Categories
Alex Murdaugh Bob Dylan Chimes of Freedom

On Bob Dylan’s “Chimes Of Freedom”

Welcome to From Insults to Respect.

Today, while listening to some songs, Bob Dylan’s emotional pleas as he sang “Chimes of Freedom” cried out to my conscience. Its first stanza…

We ducked inside the doorway, thunder crashingAs majestic bells of boltsStruck shadows in the soundSeeming to be the chimes of freedom flashingFlashing for the warriors whose strength is not to fightFlashing for the refugees on the unarmed road of flightAn’ for each an’ every underdog soldier in the nightAn’ we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing

Bob’s song, it occurred to me, suggested that people vary in the following three ways. You have the type of person who appears to care only for him or her self, and when making connections with others, it is only for self benefits. Moving from that end of the spectrum to someone who we will call Jill, her family and close friends are dear to her, but beyond that, her feelings toward others can be summed up as an emphatic cry of, “Hey, I got my own problems to deal with!” At the other end of the spectrum, we find feelings expressed in words such as those inscribed on a plaque and placed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty–

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

In thinking of all of this, it came to me that Dylan’s “Chimes of Freedom” is the musical version of the Statue of Liberty. As Dylan cries out in the song, we hear his pleas for…

empathy toward the luckless, the abandoned and forsaked, for the outcast, burning constantly at stake, for the kind, for the guardians and protectors of the mind, and the poet and the painter far behind his rightful time, for the disrobed faceless forms of no position, for the tongues with no place to bring their thoughts, for the deaf and blind, for the mute, for the mistreated, mateless mother, the mistitled prostitute, for the misdemeanor outlaw, chased and cheated by pursuit, for the ones condemned to drift or else be kept from drifting, for the searching ones, on their speechless, seeking trail, for the lonesome-hearted lovers with too personal a tale, for each unharmful, gentle soul misplaced inside a jail, for the aching whose wounds cannot be nursed, for the countless confused, accused, misused, strung-out ones an’ worse, and for every hung-up person in the whole wide universe.

Such outpouring of empathy for such a wide range of folks.

When Bob wrote this song, he lived in New York’s Greenwich Village. It is in just that part of the city where heading west down a few side streets you end up facing the grand New York Harbor, with its awe inspiring view of the Statue of Liberty standing guard against a diminishment of what many, but not all, Americans admire.

After jotting down the above ideas and then showing them to my wife and son, they encouraged me to see if I could deepen my thoughts on this theme. I thereby found myself envisioning a circle around each of the three general types of people who have various bands of empathy.

For those persons who have just self-empathy, I envisioned having a circle just around themselves. For those who have empathy for themselves, as well as close family members and friends, I envisioned having a wider circle that encompasses not only themselves, but also all of these other folks. And those whose empathy extends even beyond not only themselves, close family members and friends, but also all of those other folks we hear about in Dylan’s song, I found myself envisioning each of them wrapped around an even larger circle of people.

With this image in mind, I asked myself whether or not I find myself having an increasing amount of respect for people whose circle encompasses more people, compared to those whose circle encompasses fewer people. It turns out that if the type of person who has empathy just for him or herself has done some awful acts this would significantly lower my level of respect. But what about a person who despite having this very narrow encompassing empathy circle who has not harmed anyone? Now the question about my degree of respect becomes harder for me. Similarly, for those who just have empathy for themselves and close relatives and friends, but don’t hurt others, I find myself having some difficulty answering the level of respect question. Curiously, I do seem to have some additional respect for people who have empathy for all people who don’t go around harming anyone. How about each of you who are reading today’s post?

Now, let’s consider a related question. Regardless of how much respect you feel for each of these three general types of people, when you interact with them, do you think it wise to treat them all with equal respect?

As I personally thought about this, I imagined working in the prison. In such prisons, the convicts are typically informed that to the degree that they treat all the other convicts and prison staff members respectfully, and follow the various other prison rules, they will receive additional privileges, and for those who someday will be released, this will increase their chances of an early release. Convicts having the lowest level of privileges might be provided only a single type of very bland food, have the worse work assignments, and just one hour each day to socialize with other prison convicts. At the next level, convicts might be given a modest choice at meal times, a limited choice of work assignments, etc.

Under these conditions, is it wise for us to treat respectfully even those who have committed the most horrendous crime by avoiding mean, insulting name calling, expressions of disgust, asking, rather than demanding, and saying please and thank you at appropriate times? It seems to me that by doing so, you decrease the chances of resentments that can blow up into violence, while also increase the probability of making life in prison a more healthy, supportive place for all. Moreover, by creating a more consistent environment in which respectful behavior is practiced, those who are released after serving their time might end up having picked up the habit of treating people respectfully. In fact, it might even, as some psychological theories suggest, increase the likelihood that respect for others will become internalized for ex-cons thereby leading them to expanding their circle of empathy for others.

As a general rule, treating everyone respectfully, in a prison, or out, serves to model this type of behavior, and research suggests this can increase the chances that others will follow suit. And, finally, I think the golden rule applies well when thinking about these types of issues. If you want others to treat you respectfully, treat others respectfully.

So, there you have it, some thoughts that all spilled out of me after listening to Dylan’s “Chimes of Freedom.” I hope you find value in them, and until next time, may you find ways to be kind to yourself and to others.

My Best,
Jeff

Categories
jails and prisons

Bob Dylan On Jails, Prisons, and Respect

Welcome to From Insults To Respect. 

On an episode of Bob Dylan’s Theme Time Radio Hour, the Nobel Prize winner discusses, as he puts it:

“The Big House, the brig, the clink, the coop, the gray bar hotel, the hoosegow, the joint, the jug, the pen, the pokie, the slammer, the stir–we’re talking about jail, a real hush hush subject where everyone is hurting for someone or something. We’re going to learn about cons, jailbirds, stoolies, lifers, and politicians. Prisons, a house of many doors.”

After Bob’s introduction, we hear the disturbing sounds of prison doors slamming shut.

People who get sent to lockup facilities are typically seen as worthy of being treated with disrespect. Is this the wisest mindset? And what about those who are actually innocent and yet are condemned to the slammer due to some grievous mistakes?

The vast majority of convicts, after serving their sentences, will be released back into our communities. How best to structure the time convicts spend incarcerated so it will be more likely to lead to their earning respect once they are released?

There are a great deal of strong emotions running through this topic, so I’m thinking that by intermingling it with the poetic lyrics and humor presentations from Bob’s radio show, it will at times lighten the discussion and deepen it as well. So, let’s see how this works out.

