point of view, and so I now turn this post over to Dr. Treptow.

Below, I will use blue letters when I am using Dr. Rubin’s words in his original post describing his parable of Audrey. Whenever I want to insert a comment into his parable or change his words to illustrate bypassing anger by remaining confidently engaged, I will use red letters.

Audrey is at a fine restaurant with her parents celebrating her law school graduation.

[This scenario involving primarily Audrey and her father has been adapted herein using a novel strategy for managing one’s emotions in a proactive manner: bypassing “anger” or other negative emotions altogether and moving towards a wholehearted focus upon “openness to the other.” Some aspects of the original script have been omitted as irrelevant and unnecessary to the more effective and streamlined process.]

“Well, your mother and I are so proud of you, Audrey,” says her father.

“Thanks, Dad!”

“Now you know, Audrey, I think it best that you begin your career in my Wall Street firm,” says her father.

[Audrey very momentarily takes an inner assessment of her emotional, cognitive, and behavioral resources—she had decided about a month ago to try a novel approach to relationships, an approach that keeps in mind that two people can communicate openly with one another even though they do not have the same backgrounds, heritage, and life experiences. A major goal with this approach is to clarify that others have ‘legitimate commitments to their own ways of life that are worthy of respect.’]

Having heard her father’s comment about beginning her career at his firm, Audrey’s thoughts follow in this line: “Emotions: I am pretty upbeat because this is my law school graduation celebration; though sometimes I can be vulnerable to reactivity to others’ comments at times of an ’emotional high,’ I think that in this case it will be ‘okay’ to honor my father by remaining open to whatever he should wish to say. Cognitions: Though it will certainly be reasonable to avoid agreeing to any immoral thought or actions, I do not realistically think that my father would put me in that type of position now or at any other time. I certainly ought to be able to listen openly to my father’s points of view as his daughter and as a competent law school graduate. Behaviors: I am an adult; I am fully capable of listening to my father’s statements about a matter close to his heart: it will be simply a matter of sitting here, looking at him as he speaks, and expressing agreement with anything about which I can concur.” Audrey’s mental evaluation—comprising something like 30 seconds—meanders to a close as she hears herself gently intone…

“Hey, dad, that is a sweet idea! Why don’t you go over again the primary reasons that you would like me to work there?”

[Audrey is quietly cognizant of her primary goal: to be in a relationship with her father; she has set aside for this conversation any needs to justify her desire to work at the Justice Department—realizing that she is an adult and is fully capable to make that decision with or without her father’s input. In fact, it is this very confidence in her own ability to act wisely without her father’s direct counsel which enables Audrey to set aside any perceived need to convince her father that she has made (or will make) the best choice. Audrey remains aware that this approach is based in authenticity; that is, it will backfire if it is used as a “tactic” or “strategy” just to get her way or to convince her father that she is a capable adult: its purpose is to keep oneself in pleasant and amiable harmony with the other.]

“Dad, we discussed this already.”

[Here, in Dr. Rubin’s original script, Audrey is beginning to become angry and defensive. But in this revised approach, Audrey, instead gives her father a warm smile and pats him on his arm.]

“As I mentioned to you before, Dad, I’m going to get a job in the Department of Justice,” says Audrey. “I made some connections there and that’s where my heart is.”

[While Audrey’s words are almost identical to those she had said in Dr. Rubin’s scenario, with her new “openness to the other” approach, she is quietly conscious that her voice tone and facial affect are markedly more congruent to her inner feelings than they would have been if she had started to become angry. Specifically, Audrey notices that her voice is soft and connected: there is no harsh tone as she relates the truth of how she feels and the action that she is hopeful to take.]

“We discussed that several months ago, and just briefly,” her father replies.

Audrey nods quietly with deep affection in her eyes. Because she has assessed her inner resources and found them to be fully ample for the task of remaining in a caring and a loving relationship with her father, she is free to fully acknowledge his side of the relationship.

“Now that the real decision is right before you,” her father says, “it’s time to get serious. I want to make sure you really think this out thoroughly to prevent you from doing anything foolish.”

Audrey smiles. She fully appreciates her father’s reasons for speaking with her about her career choices: he loves her very much!

She is consciously aware of the spontaneous pleasure welling up inside of her for being able to listen to and appreciate why her father might be so motivated to engage her in this discussion.

“Thank you, Dad,” Audrey says, and she leans over and gives her father a kiss on his cheek.

Audrey nods from time to time with deep respect as her father begins speaking—keeping her heart decidedly open to his.

Audrey inwardly celebrates her success: despite so much well-meaning advise from law school colleagues and others in her social circle to be “assertive” and “tell your father that you have made up your mind…” she had tried a novel approach with wonderful results. Not feeling at all anxious as to how the course of the conversation might turn out—knowing at that very deep place within her heart and soul that the Justice Department job was most likely going to remain solidly in her sights—Audrey prepares her whole person to be fully engaged with whatever her father might have to say. She makes a mental note that she has researched her job options well; there is absolutely no reason to become defensive in discussing them with her father who obviously is highly invested in her prospects as a lawyer: “Why wouldn’t he be? He is a lawyer himself!”

When her father is done, Audrey carefully summarizes what he had to say.

Audrey notices that her “summary” is more than just repeating back her father’s words as if she did not really care about his feelings: “It has gone to a deeper level. I find myself wondering how my father might be feeling: ‘Does he think, I do hope she still takes the job with me? I really like her—she is a strong young woman and would be such an asset to my firm…” or ‘Might he wonder if I will grow away from him if I take another job—one that has differing ideas about a lawyer’s hands-on practice…what needs to be done and why…?’ She is pleasantly surprised and pleased to discover that her actions are not a “staged pretending to take my father seriously” but a genuine and honest interest in her father’s viewpoints on the matter.

She pauses for a good few minutes, showing her dad she is really thinking over all the information she has gathered.

Now Audrey decides to openly share with her father some of the thought process that has gone into her career choice—conveying by the congruency of her affect, words, and behaviors that she has indeed given her career a great deal of thought. She impresses her Dad with her knowledge of what it takes to thoroughly consider her job options, the type of research that supports the procedure she had chosen, and the information that she had gathered on the specific options that she considered. She then asks her father for his input.

Again, Audrey is pleased with her new approach: she is genuinely interested in her father’s advice, ideas, and practical approach to the job-search situation. “This is rather fun,” she thinks.

[Audrey is not at all detached from her father and his needs during this exchange: rather, she is so confident in her own inner resources as to be fully available emotionally to her father during this difficult moment.]

Then she announces her decision that she is going to stick with her initial choice, a job with the Justice Department.

Her father once again objects, making a few final pleas for her to reconsider.

With a few moist tears in her eyes, Audrey gently reassures her father of her devotion and love for him as her father.

[Having adopted at her innermost core a commitment to be “open to the other” throughout their interchange, she now can fully understand the mix of emotions that her father might be experiencing.]

Audrey’s father observes his internal thoughts: “Wow! She’s a smart one: I am so pleased that she knows what she wants to do. Yes, I am sad that she won’t be working for me—but she will be a dynamo for the Justice Department… I wonder if she might agree to have an informal ‘father-daughter lawyer’s lunch every Thursday when I seldom have pressing matters at hand…”]

After summarizing what her father had said, using her most loving voice, Audrey says, “Dad, you make some very good points. Here’s what we’ll do. After one year of my job at the Department of Justice, you and I will meet again to discuss my career. I’ll have a lot more information by then about what I like and don’t like about that job. You’ll have a whole year to think up some new reasons for me to go into your firm. I’ll only be 26 by then, and so it won’t be too late to change my career path. And if I do decide to change, I bet at least some of the stuff I’ll be learning at the Justice Department will be helpful for a Wall Street lawyer to know.”

Audrey’s father looks a little sad as she tells him of her final decision. Still, he nods, and says that he appreciates that she will remain open about the possibility of changing her decision after a year. And then he adds,

“And do you think that the Justice Department’s new stellar appointee will grant her leave every Thursday for a leisurely lunch—“lawyer networking”? We can pick a place nearby the Justice Department—I have some flexibility to travel across town—and maybe one or more of those times you could invite some Justice Department co-workers to join us. I would be eager to hear more about how their branch of lawyering differs in both concrete and more theoretical ways from what I have done thus far in my career.”

“Sure, Dad,” Audrey replies with a smile, and they conclude their meeting with a sweet hug.

———————

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

Tags anger, arguments, conflict management, conflict resolution, dispute management, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, Justice Department, openness to the other, wisdom

anger challenge comic strip conflict management conflict resolution emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum parenting wisdom

A COMIC STRIP LOVER’S GUIDE FOR TRANSFORMING ANGER INTO CHALLENGE

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date October 6, 2013
1 Comment on A COMIC STRIP LOVER’S GUIDE FOR TRANSFORMING ANGER INTO CHALLENGE

If you follow the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip, you know that Calvin, from time to time, does some things that upset his Dad. And it is often not hard to understand why his father might become angry at some of Calvin’s actions.