Respect As It Relates To Those Serving Time In Prison

It is hard to imagine showing any respect for the type of person who is the topic of the first song Bob plays for us, Johnny Cash’s “Folsom Prison Blues.” Some of the lyrics are,

I hear the train a-comin’, it’s rolling ’round the bend
And I ain’t seen the sunshine since I don’t know when
I’m stuck in Folsom prison, and time keeps draggin’ on
But that train keeps a-rollin’ on down to San Antone

When I was just a baby, my mama told me, “Son
Always be a good boy, don’t ever play with guns”
But I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die
When I hear that whistle blowin’, I hang my head and cry 

The song is told from the point of view of a guy who shot a man to watch him die, a mighty awful thing to do. The guy seems to be sad, but perhaps not about the life he cut short, but because he’s stuck in prison instead of on that train taking him to a better place.

Cash, during his lifetime landed in jail seven times, mostly for illegal possession of drugs. His ability to hire skillful lawyers probably saved him from serving any time in prison because people with so many repeated offenses don’t usually get off so easily. Cash’s awareness that he could have easily served some hard time probably led him to write sympathetic songs about convicts, and to perform them on a few occasions directly to convicts within their prison walls.

Cash’s songs about convicts were, and are still mighty popular. Given the hateful things that they have done, why do so many people find themselves relating to them? Perhaps the feeling expressed in the following saying offers an explanation–“There, but for the grace of God, go I.”

Cash and Dylan

These words capture the angst that many of us experience as we realize how outside factors play a role in who ends up in the slammer. If we had been raised in a terribly violent home or neighborhood, experienced crushing poverty, been in the wrong place at the wrong time, might we have landed behind steel bars? Such questions have led some to suggest a new approach to handling prisoners. I’ll return to this issue soon, but let’s get back to Bob’s show.

The Next Part Of Bob’s Show

After playing for us Cash’s song, and then moving on to Magic Sam’s “21 Days In Jail,” Bessie Smith’s “Send Me To The ‘lectric Chair”, and Warren Storm’s “Prisoner’s Song,” Bob tells us,

We’re about half way through our sentence right here on Theme Time Radio Hour, and there will be no time off for good behavior. Here’s the smooth voice of Joe Simon singing a song by Dan Penn. Joe was able to mix R and B [Rhythm and Blues] and country in a uniquely southern style and had a number of hits in the process, including this one, a song about stealing, knowing he done wrong, but his woman’s needs make him ashamed. He steals for love and now he has to say good morning to swinging that nine pound steel hammer. 

Here are a few of the song’s lyrics:

Through these wallsI see the sunI’m here becauseThe wrong I’ve done…
Made me ashamedI stole from herOh, when I should’ve stood up like a manYou see, I’ve got to say good morning To that nine pounds of steel.
Then Bob provides us a few humorous thoughtful quotes:
Will Rogers, “There is no more independence in politics than there is in jail.” Harry Truman, “The White House is the finest prison in the world.” Nelson Mandela, “In my country we go to prison first and then become president.” Charles Bukowski, “I don’t like jail, they got the wrong kind of bars in there.”

Getting Back To The Issue Of Respect And Prisons

The old approach, and still the main approach in America, is to make life in prison miserable so people, hearing how awful it is, will be discouraged from doing anything that might land them there. There is also hope that such treatment will discourage those who had been imprisoned from ever doing anything that will lead to being imprisoned again. How successful has this approach been? America has the highest (and most expensive–despite questionable results) rate of incarceration in the world with a concomitantly high rate of recidivism. In contrast, Germany and the Netherlands, according to a Bloomberg report. prefer a more humane system. Some of the facts it provides are:

Incarceration rates per capita are nearly 90 percent lower than in the U.S.: 79 per 100,000 residents in Germany and 82 per 100,000 residents in the Netherlands, compared to 716 per 100,000 residents in the United States.

Resocialization and rehabilitation are central to the Dutch and German models. Life in prison there aims to inculcate fundamental skills that offenders will need when returning to their community. For example, prisoners are allowed individual expression and a fair amount of control over their daily lives, including the opportunity to wear their own clothes and prepare their own meals; and, in order to instill selfworth, both work and education are required and remunerated. In addition, respect for prisoners’ privacy is practiced as a matter of human dignity.

Contributing to engendering positive self-esteem is the fact that prisoners are trusted. They each have a private dormitory-like room with their own keys. Guards knock before entering. The rooms are spacious with natural sunlight (many inmates grow plants) and have a bathroom apart from the sleeping quarters. They dress with a sense of pride in the styles and fashions which they prefer.

Training for occupations and professions (with degrees) is provided and encouraged. Inmates are urged to pursue vocational jobs while in prison and must save a percentage of their earnings to help them make the post-incarceration transition.

Those inmates who have proven their trustworthiness and reliability are allowed to work outside the prison on a daily basis (all of whom voluntarily return after work). They have a phone to make calls to anyone (including family, friends, attorneys, media, etc.) and a television, radio, and computer (Internet access is not permitted).

Such respectful treatment creates a positive mind-set for those incarcerated. Not only that, but as a direct result of such positive treatment and interactions, violence within the prison is virtually non-existent among prisoners and between staff and prisoners.

The Conclusion Of Bob’s Show

“Well,” says Bob, “we couldn’t do a show about jail without talking about Merle Haggard, a man who turned his life around, walked out of the jail cell and into public acclaim. Here’s a quotation from chairman Merle:”

“‘Sing Me Back Home’ is a popular song because there are a lot of ex-convicts in America that form a troop of fans that want to hear that song and it’s funny that all ex-convicts have something in common, they got their time in and the rest of you still got yours to do.”

Here are a few of “Sing Me Back Home” lyrics:

The warden led a prisoner down the hallway to his doomI stood up to say goodbye like all the restAnd I heard him tell the warden just before he reached my cellLet my guitar playing friend, do my request
Let him sing me back home with a song I used to hearMake my old memories come aliveTake me away and turn back the yearsSing me back home before I die
From the soulful way Merle sings this song, you kinda feel some sympathy for the condemned man.

Well, those are a few thoughts I wanted to share with all of you folks today. Until next time, may you come to fully appreciate your life beyond any real or imaginary prison walls.
My Best,
Jeff

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

Categories
"Bully" the Movie bullying conflict resolution Donald Trump

Trump, Bullying, And Disrespect

Welcome to From Insults To Respect.

This week, I received a letter from a wonderful pal of mine, Mike Gilmartin, a retired English professor who dabbles in the fine art of poetry. His letter included his most recent effort, which he titled, “The Art Of Trumping The Deal.” To me, it powerfully expresses Mike’s emotion that comes with his disrespect for Donald Trump’s bullying behavior.

Mike views Trump as a bully, as he puts it, “Because a bully blusters and lies and then chickens out when truth is on the line.”

Mike, certainly, is not alone in viewing Trump as a bully. For example, in an article in the The Observer, Arlie Hochschild writes:

To bully someone is to seek to harm, intimidate or coerce another who’s perceived as vulnerable. As the National Center Against Bullying elaborates, there are many types of bullying. Reviewing them, we… can recall times when Trump has exemplified nearly all of them. There is physical bullying – tripping, kicking, hitting; remember his calls in 2016 to oust Black Lives Matter demonstrators in the “old-fashioned way” (with a show of fist in palm). There is verbal bullying – name-calling (Sleepy Joe, Crooked Hillary, Little Mario). There is mockery by imitation. Recall his laughing imitation of a disabled reporter, palsied arms and hands shaking. Then there is social bullying – showing contempt for someone’s social reputation (think of the Gold Star parents, Khizr and Ghazala Khan, ridiculed for the silence of the grieving mother).

These Trump bullying behaviors, according to a Washington Post article

“has seeped into schools across America. Many bullies now target other children differently than they used to, with kids as young as 6 mimicking the president’s insults and the cruel way he delivers them.

“Trump’s words, those chanted by his followers at campaign rallies and even his last name have been wielded by students and school staff members to harass children more than 300 times since the start of 2016 [to the end of 2019], a Washington Post review of 28,000 news stories found. At least three-quarters of the attacks were directed at kids who are Hispanic, black or Muslim, according to the analysis.”

When I first read Mike’s poem, I liked its poetic expression of the emotional reactions of disrespect that is often experienced when we see someone acting like a bully. An image of giving the bully a good sock in the kisser, understandably, might come to mind, as well as images of other violent acts.

Because of this being a common reaction, I thought it would be worthwhile to share the poem with my readers to aid the uprooting of weeds in one’s mind regarding the nature of bullying. At the same time, I wouldn’t want readers to think that I am recommending that such thoughts should be the automatic proper way to actually respond to bullies. Such violent responses can lead to an assault charge and land one in prison. There are also various other very serious negative consequences when responding violently. A wise response requires considering who is doing the bullying, and the situation in which it occurs. In past posts, I discuss some specific ideas about this (see HERE, HERE, and HERE for a few examples). So, with these prefatory comments out of the way, let’s move on to take a look at Mike’s poem.

The Art Of Trumping The Deal

We were both born in New York City

Less than a year apart.

Thus ends the similarity.

 

My Dad, a WWII combat Marine

Taught me many things.

And he taught me this about bullies:

 

“Son, if it’s going down in the schoolyard,

Punch them in the mouth with all you’ve got

And they’ll run home crying for their mamas.

 

“If it’s going down when you’re young men,

Kick them in the nuts with all you got

And they’ll squeal like little girls.

 

“If it’s going down when you’re grown men,

Watch if their lips are moving and tell them you know they are lying

And they’ll turn red and orange in whimpering rage.

 

“If it’s going down when you’re old men,

Listen for their painful moaning at the urinal

Then piss on their shoes

And they’ll try to rub it off on the back of their pants leg.”

My Impressions

Dr. Jeff Rubin

The poem leads me to vividly sense the anger and hate many people experience when encountering bullies. Although the body of the poem applies to bullies in general, the title of the poem, “The Art Of Trumping The Deal,” points me in the direction of considering Trump’s particular style of bullying.

Trump’s style has him not actually physically attacking the person he is seeking to bully, but rather, to incite others to do the attacking for him. Thus we hear of numerous articles indicating an increase in violence toward the very individuals Trump verbally attacks in his speeches.

And then we have the incident in which Trump summoned like-minded bullies to come to D.C. on January 6, his incendiary rhetoric provoking a violent attack on the nation’s capitalAlthough he recently pardon them, those carried out the violence were left to suffer for four years its consequences. Hundreds lost their jobs, others had to bear the cost and time of acquiring lawyers to defend themselves against criminal charges, many of them paying large fines, and some served time in prison. Meanwhile, Trump was bathing in the sun at his Mar-a-Lago country club.

But, somehow, I kinda think that all is not so perfectly rosy in Trump’s mind these days. It is just possible that images of numerous criminal investigations just may by provoking anxiety at the consequences of his recent actions.

Well, that’s my post for today. I’ve written it with the hope that it might encourage any of you who might be tempted to try to achieve some goal by bullying your way through various obstacles to pause and consider the value of employing less anger and hate promoting alternatives

 

My Best,
Jeff.

Categories
anxiety conflict resolution Depression melancholy William James

William James’s Advice To A Melancholy Friend

Welcome to From Insults to Respect.

James with his daughter

In a recent post, I shared some advice the highly respected psychologist and philosopher William James gave to his depressed 13-year-old daughter. It was so well received, I decided to describe another example of James giving advice to another person feeling so very blue.

Unlike my previous example, which occurred when James was a mature professor and father, today’s example occurred in 1866 when James was a mere 24-year-old. But before we get to that example, we shall go back a little further, when James was 19. By doing so, we get to see an intriguing shift in his way of thinking about mental health concerns.

James’s View of the Nature of Mental Health Concerns When He Was Nineteen

James’s cousin, Minnie, two years younger than he, lost both of her parents when she was very young. She somehow appeared to recover from the severe blow, turning herself into the James family’s most enchanting and adored relative. In fact, James’s brother, the famous author, Henry James, drew two of his most appealing heroines from her image,–Minnie Theale in Wings of the Dove, and Isabel Archer in The Portrait of a Lady. Sadly, at the age of seventeen, Minnie began to display emotional patterns that raised serious concerns. James, in a letter to Minnie’s sister, explains his understanding of the cause. “…it is but an organic lesion of the gray cortical substance which forms the pia mater [innermost membrane enveloping the brain and spinal chord], which is very consoling to us all.”

On what basis does James have for this explanation of the cause of Minnie’s mental health concern? And why would viewing Minnie as having a brain lesion be consoling? The letter doesn’t answer either of these questions, but blaming the brain for mental health concerns and the belief that such blaming is consoling survives up to the present day.

In recent years, after failing to prove a brain lesion is the cause of mental health concerns, a chemical imbalance in the brain has been promoted and eagerly accepted by many as true.