Here we see Calvin’s dad blowing up in anger. My wife and I raised two sons, and I wouldn’t be honest if I claimed that I never lost my temper with them. And so, I can certainly sympathize with Calvin’s dad in the above comic.

At the same time that I sympathize with Calvin’s dad, I do want to encourage people to consider the value of an alternative to reacting by screaming in fury. I want to advocate considering transforming the anger into challenge (see post titled “Anger Suppression Versus Challenge”).

Let’s suppose that you are Calvin’s dad and just before you blow up in anger, you pause because you realize you are becoming angry. You had practiced several times over the past week using a special skill to handle this type of situation, and you find that now you can smoothly and comfortably use that skill. You quickly summarize for Calvin the conflict by saying in a warm, friendly voice, “Calvin, yesterday you desired to have dessert, and I interfered with your desire because I didn’t let you have any. You feel that I am guilty of being unfair for punishing you for flooding the house. In the future, you would like me to handle this type of situation in a better way. Is that right?”

After summarizing the conflict in this way, you listen to Calvin’s reply. Then you explain in a pleasant voice that you will think about his concern over the next few days.

Over the course of the next few hours you take a few minutes to allow yourself to experience the anger within your body, just observing how it feels. By the next day, you have probably calmed down. You begin to try to come up with at least two alternatives to deal with Calvin then shouting. Then you carefully weigh whatever you can think of about the costs and risks of negative consequences, as well as positive consequences, that could flow from each alternative. You discuss this with your wife and some others that you respect. Once you come up with an alternative with which you feel comfortable, you close your eyes and imagine carrying out the alternative with charm, courage, and determination. You practice this again in your mind on two other occasions. Finally, you go back to Calvin and give your plan a try.

This, in brief is an example of transforming anger into challenge.

Now, when we start to consider alternatives to our angry outbursts, sometimes people will discourage any consideration of alternatives other than the one they believe is best.

Not only do we find that some people with whom we discuss alternatives insist that only one is good and all others are a ridiculous waste of time to even consider, sometimes we, too, will start with the bias that there really is only one alternative that is best even before we first take a good hard look at the pros and cons of other alternatives. This attitude is viewed as being “closed-minded.” Challenge requires a more “open-minded” attitude.

When we utilize challenge, we don’t make a decision by simply adding up the gains and then subtracting the losses for each alternative. Some gains are far more important than others. A young woman contemplating having a baby might list on the negative side the pain of childbirth, cost of adding the baby to her health plan, cost to feed the baby, loss of quiet personal time, and nastiness of changing diapers, but just the single positive of having a sweet loving baby as part of the family might far outweigh all of these negatives. And so, the best we can do is to use an approach similar to what Benjamin Franklin proposed back in 1772. After listing the pros and cons of each alternative during three or four days, he explained that,

…I endeavor to estimate their respective weights; and where I find two, one on each side, that seem equal, I strike them both out. If I find a reason pro equal to some two reasons con, I strike out the three. If I judge some two reasons con, equal to some three reasons pro, I strike out the five; and thus proceeding I find at length where the balance lies; and if, after a day or two of further consideration, nothing new that is of importance occurs on either side, I come to a determination accordingly. And, though the weight of reasons cannot be taken with the precision of algebraic quantities, yet when each is thus considered, separately and comparatively, and the whole lies before me, I think I can judge better, and am less liable to make a rash step, and in fact I have found great advantage from this kind of equation, in what may be called moral or prudential algebra. (Letter dated September 19, 1772, to the British scientist, Joseph Priestly.)

Franklin’s approach seems to suggest that once the alternatives are identified our task is to simply decide which is best by weighing the pros and cons. But I often find myself, after looking over the pros and cons of each alternative, tweaking one or more of the alternatives depending on the circumstances with which I am dealing.

Thus, I am not tied to the alternatives I first come up with. Those alternatives can be modified as I think more deeply about their pros and cons. For example, once a teacher referred a 14-year old boy to me because he was being very disrespectful to her whenever she criticized him. Let’s call him Carl.

In some such cases, just developing a pleasant relationship with the student for a few minutes, and then asking him to treat his teacher with more respect is enough to see a marked improvement. And sometimes it is not enough.

As I worked with Carl, it soon became apparent that even if he tried to be more friendly and respectful, he would end up botching the attempt. And so I set myself on teaching him some specific skills.

After I went over the five levels of responding to criticism with Carl and he showed me in role plays that he had mastered the ability to act the highest two levels, we filled out a balance sheet together for him to consider the positives and negatives for each of two alternatives:

Use at least a level four response whenever the teacher criticizes him
Continue doing what he had been doing.

After filling out the balance sheet, Carl very quickly pointed out that one of the negatives for choosing the first alternative was that his two friends in the class would lose respect for him. That single negative was enough for him to completely discount any of its positives and he let me know that he therefore decided to continue to be disrespectful to his teacher whenever she criticized him. I could have left it at that, but I tried to figure out if there was a way to tweak the more mature responding alternative so that the single negative would no longer be the deciding factor.

We ended up modifying the first alternative. If he chose it, Carl would first have a discussion with his two friends about the five levels of responding to criticism. Carl would begin by explaining the five levels and then asking his friends how they would want him to respond when they criticized him. Then this alternative called for Carl to explain to his friends that he was in a tough spot because if he kept acting disrespectfully to the teacher, his parent would be called, he would go to in-school suspension after each disrespectful act, and if he still didn’t stop, he would be referred to a committee that would consider placing him in a special education class. This plan also called for Carl to let his friends know that after trying to help Carl work through his disrespectful behavior, the teacher intends to put both of Carl’s friends through the same process he is going through unless they stopped their disrespectful behavior on their own. Finally, he was to ask his friends what they thought he should do.

Before Carl decided on whether or not he should choose this alternative or the one that had him continue to be disrespectful to his teacher, I had him act out some role-plays. First, he acted himself discussing with his friends the alternatives he was facing and I acted the part of his friends. Then we reversed roles with Carl playing the part of his friends while I took a shot at being Carl. We switched these roles back and forth several times over the course of an hour meeting.

Once Carl found he was able to get comfortable having this type of discussion with his friends, he came to agree the tweaked alternative was worth a try. And it turned out that his friends agreed that Carl could be respectful to his teacher when she criticized him, but that he couldn’t be too “lovey-dovey” with her or it would make them throw-up.

Interestingly, once he and his friends began to treat the teacher with more respect, she began to treat them with more respect, and the boys’ initial dislike for the teacher changed, and she became one of their favorite teachers.

This example illustrates that we need not simply reject an alternative when one or more of its negatives lead us to reject it. We can instead consider whether or not we can make some changes to the alternative that would make one of the negatives less problematic. Similarly, we may seek to find ways to make one of the positives of an alternative more positive. And so, there is no single way to use this type of tool. Feel free to experiment with it as you deem fits the current circumstances.

———————

Tags alternatives, anger, Benjamin Franklin, Calvin and Hobbes, challenge, comic strip, conflict management, conflict resolution, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, respect, wisdom

anger challenge conflict management conflict resolution criticism dig for the conflict emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum negative criticism sensory focus wisdom

FROM ANGER TO CHALLENGE: A STEP TWO EXAMPLE

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date September 29, 2013
4 Comments on FROM ANGER TO CHALLENGE: A STEP TWO EXAMPLE

Audrey is at a fine restaurant with her parents celebrating her law school graduation.

“Well, your mother and I are so proud of you, Audrey,” says her father.

“Thanks, Dad!”

“Now you know, Audrey, I think it best that you begin your career in my Wall Street firm,” says her father.

“Dad, we discussed this already. I’m going to get a job in the Department of Justice. I made some connections there and that’s where my heart is.”

“We discussed that several months ago, and just briefly,” her father replies. “Now that the real decision is right before you it’s time to get serious. I want to make sure you really think this out thoroughly to prevent you from doing anything foolish.”

I’m twenty-five years old now, Audrey thinks to herself. Dad should respect my decision on this. It’s my life for crying out loud!

As these thoughts fly through her mind she begins to see that her temper is rising. She takes a deep breath, and says, “Dad, I know you’re concerned about me because you love me, and I certainly love you for that. Today I just want to celebrate what I’ve accomplished. Let’s put some time aside next week to fully discuss your concerns.”

“I don’t see why we can’t discuss it now,” says her father. “We have the time right now!”

“Not now, Dad!” Audrey says firmly. “I’m not prepared for this.”

“I think Audrey is being very fair, John,” says Audrey’s mother. “It’s really Audrey’s decision. It’s her life. She agreed to discuss it with you next week. Make a time to do this and let’s get on with the celebration.”

“Okay, Audrey,” her father says with a frown. “We’ll have dinner at home next Friday, and we’ll discuss it then.”