For example, the most recent relevant survey I could find on the internet suggests that 67% of the general public believe it has been scientifically established that depression is caused by a serotonin chemical imbalance in the brain (see HERE). Despite this belief, a 2022 research article published in Molecular Psychiatry concludes:

…the huge research effort based on the serotonin hypothesis has not produced convincing evidence of a biochemical basis to depression. This is consistent with research on many other biological markers [21]. We suggest it is time to acknowledge that the serotonin theory of depression is not empirically substantiated.

Many believe the reason why this idea has been so promoted is that it legitimizes the lucrative marketing of psychiatric drugs. Although I think there is considerable truth to this, the eager acceptance of this notion by many members of the general public has to do with it being a consoling notion to family members who might otherwise be blamed for their offspring’s concerning behavior. With this way of thinking, it is not anything any family might have done to cause the concerning behavior; it’s some problem in the brain that is the cause.

Now, don’t misunderstand me here. I’m not at all suggesting that family members should be blamed for all such concerns. There are, undoubtedly, many possible reasons why someone begins to act in a way that raises concerns.

When James is called upon to offer some advice to a friend several years after his comment to Minnie’s sister, his notion about the cause of mental health concerns has clearly changed.

James’s Advice to His Friend

In a letter dated, June 8, 1866, James wrote to his friend, Tom W. Ward:

I have just read your letter over again, and am grieved afresh at your melancholy tone about yourself. You ask why I am quiet, while you are so restless. Partly from the original constitution of things, I suppose; partly because I am less quiet than you suppose; only I once heard a proverb about a man consuming his own smoke, and I do so particularly in your presence because you, being so much more turbid, produce a reaction in me; partly because I am a few years older than you, and have not solved, but grown callous (I hear your sneer) to, many of the problems that now torture you. The chief reason is the original constitution of things, which generated me with fewer sympathies and wants than you, and also perhaps with a certain tranquil confidence in the right order of the Whole, which makes me indifferent in some circumstances where you fret. Yours the nobler, mine the happier part! think, too, that much of your uneasiness comes from that to which you allude in your letter–your oscillatoriness, and your regarding each oscillation as something final as long as it lasts. There is nothing more certain than that every man’s life is a line that continuously oscillates on every side of its direction; and if you would be more confident that any state of tension you may at any time find yourself in will inevitably relieve itself, sooner or later, you would spare yourself much anxiety. I myself have felt in the last six months more certain that each man’s constitution limits him to a certain amount of emotion and action, and that if he insists on going under a higher pressure than normal for three months, for instance, he will pay for it by passing the next three months below par. So the best way is to keep moving steadily and regularly, as your mind becomes thus deliciously appeased (as you imagine mine to be; ah! Tom, what damn fools we are!). If you feel below par now, don’t think your life is deserting you forever. You  are just as sure to be up again as you are, when elated, sure to be down again. Six months, or any cycle of time, is sure to see you produce a certain amount, and your fretful anxiety when in a stagnant mood is frivolous. The good time will come again, as it has come; and go too. I think we ought to be independent of our moods, look on them as external, for they come to us unbidden, and feel if possible neither elated nor depressed, but keep our eyes upon our work and, if we have done the best we could in that given condition, be satisfied.

James goes on a bit more in his letter to encourage Tom to seek to harmonize his life to nature’s will and to develop patience, equanimity, humbleness, and kindness. These attributes, he says “would do your heart good.”

As the letter draws to a close, James writes,

I will now, my dear old Tom, stop my crudities. Although these notions and others have of late led me to a pretty practical contentment, I cannot help feeling as if I were insulting Heaven by offering them about as if they had an absolute worth. Still, as I am willing to take them all back whenever it seems right, you will excuse my apparent conceit. Besides, they may suggest some practical point of view to you…..

I am anxiously waiting your arrival on Class Day when we shall, I trust, patch up the Kosmos satisfactorily and rescue it from its present fragmentary condition.  

My Take On James’s Letter

Dr. Jeff Rubin

At age 19, James appeared to accept that his cousin Minnie’s troubling emotional behavior pattern is caused by a brain lesion and this notion is somehow consoling. There is no thoughts expressed that perhaps the trauma of losing both of her parents might be playing a part. No wondering if some new disturbing event might have occurred that family members are unaware. A brain lesion theory does provide a simple explanation.

At age 26, when James tries to come up with an explanation for Tom’s emotional concern, the brain lesion notion doesn’t come up at all. Instead, James begins by expressing some empathy for his friend by writing to Tom,”I have just read your letter over again, and am grieved afresh at your melancholy tone about yourself.” I like this. If someone you care about is going through some hard experience, expressing some empathy is a wonderful, humane, and kind thing to do.

Then, James responds to Tom’s question about why he is so “restless” in contrast to James. Perhaps it has to do with a difference in their constitution, James theorizes. But then James suggests that he actually might not really be less restless, he just doesn’t share this with others, preferring to consume his own smoke. In actuality, anyone familiar with James’s biography well knows he suffered greatly from periods of depression. (See HERE  for a discussion of James’s bouts with depression and how he came to overcome them).

James goes on in his letter to point to the possibility that Tom might have gone through a period of great pressure and, if so, naturally he would need some time to recover. The recovery process could be experienced as melancholy. He also suggests that certain thought patterns of Tom’s, if changed, might be beneficial.

James concludes by suggesting to Tom that all of what he had written could be wrong, but nevertheless, they may suggest some practical point of view. In providing this post to my readers, I, too, suggest that perhaps James’s advice might be worth considering if either you or someone you care about is struggling with melancholy experiences.

My Best,
Jeff

Categories
respect social skills William James

Why Was William James Respected?

Welcome to From Insults To Respect.

Here on this blog, I aim to shed light upon how folks might improve their self-respect and the respect others have for them. With this end in mind, from time to time I describe someone who has handled a difficult situation in a respect enhancing manner. For example, in one post I describe how Abraham Lincoln skillfully handled insults (see HERE). In another, I describe how Joni Mitchell wisely dealt with her experiences with depression (see HERE). Utilizing the same educational technique, today, I provide a brief look at how the astonishingly well respected psychologist and philosopher William James deftly dealt with his interpersonal relationships.

James’s Interpersonal Relationship Skills

In 1920, ten years after William James passed away, his son, Henry, published many of his father’s letters in a two volume set titled, The Letters of William James.

William with his brother, Henry

This Henry James was not the famous author, Henry James, who was William’s brother. He, nevertheless, reveals an accomplished talent for writing as he provides in the volumes’s beautifully written context for the letters.

The two volumes were very well received as we see in this excerpt of a review published in the New Republic. 

The very tones of his [William James’s] voice are audible in them, his wit is here, his fine considerateness, his friendships, naturalness, variety, sincerity. Nobody’s humor draws closer likenesses of persons and ideas and point of view. Nobody’s seriousness is more informal. Is there a better book of letters in English?

William James’s sons, Willie on the left, and Henry on the right.

Henry begins his two volumes with a brief biography of his dad. As this draws to a close, he summarizes his dad’s interpersonal style:

 He enjoyed being generous and hated to spoil a gift of praise by “stingy” qualifications. He might have said that the great point was not to let any unique virtue in a man evaporate or be wasted. At any rate, he said, that should be seen to in a university. He was quite unconventional in recognizing originality, and preferred all risks in hailing potentialities that might never come to fruition, to a policy of playing safe in his estimates. Yet on the whole he seldom “fooled himself.” Few men who have possessed a comparable gift of discovering special virtues in different individuals have combined with it so just a sense of what could not be expected of those same individuals in the way of other virtues.

But there would be danger of misunderstanding if this trait were mentioned without an important qualification. The reader will do well, in interpreting any judgment of James’s to consider whether the book, or theory, or man under consideration was new and unrecognized, or was already established and secure of a place in men’s esteem. In the former case, especially if there were anything in the situation to appeal to James’s natural “inclination to succor the under-dog,” his praise was likely to be extravagantly expressed and his reservations were apt to be withheld. In the latter case he was no less certain to give free rein to his critical discernment. Men who knew him as a teacher are likely to remember how he encouraged them in their efforts on the one hand, and on the other how stimulating to them and enlarging to their mental horizons were his free and often destructive comments upon famous books and illustrious men.

With regards to this trait of James to provide “free and often destructive comments upon famous books and illustrious men,” it is important to add that critical comments were not directed at the person, but at the ideas of the person. In fact, James often communicated to the person advocating an idea with which he had very much disagreed, some kind words about the author of the idea.

Prof. Hodgson

For  example, in a letter to the eminent Professor Shadworth H. Hodgson in which James severely criticizes his ideas that had been put forth in a philosophy article, James concludes his letter, with the following friendly words:

Farewell! Heaven bless you all the same — and enable you to forgive me. We are well and I hope you are the same. Let me add a wish for a happy New Year and the expression of my undying regard. You are tenfold more precious to me now that I have braved you thus! Adieu! 

James’s son, Henry, concludes this point thusly:

If more critics, and more of the criticized, were to cultivate the manliness, and generosity with which James always entered discussions, there would be less reviewers “never forgiven,” and less feuds in the world of science. 

Henry ends his description of his dad’s interpersonal style with these words:

…he helped many a troubled soul to face the problems of the universe in an independent and gallant spirit. He helped them by example as well as by precept, for it was plain to everyone who knew him or read him that his genius was ardently adventurous and humane. 

Discussion

Dr Jeff Rubin

Today, William James is largely respected because of his insightful ideas that he shared in his writings. In past posts, I discuss some of those ideas such as his highly practical suggestions about child discipline (see HERE), and his fatherly advice to his depressed daughter (see HERE). To get some sense of why James was respected for his interpersonal interactions, it makes sense to go beyond his writings and turn to someone who knew him well. James’s loving son, Henry is a good fit for this task for there is hardly anyone who knew him better. And yet, in doing so, it makes sense to surmise it is, to a certain extent, biased.

Recognizing this, we need not assume Henry’s description is absolutely accurate in every respect to obtain from it something of value. Taken solely as a narrative of someone who just might have acted thusly, it provides us an opportunity to reflect upon our own conduct to see if we can glean from it some skills we just might usefully seek to incorporate into our own conduct.

Wishing all of my readers a colorful autumn,
Jeff

Categories
Dealing with insults Gone with the Wind

A Gone With The Wind Insult

Welcome to From insults To Respect.

In several previous post we discussed suggestions for responding to insults in a positive manner. For example, we discussed Abe Lincoln’s wise approach (see HERE) and Jackie Robinson’s challenging approach (see HERE). To deepen our thinking about this issue, I am always on the lookout for these types of examples.

Last night, I happened to be watching the epic 1939 film, Gone With The Wind, winner of 10 Academy Awards. The plot begins just as the American Civil War is about to commence. It was a time when challenging someone to a duel was viewed as required to save face whenever a man felt he was insulted. Such an approach has largely gone with the wind, but there is a scene early in the film in which Rhett Butler, richly played by Clark Gable, handles an insult in a way that I think is worth considering even in our modern world.

The Scene

The setting is the library of a wealthy plantation owner, Ashley Wilkes. A group of men have gathered there to discuss the likelihood of a Civil War. Ashley had invited Rhett Butler, a man with considerable military training having attended West Point, to come to his plantation as one of his guests. Here’s the dialogue I would like you to consider:

Wilkes, Hamilton, & O’Hara

Mr. O’Hara: It’s time we let them [the northerners] know we keep our slaves! We’re the sovereign state of Georgia and we’ll keep it by force of arms! We Got to fight, there is no other way! The matter is simple. The Yankees can’t fight and we can! Don’t you agree with us, Mr. Butler?!

Clark Gable as Mr. Butler

Mr. Butler: I think it’s hard to win a fight with words, gentlemen.

Mr. Charles Hamilton: What do you mean?!

Mr. Butler: I mean, there is not a cannon factory in the whole south.

Mr. Hamilton

Mr. Hamilton: What does that mean to a gentleman?! [said with rage]

Mr. Butler: I’m afraid it will mean a great deal to a lot of gentlemen.

Mr. Hamilton: Are you hinting that the yankees can lick us?!

Mr. Butler: No, I’m not hinting. I’m saying very plainly the yankees are better equipped than us. They have factories, coal mines, a fleet that can bottle up our harbors and starve us to death. All we got is cotton, slaves, and arrogance.

Mr. Hamilton: I refuse to listen to any of this renegade talk!

Mr. Butler: I’m sorry if the truth offends you [said humbly and with a respectful bow].

Mr. Hamilton: Your apology is not enough! [At which point the insults from Hamilton are furiously launched at Butler] I hear you were turned out of West Point, and you are not welcome in any family in Charleston, not even your own family!!!