“Thank you, Dad,” Audrey says, and she leans over and gives her father a kiss on his cheek.

Later that night, Audrey is back in her apartment. She gets comfortable in bed and begins to ponder, while imagining her friendly self is listening.

I’ve heard Dad’s arguments twenty times already! Why should I bother to listen again? I wish he would just let me make my own decisions. I’m not a baby anymore!

She pauses, and wonders what her good friend in her mind might say. “It is understandable that you are angry,” comes the imaginary reply. “Don’t you think it would be a good idea to take a few seconds to observe your internal physical sensations?”

“Oh, OK,” Audrey responds. She then closes her eyes and observes tightness in her stomach and that she is chewing on her lip. She continues to observe her internal sensations, without trying to put any words to them. Soon, her anger fades.

A wave of sleepiness comes over her.

I’ll think about this some more tomorrow, she says to herself. Heck, probably the best thing to do is to just listen to Dad once more over dinner next Friday, and then I’ll smile and tell him that I heard him out. Then I’ll declare that I’m going with a career at the Department of Justice.

She smiles, and then she slides down into her bed covers. After an hour of fitful tossing and turning, she finally falls asleep.

The next day, Audrey once again considers how to deal with her father’s concern.

OK, she thinks to herself, it’s time to try out this two-step process. First Step: Spend a few minutes going through the experience in which I became angry with Dad from a few steps back from what actually occurred, observing my distant self in the event.

After going through this experience, Audrey says to herself, I feel like I can be a little more reasonable about what happened. Now I’m determined to achieve my desire to resolve this conflict. Don’t forget that the stress I’m experiencing is normal and fulfillment is not found in easy comfort, security, and routine, but rather in the continual growth in wisdom through what is learned from negative and positive experiences of an active, changing life. Those thoughts are firing me up!

Audrey then takes a deep breath and resolves to get down to the task at hand. Is the plan I came up with yesterday sufficient? she asks herself. Hmmm. Last night I thought that the best way to handle this conflict is to just listen one more time to Dad. Aaaa, he’ll get angry with my decision and then I’ll get angry with him. I’m just not comfortable with this. That means I got to go through a bunch of other stuff to prepare,. Maybe I should just tell Dad to mind his own business and that’s that!

But then she read a Calvin and Hobbes comic that was sitting on her coffee table.

After smiling, she says to herself, I still have several days before my Friday dinner discussion with Dad. There’s no pressure to come up with an immediate plan. I think I’ll try out Step 2—Carrying out a more complete decision process. But I’m going to take another day just to put this all aside.

It’s the next day. Audrey reminds herself that she is at Step two. OK, I have to do three things to carry out a more complete decision process. First, I have to describe my anger conflict using the DIG Conflict Model. That’s easy. I desire to get a job with the Department of Justice and Dad is interfering with this by insisting I consider more thoroughly what my job options are. I think Dad is guilty of not minding his own business. Let me see if I can frame the conflict from Dad’s perspective. He desires that I go into his Wall Street firm and interfering with this he knows that I’m determined to go to work for the Department of Justice. He thinks I am guilty of being wrong because I have not thought about this as thoroughly as he would like.

Hmmm. As I think about this some more, my guess is that the real conflict Dad has with me has nothing to do with how expert I am at making these types of decisions—he really just wants me to work with him and to guide my career. But unless I address the conflict as he is now defining it, we’ll never get to the real issue.

Now, the next thing Step 2 has me doing is to go over my ABCs of Power list . Here it is. I see the first source of power is A for Advancing Skills. This source of power refers to working toward developing a talent that people you care about value.

After Audrey thinks about the other sources of power, she takes a mile walk just to relax for a while.

When she gets back to her apartment, she sits down on her couch and says to herself, Okay then, tomorrow I’m going to go to the library and spend an hour studying up on what it looks like to be an expert on making decisions. Then when I see Dad on Friday, I’ll impress him with my knowledge, and we’ll go through the decision process together. I’ll make sure that by the time the evening is over he will know that I heard him out. I’ll then summarize his position and declare my decision.

The next day, Audrey begins a search in her library’s bookshelves and comes upon a book titled Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment, by Irving L Janis and Leon Mann.

On page 11, she finds that the authors extracted from an extensive literature review seven major criteria that can be used to determine whether decision-making procedures are of high quality. She writes these down:

Decision makers, to the best of their ability and within their information-processing capabilities:

1. thoroughly canvass a wide range of alternative actions;

2. survey the full range of objectives to be fulfilled and the values implicated by the choice;

3. carefully weigh whatever they know about the costs and risks of negative consequences, as well as positive consequences, that could flow from each alternative;

4. intensively search for new information relevant to further evaluation of the alternatives;

5. correctly assimilate and take account of any new information or expert judgment to which they are exposed, even when the information or judgment does not support the course of action they initially prefer;

6. reexamine the positive and negative consequences of all known alternatives, including those originally regarded as unacceptable, before making a final choice;

7. make detailed provisions for implementing or executing the chosen course of action, with special attention to contingency plans that might be required if various known risks were to materialize.

Later in the chapter, the authors review some of the research supporting this approach. Hmmm, Audrey says to herself, there’s some pretty good evidence this procedure can be helpful.

She then quickly lists the three job alternatives that made the most sense to her—a job with the Department of Justice, a job with her Dad’s Wall Street firm, or opening a private law practice in a small town. She then lists the pros and cons of each.

When Audrey finishes this, she decides that it would be a good idea to talk to some experts about what are, for each of the three alternatives, some pros and cons that she might not be aware of. She decides that the experts for this task are people who are currently working in each of the three types of jobs.

Dad is a good expert for the job as a Wall Street lawyer, she thinks to herself. I’ll have him help with this at our Friday dinner meeting. But he wants so much for me to join his firm, he’ll probably be biased, and he’ll end up playing down the negatives. It would be better to ask someone who doesn’t care if I become a Wall Street lawyer.

To track down lawyers in each type of job, Audrey emails professors from her law school that then put her in contact with former students of theirs who had gone on to careers in each of the three jobs. The discussions she has with these former students are very helpful.

By the time Audrey and her father meet for their Friday dinner, Audrey has given her career a great deal of thought. She impresses her Dad with her knowledge of what it takes to thoroughly consider her job options, the type of research that supports the procedure she had chosen, and the information that she had gathered on the specific options that she considered. She then asks her father for his input.

When her father is done, Audrey carefully summarizes what he had to say. She pauses for a good few minutes, showing her dad she is really thinking over all the information she has gathered. Then she announces her decision that she is going to stick with her initial choice, a job with the Justice Department. Her father once again objects, making a few final pleas for her to reconsider. Audrey recognizes this as negative criticism of her decision.

She pauses to think about how she can respond at level five which requires that she try to come up with some way to steer in her father’s direction. Suddenly, an idea comes to her.

After summarizing what her father had said, using her most loving voice, she says, “Dad, you make some very good points. Here’s what we’ll do. After one year of my job at the Department of Justice, you and I will meet again to discuss my career. I’ll have a lot more information by then about what I like and don’t like about that job. You’ll have a whole year to think up some new reasons for me to go into your firm. I’ll only be 26 by then, and so it won’t be too late to change my career path. And if I do decide to change, I bet at least some of the stuff I’ll be learning at the Justice Department will be helpful for a Wall Street lawyer to know.

———————

Tags ABCs of Power, anger, challenge, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, law school graduation, negative criticism, psychological maturity

anger conflict management conflict resolution emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum interpersonal conflicts wisdom

FROM ANGER TO CHALLENGE: A STEP ONE EXAMPLE

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date September 22, 2013
1 Comment on FROM ANGER TO CHALLENGE: A STEP ONE EXAMPLE

On this blog, we have been discussing how we can move from anger to challenge. In one post, to help to move in the direction of challenge, I asked you to think of conflict as a great sea.

I explained that there is a region of the Sea of Conflict that is known as Anger. There, storms are particularly likely to churn up, and some of them have the potential to be very dangerous. It is for this reason that it is vitally important, whenever possible, to recognize when we begin to approach and enter into this region.

Challenge is a region of the great Sea of Conflict that is very close by to Anger. Because less experienced sailors are unaware that Challenge exists and where it lies, when they find that they are caught in an Anger storm they often succumb to the lashing of the violent waves. Great sailors, in contrast, know about Challenge. In fact, when caught in an Anger storm, just knowing that Challenge is just a knot or two away enables them to gather a sufficient surge of energy to carry out well practiced skills that give them a reasonable chance to reach relative safety.

In another post, I asked you to consider calling a timeout when you feel that things are getting a bit out of hand, kind of like they do in sports.

I went on, in that post, to suggest that in anger arousing situations you might want to call a time out in the following manner:

When you see that you are becoming angry, or the other party is, make a statement in a warm friendly manner indicating that you are very interested in what was said, you plan to think a little more about this over the next few days, and then you’ll be ready to discuss this further. Then, let the other person have the last words while you listen in a caring way.