Mr. Butler: I apologize again for all of my shortcomings. [He provides a respectful bow] Mr. Ashely, perhaps you won’t mind if I take a walk around your place. [Before leaving, he looks toward the rest of the men and says] I’m sorry gentlemen, I seem to be spoiling everyone’s cigars and dreams of victory. [He again respectfully bows and exits]

Mr. Hamilton attempts to chase after Mr. Butler to furiously challenge him to a duel, but the other men physically restrain him while explaining that a duel would be foolhardy because Butler has proven to be one of the best marksmen in the country. Mr. Ashely Wilkes, owner of the plantation at which the meeting is being held, informs all that Mr. Butler is his guest, and with that, he joins Butler on his walk. 

Discussion

Here we see a scenario in which Mr. O’Hara asks Mr. Butler if he agrees with him regarding war with the yankees. Mr Butler, disagrees and provides his reasons. Mr. Hamilton angrily refers to Mr. Butler’s comment as renegade talk, yells in a disrespectful tone of voice, and flings negative rumors in Mr. Butler’s face in front of many men looking on, while being overheard by women in nearby rooms.

To this, Mr. Butler doesn’t slug Mr. Hamilton, nor does he demand either an apology or face him in a duel, which would be typical for Hollywood movies. Instead, he first says, “I’m sorry if the truth offends you,” while respectfully bowing.

When the insulting continues, he offers another apology to Mr. Hamilton, this time, for all of his shortcomings, and again he bows. He then offers an apology to the others in the room and leaves. Violence is avoided, and everyone has some time to cool down.

It seems to me, there are aspects of the approach displayed by Mr. Butler that readers might wish to avoid, and other aspects they would be wise to put in their “handling insults toolbox.”

When Mr. Butler refers to those who are promoting war with the north as being “arrogant,” this suggests he views them as having an exaggerated sense of their ability. For me, I, personally, would leave this type of adjective out of any defense, for some might view it as an insult. I prefer to let my reasoned arguments suffice.
I also have an issue with Mr. Butler when he says, “I’m sorry if the truth offends you.” This can easily come off as being too certain that he is absolutely right, and those who disagree with him are absolutely wrong. Although I am sometimes pretty sure that I am right, I prefer to present myself as being open to learning from opposing views.

Other than these two issues, I think Butler’s approach probably has considerable merit in handling some challenging situations in which insults are flying at my being. I like that he presents his reasons for his disagreement, his tone strikes me as respectful, and his apology for his shortcomings in the face of insults I think has the potential of reducing the chance of an escalation into violence.

I would love to hear from those of you who would like to share your views about Butler’s approach, and my take on it.

As this post drifts to an end, I leave you with my hope that all of you always find ways to convert your insulting experiences into moments that enhance how much respect others have for you, and how much respect you have for yourself.

My Best,
Jeff

———————————-

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

Categories
Dealing with hurtful experiences pain management

Turning Away From Hurt: Wise Or Foolish?

Welcome to From Insults To Respect. Today, we discuss that challenging experience known as hurting.

Sometimes, we are hurting because of a physical injury, like when I banged my shin as I walked by the corner of my bed. At other times, it is due to an emotional event, like when I’m insulted for being a New York Yankees fan.

Growing up in Brooklyn, my no-nonsense grandfather disdained my complaining whenever I was hurting, insisting that the best approach to such experiences is to toughen up and just put it out of my mind. Other people encouraged me to turn my mind away from the hurt and focus instead on a pleasant experience. Meanwhile, I learned that psychiatrists and medical doctors frequently prescribe drugs to hide the pain.

Throughout my early years, I tried my best to live according to these types of advice, and for minor hurts, it seemed to work well enough. However, for more serious, longer lasting ones, there seemed to be a brief period during which there might have been some relief, but very soon afterwards, the hurt came raging back. And then, when I was in my mid-thirties, I came upon some research articles that had me trying out a very different approach.

A Different Approach

An article published in 1985, by J. Suls and B. Fletcher, titled “The relative efficacy of avoidant and nonavoidant coping strategies: A meta-analysis”  (Health Psychology, vol 4 (3) 249-288.) summarized its findings as follows:

“Overall, avoidance was associated with more positive adaptation in the short-run. However, attention was superior to avoidance if the former involved a focus on sensory schemata rather than emotional processing.”

Emotional processing (also referred to in the research literature as “emotion focus”) has individuals attending to a thought such as, “This experience is a big time hurt.”  Notice that the emotion focus approach has one observing a set of words describing the feeling, whereas a focus on sensory schemata has one observing its bodily sensations. If the sensations bring forth words such as, “this is so painful,” or “wow, this is awful agony,” you accept this without judgment. You very gently, when you feel ready, return your focus to the physical sensations as if you are tasting, for the first time, some fresh mountain water from a tropical island. Just let the sensations wash over and through you for a couple of minutes. Do this each time you begin to experience the sensations.

In 1989, a study came out by M. R. Frone and D. B. McFarlin, titled “Chronic occupational stressors, self-focused attention, and well-being: Testing a cybernetic model of stress” (Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(6), 876–883). The study looked at stress reactions of some blue collar workers, some of whom were experiencing a great deal of stress from work overload. The results indicated that a tendency of subjects to focus on their bodily sensations from high stress decreased the chances that these subjects developed subsequent illnesses.

The article makes mention of a cybernetic model of stress.

This model posits that individualwhattenttheir psychologicaand body reactiontstressfulifeventarmore awarodeviationfrotheir desired state. Given sucmismatched information, these folks are thus morlikelttake corrective action, thereby reducinthlikelihooof illness.

This article introduced me to the idea that focusing on the bodily sensations when you are hurting might prevent illness. Then other articles came out further supporting this notion.

Meditation

Illustration by Jack Star RubinIt can be helpful for particularly difficult hurtful experiences to practice a type of meditation. For a review of the research on the effectiveness of this type of approach for reducing illness see here.

Although there are a variety of meditation techniques that slightly differ from one another, basically you sit for about twenty minutes twice a day in the morning and before supper. During this meditation, you observe each breath, though it is natural that your mind will wander from this task. When your mind does wander, you are not doing anything wrong; it is just part of an effortless process. When you recognize that your mind has wandered from observing your breath, if you can effortlessly return to observing it, do so; if not, that’s fine as well. From time to time during this meditation, hurtful experiences will emerge into consciousness. When this happens, you take a few seconds to nonjudgmentally observe their associated bodily sensations.

Expressive Writing

Expressive writing has demonstrated in several research studies to improve health outcomes (see here and here). Rather than avoiding thinking about the harmful feelings, those practicing this technique do the following:

Over the course of four days, they write for a minimum of 15-minutes at each sitting about something that has led to having a challenging emotional experience. As they do so, they make sure they include not only what happened, but also what they felt when it happened, and how they now feel about what happened. They include their deepest emotions and thoughts about what occurred. They are encouraged to really let go and explore their feelings and thoughts about it. As they do so, there will be moments when waves of bodily sensory experiences associated with the described emotional experience will arise. At such times, for a few moments they observe these bodily feelings. While writing, they might tie this experience to their childhood, relationships with parents, people they have loved or love now, or their career.

Those who go through this experience, sometimes report that after writing, they sometimes feel somewhat sad or depressed. Like seeing a sad movie, this typically goes away in a couple of hours, and in the long run, the research suggests this is beneficial.

If you try this and find that you are getting extremely upset about a writing topic and come to feel it is unwise to continue, trust your judgment and stop writing or change topics. You might try to return to the extremely unsettling topic again in a week or two. If you again begin to have feelings that are so extremely upsetting that you feel it is unwise to continue, trust your judgment and stop. Try one more time to write about this topic in a month or so.  If you end up striking out, you might want to seek out a professional humanistic counselor to help you to process this sensitive material (see HERE for some suggestions for obtaining this type of counseling services).

Additional evidence that suggests there is positive value to take time to focus on one’s hurts comes from research on the effects of “exposure therapy.”

Exposure Therapy

Exposure therapy was developed to help people dealing with trauma. When people are fearful of something, they tend to avoid the feared objects, activities, situations, and associated emotional bodily feelings. Although this avoidance might help reduce feelings of harm in the short term, over the long term it can prolong and worsen the experience. In this form of therapy, psychologists create a safe environment in which to “expose” individuals to the things they experience as hurtful and thus try to avoid. This exposure, in time, helps reduce the harmful consequences of traumatic experiences.

Exposure therapy has been scientifically demonstrated to be a helpful treatment (see here and here).

Conclusion

So, “Is it wise or foolish to turn away from hurt?” In answering this question, it seems to me that if your style of dealing with the hurts you experience is best described as maneuvers to avoid thinking about them, this does not indicate you are foolish. People pick up certain habits when they are young and making changes to them can be hard. Although I found I was able to change my old avoidance habit, if you are satisfied with your avoidance approach or just don’t want to bother to go through a process of change, you are entitled to continue as you have always done.

Rather than joining a chorus of name callers to encourage learning a different approach, I have laid out some of the research backed arguments for spending some time to marshal the courage to make friends with the bodily sensations that come when you are hurting. In line with that old saying, “The best things in life are free,” two of the three approaches I’ve described are completely free. Going forward, it is up to you to freely choose how to deal with hurtful challenging experiences.

——————————-

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.

Categories
AR-15 guns conflict resolution Second Amendment

AR-15 Weapons and the Second Amendment

Welcome to From Insults to Respect. Today, we take up a country-wide emotionally charged conflict between those who believe the Second Amendment allows for what they refer to as some “reasonable restrictions” of arms such as banning AR-15 weapons, and those who believe the amendment provides an inalienable right to own arms with absolutely “no restrictions.” Here’s what the Second Amendment actually states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Let’s begin by taking a look at the major arguments being made by those on both sides. Then I’ll conclude with where I come out in dealing with this conflict.

The Arguments

The ‘Well Regulated Militia” Arguments

The Second Amendment begins by explaining the necessity for the amendment–“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” Here we see that the reason why the Framers included this amendment to the Constitution was because of the specific needs of a well regulated militia. This explaining is very different than the other amendments which give no explanation for each of them because each are viewed as “self evident.” For example, consider the wording of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice that this amendment does not explain any reason for these Government restrictions. Also note that some aspects of this amendment is not absolute. For example, you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, defraud someone, or participate in planning a murder and then claim the government can’t penalize you because you are protected by the amendment’s free speech clause.

Also notice that this amendment allows for the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Thus, you can’t have people who formed a militia violently attacking the Government with arms and then successfully claim that since it was carried out by a well regulated militia your use of these arms is constitutionally protected. As a result of the January 6, 2021 assault on the U.S. Capital, over 800 people have been charged for crimes for their violent acts and more indictments are forthcoming.

The amendment immediately after the Second states:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Like the First Amendment, the Third Amendment, provides no explanation. Given this “no explanation” style in the other amendments as well, we are left wondering why the Second Amendment veers away from this “no explanation” style. If the Framers just wanted to say all people have the right to carry and bear arms, they could have left out the first part of the amendment that refers to a well regulated militia, and instead have written:

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Such wording would be consistent with the “no explanation” style used in the other amendments. If, instead, the Framers wanted to indicate only those people in a well regulated militia have a right to bear arms, they could have precisely worded the Second Amendment as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people in a Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Without such clear wording, we are left with ambiguity. It is nevertheless reasonable to lean toward the following theory: The Framers chose to use the militia clause in the Second Amendment to indicate that it applied to people in a well regulated militia. This theory is supported by the fact that the Framers were not typically given to providing explanations for why the people have the rights enumerated in the Constitution, and yet they chose to include one in the Second Amendment. Moreover the Framers were clear that only peaceful means could be used to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Bearing arms at such events runs counter to this peaceful intent. Thus, the Framers did not view the bearing of arms as an absolute right, limiting its use when assembling, and petitioning the government.  Finally, there are other clauses in the Constitution that in practice are not absolute, and reasonable modifications to their wording have occurred.

Major Supreme Court Decisions

United States v. Miller, Decided in 1939. There are three major Supreme Court decisions that reveal how the Justices’ views on gun rights developed over the years since the Constitution was ratified. Let’s begin with the U.S. v. Miller case.

sawed off shotgun

Back then, the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with militias, the Court observed that [w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.

The Court also opined that the Second Amendment referred to arms of the kind in common use at the time, referring to the time the Amendment was ratified–December 15, 1791. With this in mind, consider the arms that had been in common use in a militia back then.