And in yet another post, I described a technique to deal with anger arousing situations known as the Signaling to Back-Off Technique.

This technique works best in an ongoing relationship, although I have seen it work well with people who hardly know each other. The best way to set this up is to discuss this technique with the other person at a time when both of you are not in an angry mood. You might say to the other party something like:

Sometimes I begin to get really upset about something you are saying. I know that it’s important for me to hear your point of view and I do want to hear what you have to say. But there are times when I’m in no condition to give you a fair hearing on a particular topic. At such times, it would help me a great deal if I could give you a simple signal for you to back off for a while. I’ll make sure you’ll get your opportunity to have your full say on a topic before too long—almost always within a week. But I sometimes require a little time to get my act together first. Would you mind helping me out in this way?

Now once you have removed yourself from the anger arousing situation, I proposed that you consider using a two-step technique to move from anger to challenge. Today, we will look at a parable of someone using Step 1.

A Step One Example: You and your Friend, Eric

You and your friend, Eric, were discussing the upcoming election. Eric had explained why he was going to vote for someone in the upcoming presidential elections you thought would do an awful job. You both discussed the matter for awhile, and eventually it became clear to you that neither of you were going to change your opinions.

It was at this point that you had felt your anger toward Eric rising up within you. “Eric,” you said, “I think I understand your position. Let me think about the points you made today for awhile.” Then Eric restated a few of his points, and you listened in a caring way. Part of you strongly wanted to say some things once again to show Eric why you disagreed with him, but because you had practice using this “moving to challenge” technique several times over several weeks, you found that you were able to just give Eric a smile, and then you thanked him for his willingness to discuss this topic. Finally, you changed the topic, asking Eric how his job was going.

Later that day, you spent an hour thinking through what had happened using the “distancing” exercise we discussed in an earlier post (see “Does Venting Anger Feed the Flame?“). In brief, this involves imagining that you have returned to the time and place of the angry experience, and you are preparing to observe the scene just as it happened. As the unfolding of the event gets underway, take a few steps back. Move away from the situation to a point where you can watch the event unfold from a distance and see yourself in the event. Focus on what has now become a distant you. Watch the situation unfold as if it were happening to the distant you all over again. Replay the event as it unfolds in your imagination as you observe your distant self.

After you utilize the “distancing” technique, you come to decide that Eric had a right to his opinion and that you were going to let the issue drop. Moreover, if Eric brought the topic up again, you would smile, pat him on his back, and say, “Well Eric, by now you know my opinion about this and I certainly know yours. We obviously disagree. Nevertheless, I’m still very fond of you.”

Another day goes by. Again you spend a few minutes going through the experience from a few steps back from what actually occurred, observing your distant self in the event. Then you see if you can work up a heightened sense of determination to achieve your desire to resolve this conflict. You consider the twin beliefs that the stress you have been experiencing is normal and fulfillment is not found in easy comfort, security, and routine, but rather in the continual growth in wisdom through what is learned from negative and positive experiences of an active, changing life

Then, you take a deep breath and resolve to get down to the task at hand. Once again you consider the plan you came up with yesterday. It still feels like this obvious solution makes sense. You ask yourself, “If this plan doesn’t work out, are there any serious risks?”

As you consider this, you realize Eric’s opinion might influence a few other votes, but it is not at all likely he will alter the outcome of the election. You and Eric have had numerous disagreements in the past and it never led to any major break in your relationship. You therefore decide that your plan does NOT pose any serious risks.

Thus, you set yourself on carrying out your plan with charm, courage, and determination. Part of the plan involves practicing three times in your mind what you will say to Eric if the election topic does come up.

The next time you see Eric, he begins to tease you about whom you plan to vote for. You smile, and find that you have no problem telling him what you had practice saying. Eric replies by shrugging his shoulders and then both of you begin to talk about another topic.

Example Discussion

Notice that in this step one example, after coming up with a plan, you take a day to “sleep” on it. If, on the day after you sleep on it, the plan still makes sense even after you use the “distancing” technique a second time, you then ask yourself, “If this plan doesn’t work out, are there any serious risks?” In our example, you decide that there are no serious risks, so you set yourself on carrying out your plan with charm, courage, and determination. At this point you have converted your anger experience to challenge.

But what happens if there are serious risks, or you just are not comfortable with the plan that you created? Then it’s time to go to step two for reaching the region of Challenge on the Great Sea of Conflict. We will take up this topic next week.

———————

Tags anger, challenge, conflict management, conflict resolution, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, psychological maturity, wisdom

anger Bullied bullying conflict management conflict resolution criticism free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum grieving insults interpersonal conflicts Name calling psychological maturity sensory focus suicide taunting teasing

Teenage Suicide and Cyberbullying: A Case Study

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date September 15, 2013
7 Comments on Teenage Suicide and Cyberbullying: A Case Study

One morning I was getting ready to write my weekly blog post when I decided to first glance over at the New York Times‘ front page. A wave of sadness washed over me as I spotted the following headline:

Girl’s Suicide Points to Rise in Apps Used by Cyberbullies

According to the Times, 12-year-old Rebecca Sedwick leaped to her death after more than a year of being cyberbullied by a coterie of 15 middle-school children who urged her to kill herself.

Rebecca’s mother, Tricia Norman, said the texts her daughter was receiving were full of hate: “Why are you still alive?” “You’re ugly.”

Ms. Norman complained to school officials for several months about the bullying, and when little changed, she pulled Rebecca out of school. But because Rebecca used the phone apps ask.fm, and Kik and Voxer — the bullying continued.

A number of suicides by young people have been linked to ask.fm, and online petitions have been started to make the site more responsive to bullying. The company ultimately responded this year by introducing an easy-to-see button to report bullying and saying it would hire more moderators.

Questions have been raised about whether Rebecca’s old school, Crystal Lake Middle School, did enough last year to help stop the bullying; some of it, including pushing and hitting, took place on school grounds. The same students also appear to be involved in sending out the hate-filled online messages away from school.

Nancy Woolcock, the assistant superintendent in charge of antibullying programs for Polk County Schools, said the school received one bullying complaint from Rebecca and her mother in December about traditional bullying, not cyberbullying. After law enforcement investigated, Rebecca’s class schedule was changed. Ms. Woolcock said the school also has an extensive antibullying campaign and takes reports seriously.

But Ms. Norman said the school should have done more. Officials told her that Rebecca would receive an escort as she switched classes, but that did not happen, she said.

Given the outcome, I too wish that more had been done. It is my sincere hope that all of my readers will take a minute to pause to experience this sad loss of Rebecca.

A few months ago I published a review of the movie, “Bully.” Today, some of what I wrote back then bears repeating.

The movie’s emotional impact has been an important part of the emergence of a coalition working toward altering intolerable conditions too often regarded as “just kids being kids.”

The movie has spawned The Bully Project, an online site where people can learn more about dealing with bullying. There, kids who are bullied can learn that they are not alone. And educators can learn about how to set up a viewing of the movie for their entire school and to follow up the viewing with classroom discussions.

In one video that we can access at the site, we see an entire school going to the movie and then getting the reactions from students. One kid reports that there was not a dry eye in the auditorium. Others admitted that they had bullied, but now realized it was wrong.

As my regular readers know, also available online is this blog, From Insults to Respect. The blog can be used as a free curriculum that teaches the social skills to deal with these challenging experiences. For schools that already have an extensive antibullying program, the blog can be used to further reinforce its lessons. For schools that don’t have such a program, or has one that uses a mere one or two lessons per year, the blog can serve as an ongoing forum to promote peaceful conflict resolution techniques.

A particularly powerful way to teach skills that deal with bullying is through narratives that are designed to change the valuation of bullying to make it signify ineptitude rather than manliness. The movie, “Bully,” is one such narrative. The Cool Steve Stories, a trilogy of novels, offers another.

There we become friends with a hero that rejects bullying and yet still manages to achieve respect.

The gut-wrenching story about 12-year-old Rebecca’s suicide cries out to us that for too long we have not done enough to address the awful injustice we find in and around our schools. May her story spur us on to do better.

——————————-

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.

Tags anger, bullied, bullies, bullying, conflict, conflict management, criticism, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, insults, negative criticism, suicide, taunting

anger anger venting challenge conflict management conflict resolution free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum interpersonal conflicts sensory focus

DOES VENTING ANGER FEED THE FLAME?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date September 11, 2013
8 Comments on DOES VENTING ANGER FEED THE FLAME?

Last week we discussed the theory that anger suppression can be harmful (see ANGER SUPPRESSION VERSUS CHALLENGE). We found that there is some evidence supporting the theory, and we therefore looked at the possibility that rather than suppressing anger, we can learn to transform this mischievous experience into a state of challenge without suppression. Since a popular alternative to either suppression or challenge is venting anger, here we take a good look at it.

What do we Mean by Venting?

The first thing that comes to my mind when I think of venting anger is slugging a punching bag, cushion, or bobo doll as a means to provide a safe outlet to release the energy contained in the anger. Early in my training, in one of my assigned books the author encouraged his readers to smash a pillow while imagining smashing the person with whom they are angry. Additional proposed ways to vent have been taping a picture of the person who aroused our anger onto a punching bag and then pounding it, throwing darts at the picture; smashing an object , and screaming at the top of our lungs either without any words, or by emitting curses and insults at the party who angered us.

Some people have told me that they vent when they become angry but when I asked them to describe what they do when they vent, they give me surprising answers. Here is an interesting example:

“When I vent,” replied one pleasant woman, “I stand and pray. I reach for the stars. I talk to a good friend, and I like to take comfort from a person who is genuine and understanding. Then I usually meditate… and my mom is always by my side. I never vent right at the person I have become angry at. I find a safe outlet. Venting my anger at innocent people is not an acceptable outlet either!!!”

Another writes:

“After I have excused myself from the angry situation, I go to a private place to give myself a few minutes to settle down. As I do this, I will notice my angry self chattering away, saying things like, ‘That idiot who made me angry is a stupid jerk.’ Other derogatory statements about the source of my anger may come to mind. Perhaps I will think about how I can do harm to the person my mind is insulting. I accept that this is part of the anger process, but I don’t deliberately say anything insulting to anyone; it seems to pour out of me. When it does pour out of me in this way, it feels like I am venting.

“At such times, I see if I can observe my angry self in a nonjudgmental manner. If I can’t, there is no need to punish myself. I understand that anger is a strong emotion, so I seek to be kind to myself as I go through this process—just like a good, compassionate friend would.

“From time to time, I see if I can take a few seconds to observe the physical sensations I am experiencing. The chattering in my mind may make this difficult, so if this does not happen, again I do not seek to punish myself. I just gently remind myself that observing the physical sensations I am experiencing could be useful to do if I can. Usually after a few minutes I calm down.”

And so, venting means a lot of different things to different people.

Research on Venting

In my last post I reviewed some of the research on venting directly at the person who has aroused our anger. In brief, we found some evidence that:

People who believe that freely expressing their anger will discourage future negative responding from their antagonist experience relief after anger outbursts. Those who believe that freely expressing their anger will spur even more severe threatening responses from their antagonist maintain their elevated blood pressure subsequent to angry outbursts. Those who believe kindly responses to provocation will discourage future negative responding from the antagonist experience relief after providing a kind response. Those who believe kindly responses to a provocation will lead their antagonist to take advantage of them will maintain their elevated blood pressure after providing a kind response.

But what about the research that deals with venting anger not directly at the antagonist, but at some object like a punching bag? Brad J. Bushman published an important study that seeks to answer this question (Does Venting Anger Feed or Extinguish the Flame? Catharsis, Rumination, Distraction, Anger, and Aggressive Responding, Pers Soc Psychol Bull, June 2002 28: 724–731).

He had three groups of people experience an anger arousing experience (someone providing very negative criticism of a paper they wrote). Participants in the first group vented by hitting a punching bag as long, as hard, and as many times as they wanted to. While they hit the bag, they were told to think about the other participant who had criticized their essay. For a visual aid, they were shown a photo ID of a same-sex college student described as the “other participant” on a 15-inch computer monitor. Participants in the second group also vented by hitting a punching bag as long, as hard, and as many times as they wanted to. But while they hit the bag, they were to think about becoming physically fit. As a visual aid, they were shown a photo ID of a same-sex athlete from a health magazine on a 15-inch computer monitor. Participants in the third condition did not hit the punching bag. Instead, they sat quietly for a couple minutes while the experimenter supposedly worked on the other participant’s computer. No attempt was made to reduce the anger of participants in this group. After participants in the first two groups finished hitting the punching bag and the participants in the third group sat quietly, they all reported how angry they felt. Next, they were given the chance to administer loud blasts of noise to the person who had angered them. People in the first group (those who were told to think about their antagonist while punching the bag) felt angrier than those in the other two groups. People in the first group were also the most aggressive, giving more loud blasts of noise, followed by people in the second group. Those in the third group who had sat quietly for two minutes after being negatively criticized were the least aggressive.

DISCUSSION

Whereas Bushman’s study doesn’t condemn every form of venting, the results do suggest that venting to reduce anger can be like using gasoline to put out a fire.

When people try to release their anger by hitting something, eventually they get tired, the workout leads to the release of endorphins which produces a natural high, and eventually they begin to stop the violence against the relatively safe objects. Thus, they are led to believe that they have now released all of their anger energy.

In my view, people calm down more quickly without the banging, kicking, and punching. If they want to enjoy a high from exercise while they wait for their calm to return, a good walk or run does the trick.

If you find that your angry self is using this banging, kicking, and punching approach, it is not the end of the world. Nevertheless it can be helpful to let your angry self know that there are some problems with this violent-like approach. While carrying out the hitting an object approach you are practicing actions that are very similar to violence. This makes it more likely that if you can’t get to a private place to calm down, you will display these types of behavior in public. This can come across to some as frightening and immature. Your reputation may diminish. Moreover, you may accidentally punch something that you think is soft and find that something in the softness was hard. You can injure your hand or break something valuable.

Of course, if you have practiced the mock-violence technique for a long time, it is not easy to break the habit. If you go about trying to stop in the wrong way, you will experience frustration that you can easily interpret as suppression.

It is better to first become convinced when you are not angry that you will be better off learning to substitute the mock-violent actions with something more constructive. If it doesn’t work the first time, there is no reason to turn violent toward yourself, or even insulting. Instead, be kind, and say to your “angry self” that you will get another chance to try this new approach again in the future. In time, you will find yourself getting better and better at this.

What may be a more productive way to deal with anger? I have in previous posts made some suggestions (see for example BEING A WISE FRIEND TO YOUR ANGRY SELF, PART 1, and BEING A WISE FRIEND TO YOUR ANGRY SELF, PART 2). Here’s a slightly different approach.

During the time when you have arrived at the time and place where you can fully experience your anger in private without any effort at suppression, you will find that knowing that you have eliminated the pressure of a quick response, along with the passing of time, will result in a period in which you will have calmed down enough so you are capable of a thorough job of problem solving. Begin by imagining that you have returned to the time and place of the angry experience, and you are preparing to observe the scene just as it happened. As the unfolding of the event gets underway, take a few steps back. Move away from the situation to a point where you can watch the event unfold from a distance and see yourself in the event. Focus on what has now become a distant you. Watch the situation unfold as if it were happening to the distant you all over again. Replay the event as it unfolds in your imagination as you observe your distant self. After going through this imaginary exercise, take advantage of this relatively calm period to map out a strategy to address the concerns raised during the anger arousing situation.[1]

Well, that’s just about all the time we have for today. I hope that you will stop by again real soon.

[1]Evidence for the effectiveness of this strategy can be found in the following: O. Ayduk and E. Kross, 2010, “Analyzing Negative Experiences without Ruminating: The Role of Self-Distancing in Enabling Adaptive Self-Reflection,” Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 841-854. E. Kross, A. Ducksworth, O. Ayduk, E. Tsukayama, and W. Mischel, 2011, “The Effect of Self-Distancing on Adaptive Versus Maladaptive Self-Reflection in Children,” Emotions, 11 [5], 1032-1039.

———————

Tags acceptable outlet, anger, angry situation, challenge, disrespectful, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, venting anger

anger challenge conflict management conflict resolution criticism free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum interpersonal conflicts Name calling threats wisdom

ANGER SUPPRESSION VERSUS CHALLENGE

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date September 1, 2013
7 Comments on ANGER SUPPRESSION VERSUS CHALLENGE

Despite the ample evidence that anger is fraught with danger, human debasement, and ineffective functioning, many people seem reluctant to put their heart and soul into learning more effective alternatives. Why is this? One of the biggest reasons is that our culture presents in both direct and subtle ways the theory that suppressing anger can be harmful. Here we will explore this theory. As we do so, we will learn that we can, if we so choose, sail from the region of Anger to Challenge—and thereby improve our chances for survival and a safer and more pleasant ride on the great Sea of Conflict.

SUPPRESSING ANGER

According to Sigmund Freud, if anger reactions are inhibited, they are replaced by substitutes, some of which may lead to harm. In The standard edition of the complete works of Sigmund Freud, (Strachey, 1974), the clearest statement about this appears below:

When Bismarck had to suppress his angry feelings in the King’s presence, he relieved himself afterwards by smashing a valuable vase on the floor. This deliberate replacement of one motor act by another corresponds exactly to the replacement of natural pain-reflexes by other muscular contractions….(p. 202)

We transpose the excitement of anger from the adequate reaction to another one, and we feel relieved provided it is used up by any strong motor innervations.

If, however, the affect can find no discharge of excitement of any kind along these lines, then the situation is the same with anger as with fright and anxiety. The intracerebral excitation is powerfully increased, but is employed neither in associative nor motor activity…. The excitement arising from the affective idea is “converted” into a somatic phenomenon. ( p. 206)

Freud believed that some of these somatic phenomenons were undesirable. After Freud, others promoted this idea. For example, Dr. Albert Ellis, one of the most popular psychologists of the twentieth century, stated that anger suppression “can easily result in psychosomatic reactions, including high blood pressure, heart problems, ulcers, and various other physical conditions.”[1]

In an effort to test this hypothesis, scientific individuals began to carry out some systematic studies. Some seemed to find support for this notion that suppression can be harmful. For example, Hokanson,[2] Baker & Schaie,[3] and Gambaro & Rabin[4] (1969) found that angered adults often achieved a faster decrease in blood pressure to baseline levels if they counteraggressed toward their antagonist than if they were given no opportunities to respond. In other studies carried out by Holmes[5] and Kahn[6] however, counteraggression was found to sustain elevated arousal, whereas nonaggressive activities reduced it.

Dr. Albert Bandura,[7] attempting to make sense of these apparently contradictory findings, carefully examined this body of research and finally concluded that the physiological tension of angry individuals is determined by what they do, the perceived consequences of what they do, and also what they think. People who believe that freely expressing their anger will discourage future negative responding from their antagonist experience relief after anger outbursts. Those who believe that freely expressing their anger will spur even more severe threatening responses from their antagonists maintain their elevated blood pressure subsequent to angry outbursts. Those who believe kindly responses to provocation will discourage future negative responding from the antagonist experience relief after providing a kind response. Those who believe kindly responses to a provocation will lead their antagonist to take advantage of them will maintain their elevated blood pressure after providing a kind response.

James J. Gross has reviewed more recent research on suppression in his fine article titled, “Emotion Regulation: Taking Stock and Moving Forward” (Emotion, Volume 13, June 2013, pp 359-365).

“Affectively, suppression leads to decreased positive but not negative emotion experience, increased sympathetic nervous system responses, and greater activation in emotion-generative brain regions such as the amygdala. By contrast, reappraisal leads to decreased levels of negative emotion experience and increased positive emotion experience, has no impact on or even decreases sympathetic nervous system responses, and leads to lesser activation in emotion-generative brain regions such as the amygdala and ventral striatum (Gross & Thompson, 2007). Cognitively, suppression leads to worse memory. By contrast, reappraisal either has no impact on subsequent memory, or actually improves it, and can enhance exam performance (Jamieson, Mendes, Blackstock, & Schmader, 2010; Richards & Gross, 2000). Socially, suppression leads to less liking from partners, and to an increase in partners’ blood pressure levels. Reappraisal, by contrast, has no detectable adverse consequences for social affiliation in the laboratory (Butler et al.,2003).”

Anger Management Training without Suppression

The association of anger suppression with anger management training is understandable, for when one has spent many years acting one way, learning alternative behaviors can be frustrating. This uncomfortable sensation may be seen as the suppression of one’s “natural” mode of behavior. It’s a similar experience to how actors might feel when first learning a new role or golfers a new swing. At first the skill to be learned feels awkward, and the early phase of learning can leave them to observe their heart racing and their blood pressure skyrocketing.

However, by designing a program in small incremental steps and heeding the following suggestions, the feeling of suppressing one’s natural behavior can be largely reduced or even completely eliminated.

First of all, expect occasional missteps. By studying the posts on this blog, it is likely that several situations will occur that you now find yourself handling much better than before. If the response by others you are engaged with ends up being favorable, this will encourage you to utilize the same approach again and again until it begins to feel natural, that is, second nature to you. Other skills will come off a bit awkward or you will get a less than favorable response, and you may experience frustration. When you try the skill again, you may now feel unsure and your effort may lead you to interpret this as suppressing a more “natural” way to respond. You may, therefore, give up and conclude that you are helpless to make a meaningful change in this type of skill.

The solution here is to reread the section that discusses the skill, and then practice over and over in your mind a narrative that has you envisioning utilizing the skill. When you can smoothly imagine in detail carrying out the skill, try it out again in real life. You may have to do this a few times until you get it right.

As you increase your skill to deal with anger arousing situations, your confidence in handling them will increase. Because anger arises when we experience a threat, with your increase in confidence you will then find you are less likely to experience situations that use to feel threatening as threatening. Consequently, you will be less likely to suppress anger because you won’t experience anger as often.

For more difficult to change behavior, form a small group of two to four people who agree to work together on the skill. Then assign a leader on a rotating basis. Conflicts in which the group members typically experience anger are identified. Then a video recording is created with the group members serving as the actors. One scenario is acted out demonstrating what actually occurred. Then a non-angry approach to dealing with the conflict that has the support of the group as being more effective than the angry approach is created. Video recording devices are readily available these days because of apps on many phones.

Keep in mind that the acting doesn’t have to be an Academy Award winning portrayal. Just a fun process is encouraged. By participating in this acting process and then viewing the video recordings displaying alternative behaviors, some will find they will adopt the skills in an effortless manner.

In the next part of this group process, competent behaviors are further encouraged by creating another set of video recordings using slightly different scenarios. Concrete examples are thus repeatedly affectively, cognitively, and behaviorally rehearsed while clear audiovisual feedback is provided. Observers can ask to pause at a little section that worked particularly well and review it a few more times until it becomes more and more familiar.

Throughout this process, some of the group participants’ suggestions may begin to feel uncomfortable to one or more of the other participants. This can interfere with the training process if poorly handled. I have found it useful from time to time to preface my recommendations with the same gentle admonishment that the famous physicist Niels Bohr used to give his students: “Every sentence I utter should be regarded by you not as an assertion but as a question.” This tends to disarm those who find that they are resisting suggestions, sets the stage for a helpful collaboration, and fosters interest from the satisfaction derived from fulfilling one’s own internal standards.

As you go through this process several times, you will find more and more that your behavior will begin to change in real life situations. At such times, you will often find people reacting very positively to your new style, and this will further encourage you to continue to utilize it. You won’t feel like you are suppressing anger, but rather, comfortably learning a new set of skills that works better than anger.

At other times, even a skilled real life response to a situation that had previously led to anger arousal will be met with someone acting in an undesirable manner. The group you have formed will provide you the opportunity to have some support to address this type of experience. Together, you can continue the problem solving required for addressing a wider and wider range of situations until you feel sufficiently confident to go it alone. It is important to keep in mind that even the most skilled techniques will not produce a perfect result on every occasion. The best we can hope for is to increase the probability that we will obtain a favorable outcome.

If you find it difficult to identify a small group of individuals to do the video recording skill development just described, consider hiring a professional counselor who will go through the process with you. Most professional counselors and psychologists that I’ve met are particularly skilled at modeling empathic understanding, a crucial skill that is necessary for working through anger arousing situations.

[1] A. Ellis, 1977, How to Live with—and without—Anger, New York: Reader’s Guide Press, page 200.

[2] J. E. Hokanson, 1970, “Psychophysiological Evaluation of the Catharsis Hypothesis,” In E. I. Megargee & J. E. Hohanson (Eds.), The Dynamics of Aggression (pp. 74-86), New York: Harper & Row.

[3] J. W. Baker & K. W. Schaie, 1969, “Effects of Aggressing ‘Alone’ or ‘with another’ on Physiological and Psychological Arousal, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 80-96.

[4] S. Gambaro & A. I. Rabin, 1969, “Diastolic Blood Pressure Responses Following Direct and Displaced Aggression after Anger Arousal in High- and Low-Guilt Subjects,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 87-94.

[5] D. S. Holmes, 1966, “Effects of Overt Aggression on Level of Physiological Arousal,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 189-194.

[6] M. Kahn, 1966, “The Physiology of Catharsis,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 278-286.

[7] A. Bandura, 1973, Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

———————

Tags anger, angry feelings, challenge, conflict management, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, frustration, insults, psychological maturity, respect, sigmund freud, wisdom, works of sigmund freud

anger challenge conflict management conflict resolution emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum interpersonal conflicts psychological maturity wisdom

DOES ANGER DO US ANY GOOD?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date August 24, 2013
3 Comments on DOES ANGER DO US ANY GOOD?

Most of us know situations in which someone became angry and it made the situation worse. For example, consider the following Luann comic.

In the comic, Toni, the girl with blond hair, becomes angry at Miss Eiffel because of the way she was treating her boyfriend, Brad. In the end, Toni and the guy she cares about are far from happy.

Although expressing our anger can often make certain situations worse, we continue to get angry. How come?

ANGER AS A RAPID, LIFE-SAVING RESPONSE TO THREATS

Over time, people who didn’t find ways to respond very fast to threats would end up getting killed. At times, this meant that if they saw a vicious animal rushing at them, the best thing they could do is to very quickly fight back either to scare off the attacker who would end up running away or to kill the attacker.

If people would have killed every time they felt a threat to one of their desires, they would end up killing the vast majority of the members in their group. Because larger groups can defend themselves against attacks better than very small groups, perhaps communities that learned to cooperate provided the best opportunity for its members to survive.

According to this theory, when perceiving a threat people learned to warn others in their community by showing signs of anger. Their anger became an indication that they were getting increasingly ready to attack and those in their community, when warned of this, attempted to find ways to reduce the threat without the requirement that someone had to be killed.

Anger can Function to Encourage Help

Many years ago I did a research project when I was a university student. After I collected the data, I had to enter it into a computer.

Up to this point in my psychology research experience, the first step to enter my data was to punch IBM computer cards. But the supervisor of the computer room informed me that there had been some recent advances in computer technology and IBM cards were no longer used. He told me what to do, and I diligently followed his instructions.

After typing at the computer for three hours, I felt a static electricity shock and the video screen with my three hours of data input went blank. My heart started beating hard. I tapped the screen and wiggled the keyboard. Nothing!

“What is going on here?!” I shouted in anger.

The guy sitting at the next computer immediately stopped what he was doing and called over the supervisor to help me. “What’s the matter?” he asked.

After explaining to him that all of the data that I entered had disappeared, he asked if I had been pressing the SAVE button every few minutes to guard against data loss.

“You never told me anything about pressing SAVE when you gave me directions!” I angrily hollered.

“I’m sorry,” he replied. “I really should have.”

Notice that when I started to get angry, I very quickly got someone to start helping me to figure out what was wrong. I probably would have gotten the same help if I asked for assistance without shouting, but because angry responses do lead so often to people cooperating when someone does become angry, it encourages us to keep on getting angry.

Although I was angry, I was able to control myself enough and realized that it was not in my interest to either kill or physically harm the supervisor. Getting arrested would have only wasted more time. I also realized that I made mistakes from time to time. Just like I wouldn’t want to be slugged every time I made a mistake, it didn’t seem right to slug this guy for making a mistake.

Of course, there may very well be times when we become angry that our heightened preparedness to engage in fighting can serve a life-saving function. This was probably more likely to be the case in ancient tribal communities.

OTHER BENEFITS OF ANGER

So far, we discussed three benefits of anger. 1. to respond fast enough with fighting during times when that may be potentially lifesaving, 2. to scare away an attacker, and 3. to give off signals in the community that encourage others to help solve a conflict before any negative consequences from a fight occur.

In our culture there are other factors leading us to think that anger is highly effective for achieving our desires.

In this Wizard of Id comic, Bung presents the theory that by making ourselves angry we can increase our strength. Obviously, just the increase of strength without the skill to use it wisely can lead to some unexpected whacks.

Some coaches believe that by working up anger in the hearts of their players, the players will perform physically better even if the goal is not to kill or physically injure others.

Even on tasks that don’t require mighty physical strength to succeed, many people have come to believe working up anger will challenge a person to work harder.

ARE THE BENEFITS OF ANGER EXAGGERATED

Although anger can be more effective than some other poorly thought out strategies, often people are led to think it is more effective than it really is. This is because the negative effects of anger may be hidden.

In the above comic, Lt. Fuzz expresses anger at Sarge because he is being noisy. As a result, Sarge secretly becomes angry and desires to annoy Lt. Fuzz. But Lt. Fuzz only sees Sarge replying to his anger by saying, “Yes Sir.” And so, Lt. Fuzz comes away thinking Sarge has responded with respect. He doesn’t see that Sarge actually covertly disrespects him and does things that make Lt. Fuzz’s life miserable. Here we see a fine illustration of how easily we can be misled into thinking our angry responses work better than they actually do.

MOVING FROM ANGER TO CHALLENGE

Anger can be effective at times. And often you may find yourself very tempted to let your anger go on an all out attack. Nevertheless, you would be wise to pause and remind yourself that oftentimes such attacks lead to obvious and hidden problems.

Challenge allows you to accomplish all of what anger positively does without anger’s negative consequences.

In brief, challenge has us:

Working up a heightened sense of determination to achieve our desire
Meanwhile, we consider the twin beliefs that the stress we have been experiencing is normal and fulfillment is not found in easy comfort, security, and routine, but rather in the continual growth in wisdom through what is learned from negative and positive experiences of an active, changing life[1]
Then, we take a deep breath and resolve to get down to the task at hand—carrying out a two-step process.

Step 1. Consider if the most obvious resolution is sufficient.

In such cases in which you become convinced that the resolution that you came up with poses no serious risks, it makes sense to you, and you feel comfortable with it, the only job you have left is to carry out your plan with charm, courage, and determination. However, if the most obvious solution does pose a serious risk, or you just don’t feel comfortable with it for any reason, it’s time to go to Step 2.

Step 2. Carrying out a more complete decision process.

There are numerous benefits that occur when we learn how to transform anger into challenge. Now I understand perfectly well that for most of us this is far easier said than done. It is for this reason that in future posts I will be explaining more about what challenge is, discussing many of its benefits and how we can all learn, in a fun way, how to use challenge even in the most difficult of circumstances.

[1] The value of this attitude is discussed in: S. R. Maddi, D. M. Khoshaba, R. H. Harvey, M Fazel, & N Resurreccion, 2011, “The Personality Construct of Hardiness, V: Relationships with the Construction of Existential Meaning in Life,” Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 51(3), 369-388.

———————

Tags anger, challenge, conflict management, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, maturity, violence

anger conflict resolution free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum psychological maturity wisdom

RECURRING ANGRY MEMORIES

Angry memories of past conflicts can have important consequences as new conflicts arise. When dealing with a new conflict, recalling a similar conflict that occurred in the past can help us to consider utilizing a strategy that we had tried that ended up producing a satisfactory resolution, or to consider avoiding a strategy that we had tried that ended up failing miserably.

Sometimes we find that an angry memory keeps recurring even when we are not immediately facing a situation that is similar to what led to the original anger-arousing event. This can potentially lead to something positive. Each time we think over the memory in light of what we have learned since the event first occurred, we might think of some better ways to deal with the conflict. Then, if a similar event does occur, we may find that we are better prepared than if we hadn’t repeatedly mulled it over.

Despite their helpfulness, there are times when again and again an angry memory keeps creeping ever so annoyingly into our consciousness so that finally we conclude it doesn’t seem to be doing us any good. For the hundredth time Ralph suddenly finds
himself thinking, “Oh, if I only hadn’t struck that blow!”

For the nine-hundredth time Betty chastises herself, “Oh, if I only hadn’t cried out with the insulting word that I’ve been regretting ever since!”

Ralph and Betty have gone through the disturbing event way too often, sifting through all the minutest details, and now they wish they were just through with it!

In two earlier posts (see “Anger, Ruminations, and Meditation” and “Dealing With Emotional Pain“), I discussed how learning to meditate, expressive journal writing and sensation-focus techniques can be very helpful for dealing with these types of situations. Today we will look at an additional strategy.

Changing Rigid Thought Patterns

We now turn our attention to replacing habitual, destructive ways of thinking with a more peaceful, constructive approach.

Different ways of framing a stressful experience can have remarkably different consequences.

In the above For Better or for Worse comic, Elly is nervous about her big exam. When John frames the test in one way, Elly begins to smile. When he frames “flunking out” as “no big deal,” Elly’s smile is gone and her eyes begin to bug out.

In the comic, it is John who is framing the stressful experience for Elly. But if we could go back before John begins to do this, and then be able to read Elly’s mind, we probably would see that she has already framed her experience using some habitual phrase that she tells herself in this type of situation. For example, she might have said, “If I fail this test, it will prove I’m the stupid jerk I always knew I was!” According to cognitive psychologists, such a statement is far from ideal.

Dr. Aaron Beck, in his fine book, Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger, Hostility, and Violence (1999), points out that mates in a distressed marriage are more prone to ascribe unpleasant behavior to the bad nature of the spouse, whereas non-distressed couples will ascribe the same incident to the nature of the situation. Thus, mates in the distressed marriages are more likely to think that the unpleasant behavior demonstrates that their mate is malicious, manipulative, and deceptive. Those in non-distressed marriages will be more likely to think that their spouse acted unpleasantly because she had a hard day at work, or something else happened that led to this behavior.

In Destructive Emotions: How Can We Overcome Them?, a team of scientists has a dialogue with the Dalai Lama. At one point the Dalai Lama argues that the antidote for angry thoughts is to view the person with whom you are angry as your loving mother. “This is done to arouse a sense of affection and gratitude by focusing on the person who has shown you the greatest love and compassion.” If you do not see your mother as deeply loving you, when you carry out this technique you can replace the image of your mother with someone whom you do see as deeply loving you.

Another book that teaches the art of changing angry thoughts to more constructive ones is The Anatomy of Peace: Resolving the Heart of Conflict (2006). There, the authors make the case that during anger-arousing situations people often begin to think of the person on the other side of the conflict as objects that are obstacles to what we desire. The authors call this pattern of thinking, “Heart at war.”

The authors invite people to try out instead a pattern of thinking they call “Heart of Peace.” This entails viewing the other as a person with hopes, needs, cares, and fears as real to you as your own. The authors conclude that “when our hearts are at war, we can’t see situations clearly, we can’t consider others’ positions seriously enough to solve difficult problems, and we end up provoking hurtful behavior in others.”

As an alternative, consider what happens in American courts of law after someone is found guilty of a crime. Before deciding on what should occur to the convicted person, the judge has the jury hear once again from the defendant’s lawyer. The lawyer now is to present the argument that there were extenuating circumstances that mitigate guilt. A talented lawyer might touch upon the fact that the defendant was an orphan and later became a father trying to support his family when he suddenly lost his job. With no means to feed his children, he succumbed to the temptations of crime. The lawyer might be very likely to point out that the convicted has many of the attributes of the mothers or fathers or other loved ones of jury members. “Before you is not an object, but a real live human being not unlike those close to you,” the lawyer might say. This part of the court proceedings is designed to support the principle of fairness. It is this principle of fairness that you are invited to try out as you deal with your recurring anger episodes.

And so, whenever you are angry at someone and you find you have been imprisoned by your hate, free yourself by taking the time to write out a defense for the person with whom you are angry. If you will, look to see if the situation that gave rise to the incompatible act might have been more of the cause of what occurred than you originally allowed. See what comes from considering the culprit as if she was your mother. How does thinking about the source of your anger in terms of someone who is a person with hopes, needs, cares, and fears help to reduce the intensity of the conflict? When carried out together with meditation, expressive journal writing and sensation-focus techniques, you are likely to find that this will lead to your recurring anger memories becoming distinctly less stressful.

———————

anger conflict management conflict resolution criticism emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts MATURITY negative criticism psychological maturity social intelligence Uncategorized wisdom

THE MOST MATURE LEVEL OF RESPONDING TO CRITICISM: ADVANCE LESSON

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date August 11, 2013
2 Comments on THE MOST MATURE LEVEL OF RESPONDING TO CRITICISM: ADVANCE LESSON

Are there different levels of maturity for responding to criticism? If so, what is the most mature level?

Over recent weeks we have been pursuing an answer to these questions (see for example, Responding to Criticism: Four Levels of Maturity and Responding to Criticism: The Most Mature Level). During this pursuit, I put forth a tentative proposal for a most mature level because I think that’s a good way to get into these types of questions. Not only have I described what I think is the most mature level, I have presented arguments against this most mature level and arguments for it.

When I have taught these types of lessons in a classroom setting, despite all that I have already said on this topic, many of my students continue to raise some additional questions. And so, in this post I will try to clarify some points of confusion that have been brought to my attention by my students over the years.

Clarifying the Difference Between a Pawn and an Origin.

Responding to criticism at the most mature level requires that we seek to lead the criticizer to feel more like an origin than a pawn.

Many of my students have asked me to talk more about this point.

When people feel like pawns, they feel pushed around, and they feel that they are like puppets with someone else pulling the strings. Somewhere in our hearts and minds we realize that bossy people create a revolt against perceived illegitimate power. Calvin’s father, in the following comic, begins to realize this.

Feeling like a pawn may be contrasted with feeling like I have an influence over what I do—that I have played at least a part in originating my behavior.

When you respond to criticism at the most mature level, you seek to come across as “not being bossy.” By trying to come up with some way to steer in the direction of the criticism, you come across as showing that you can be influenced by the person who is criticizing you.

Providing More Examples of Steering

After explaining a little more about the difference between feeling like a pawn and feeling like an origin, many of my students ask me to provide some more examples of people using steering.

In the DeCharms study I discussed earlier (Pawns in The Classroom), teachers who had learned to steer put fifteen minutes aside once a week to ask students to criticize how things are going during the week. The teachers in the study didn’t actually use the word “criticize.” The students were asked to provide “suggestions.” Suggestions, as we have discussed are, in a sense, criticism because people only make suggestions when they first make some sort of evaluation of what they perceive. Based on the evaluation, they then declare what they think might be an improvement.

The teachers were taught to listen to the student suggestions in a manner very similar to the description of level four on the five levels rating system. However, when teachers who use steering feel a suggestion does not make sense they do not merely attempt to disagree without being disagreeable. Instead, they try to use some aspect of the suggestion so the student feels the suggestion has been taken seriously.

For example, let’s say a student suggests that if the class works hard all day, the last hour should be free time. Suppose the teacher, let’s call her Mrs. Jones, feels that a daily hour of free time would waste too much learning time. Mrs. Jones can still steer in the direction of the suggestion. That is, she can explain her concern about wasting too much time; then she can propose that if by the end of the week the students had done a spectacular job all week long, the last hour on Fridays they will be given the freedom to choose either to get a head start on homework, write in their journal, or read a library book; then, after proposing this, Mrs. Jones asks the class if they want to give this a try. Notice that she is using the student’s suggestion of free time to influence where she steers the activities for the week.

Steering frequently ends up with the criticized person offering some type of choice to the criticizer. But there is a difference between providing a choice using a steering model and offering a choice in general. Consider a teacher who offers a choice to a student by saying, “Either you do the assignment or fail the course. Those are your choices.” This is not an example of steering. Nor is this—a teacher says, “I’m giving you a choice between playing ‘Math Blaster’ or ‘Race to the Moon.’ Hurry up and pick one, I don’t have all day!”

A teacher who is using steering would be more likely to say something like, “Here are two games that teach some math skills. Which one do you think would be best for you?” Notice the difference in attitude between the approaches. In the first two examples, the choice may not be perceived as a genuine choice but more of a demand to pick either one or the other. In the Peanuts comic below, we get a sense of how strong a reaction can occur when a child comes to believe the choice he or she is given is not really genuine.

Steering by teachers demonstrates a degree of respect in that the teacher is genuinely interested in the student’s opinion and is willing to have that opinion count in deciding what will be done.

Here’s an example involving a father and his son.

In the For better or for Worse comic, Michael criticizes his father’s decision that it’s time to go to bed. The father, no doubt, disagrees with his son’s criticism. Yet, rather than just saying his son is wrong, he seeks instead to come up with a way that utilizes some aspect of his son’s criticism to come up with a new alternative.

I think that the father, by asking his son to ask EVERY kid in town about bedtimes was unreasonable, but I trust that you get the point I’m trying to make in this example.

In the Luann comic below, Knute’s effort to work out what to do on his upcoming date with Crystal is evident.

Knute’s effort to find something to do that they will both like probably will be far more helpful in establishing a relationship with Crystal than if he insists on taking her to a monster truck rally.

Now, some people confuse steering with compromise. Steering can involve a compromise, but oftentimes it leads to something better than a compromise. The classic example of a compromise occurs when someone wants to buy something, let’s say a used car. The car dealership wants ten thousand dollars for the car, but the buyer wants to pay only five thousand dollars for it. In the end, they settle on $7,500. Both parties don’t end up getting quite what they had hoped, but they settle so they can close the deal. Both parties may walk away a little disappointed.

Oftentimes, when steering occurs, neither party is disappointed.

Steering envisions that the person criticized makes an effort to see if there is some way out of the conflict, a way where two opposing views can be reframed into an original and larger context that provides new values to both parties. This may be difficult and at times not always possible or desirable, but as we move along, I hope to show that it is possible far more often than commonly believed.

Rudyard Kipling’s Poem, If

Back in 1897, Rudyard Kipling wrote one of his most famous poems—If. Relevant to our discussion is the part that says:

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise…

Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

When someone is blaming, doubting, hating, or lying about you, they very likely are criticizing you and in a rather unflattering manner. How would it be best to respond to this?

Among the things Mr. Kipling encourages you to do is to keep your head even when others are losing theirs—admittedly, not always an easy thing to do. He urges you to trust yourself when all doubt you and make allowance for their doubting too. I’m not sure I completely agree with this, for spending some time in doubt seems to prod me, at times, to consider some important alternatives—but I think I have some sense of what he was trying to get at here.

Although I’m tempted to analyze Kipling’s poetry with a fine tooth comb, the thing about poetry is that the poet seeks to capture more than what can be analyzed. With just the right mixture of words and phrasing, Kipling strove to capture a certain subtle emotion and attitude.

I present the poem for your consideration in hopes that you will see that there is something in it that captures the emotion and attitude of the two highest levels of the five levels rating system. If you read the poem a couple of times and then the description of the two highest levels, you may find, when taken together, that they share a truth beyond words.

Well, that’s today’s lesson. I hope you enjoyed it.

———————

Tags conflict, conflict management, criticism, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, insults, maturity levels, negative criticism, psychological maturity, wisdom