People who had access to a handgun could only fire a single shot before reloading. People who had access to a long barrel gun had muskets. A musket fired a single lead ball before it needed to be reloaded to fire another. Black powder was the explosive material used which commonly fouled the musket after repeated firing and they were notoriously inaccurate when aimed at a target. Reloading required that a person carry out the following steps:

  1. Reach in the cartridge box with leather casing; it had a long flap to make sure the black powder within the cartridges remained dry. Remove one of the cartridges and bite down on the tail of the cartridge to tear it open.
  2. Half cock the musket by pushing back on the hammer with flint attached (called a dogshead). Push the frizzen forward, opening the pan (or flash pan) and pour a small amount of black powder from the cartridge.
  3. Pull the frizzen back, shutting the pan – the metal lip of the frizzen is now vertical. The weapon is now primed and the musket may be turned around without spilling the powder out of the pan.
  4. Hold the musket with the muzzle pointing up.
  5. Pour the rest of the powder from the cartridge into the barrel.
  6. Insert a lead ball into the barrel.
  7. Push the cartridge paper (called wadding) into the barrel and ram the wadding and ball down the barrel to the other end (breech) where the spark will take place. The charge is now properly seated.
  8. Replace the ramrod in the channel.
  9. Lift the weapon and pull back on the dogshead, fully cocking it.
  10. Raise the musket to a firing position.
  11. Fire the musket.

Such weapons are dramatically different than today’s AR-15 weapon that can fire numerous shots far more powerfully and accurately during the same amount of time that it takes to fire one round with a musket and then to reload.

District of Columbia et al. v. Heller. Decided in 2008.  In contrast to the argument that the Second Amendment refers to weapons that were only available at the time when the Second Amendment was ratified, a more recent case before the Supreme Court provided a different interpretation. Relying largely on the history of common law, which often gave people the right to bear arms for self protection, particularly in their own homes, and for hunting, opined that:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivo­lous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not in­terpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications…applies to modern forms of speech… the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

At the same time, the Court recognized that,

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts rou­tinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose… Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradi­tion of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons….

It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim­ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL, Decided June 23, 2022. In the most recent gun decision by the Supreme Court, it ruled that:

Although Heller concerned the possession of a handgun in the home, the key point that we decided was that “the people,” not just members of the “militia,” have the right to use a firearm to defend themselves. And because many people face a serious risk of lethal violence when they venture outside the homes, we now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.

The definition of a handgun is “a short-barrelled firearm that can be held and used with one hand.

The decision goes on to say,

The Second Amendment guaranteed to “all Americans” the right to bear commonly used arms in public subject to certain reasonable, well-defined restrictions, Heller, 554 U. S., at 581. Those restrictions, for example, limited the intent for which one could carry arms, the manner by which one carried arms, or the exceptional circumstances under which one could not carry arms, such as before justices of the peace and other government officials.

In Justice Alito’s concurring opinion, he wrote, “Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess.”

Buffalo supermarket shooting victims

Summarizing this section, it provides a description of the dramatic difference between the kinds of weapons in use when the Framers wrote the Second Amendment and an AR-15 weapon. The above quotes from the Supreme Court decisions lays out how the court’s views on gun possession changed over time. First, it referred only to militias. Then, in a more recent decision, it said it refers to even modern guns that are commonly used for self-protection in one’s home. Then, in the most recent decision, it declared the Amendment also permits people to carry guns for protection outside of the home.

With regards to the Supreme Court’s decision concerning the type of weapon permitted for self protection, the only weapon mentioned is hand guns. As far as what is permitted with regards to obtaining such weapons, and what other weapons could be used, it states it is subject to certain well defined restrictions.

Arguments Against the Supreme Courts’s Decision

One set of arguments against the Supreme Court’s decision utilizes well documented statistics indicating the harms of having so many weapons in the hands of people. For example, the Violence Policy Center, in 2015, provided statistics that showed that in 2012, there were 259 justifiable self-defense homicides in which victims turned the tables on the assailant. However, the Center also reported these 259 justifiable homicides should be balanced against the statistics indicating the thefts of about 232,000 guns each year. That’s a ratio of one justifiable homicide for every 896 guns put into the hands of criminals.

Moreover, researchers from Boston University investigated the relationship between gun ownership and gun homicides from 1981-2010 in all 50 states. They said they found a “robust correlation” between the two factors. “This research is the strongest to date to document that states with higher levels of gun ownership have disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.”

In a summary of relevant peer reviewed studies by Scientific America, it found:

Sandy Hook victims

In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not. 

Further supporting this evidence that more harm than good comes from unrestrictive gun ownership, is well displayed in the following graph.

Here we see that countries with far more gun restriction than the United States have a small fraction of gun homicide rates. United Kingdom and Japan, which have the strictest gun restrictions have the tiniest fraction of such homicides. Meanwhile, nearly 40,000 Americans died because of gun violence in 2019.

Now, keep in mind, if you will, that the reason given by the Supreme Court is for self-protection. The AR-15 weapon is way too dangerous for such a purpose. If one shoots at an assailant in an apartment, the shot can penetrate not only through a wall into a neighbor’s apartment, but right through another wall into another apartment, thus endangering the life there. Moreover, shooting at someone with this weapon outside, risks killing someone more than 200 yards away who happens to be in the line of fire.

The mathematics describing the pros and cons of the no restrictions position when it comes to AR-15 is, to my mind, simple to calculate. One would simply add up how many lives were saved by non-law enforcement personnel who used an AR-15 gun to thwart a person seeking to harm someone versus how many lives were lost because citizens can now freely purchase AR-15 weapons.

Armed bystanders who are not security guards or off-duty police officers successfully ending a violent attack is a very rare occurrence according to the relevant data summarized by the New York Times—12 cases out of 433, and none of these cases involved an armed bystander using an AR-15 weapon. In fact, having more than one armed person at the scene who is not a member of law enforcement can create confusion and carry dire risks. An armed bystander who shot and killed an attacker in 2021 in Arvada, Colorado, was himself shot and killed by the police, who mistook him for the gunman.

In contrast to the evidence that AR-15 weapons are not being used by non-law enforcer professionals for self defense or protecting others during an attack, they have been used by mass shooters numerous times. After shooting 471 people at the Route 91 Harvest Festival in Las Vegas from a hotel room overlooking the festival, the gunman died by suicide before the police arrived to his room. The gunman was in no way defending himself against the victims who were innocently enjoying a music concert. More recently, we have seen the aftermath of one massacre after another in which the shooters used AR-15 guns that occurred in a supermarket, school buildings, and many other places.

The counter argument to these statistics is that they don’t include the following theory. Because people desiring to act violently know that so many of our citizens own guns this actually reduces violence. Such violent people, so the argument goes, refrain from acting out their violent desires out of fear that a citizen with a gun will end up killing them. This plainly implies that the more guns in a community, the less violence will occur. However, the statistics dramatically indicate the very opposite occurs.

Justice Stephen Breyer

Interestingly, the dissenting opinion by Justice Breyer in the most recent Court decision made extensive use of many of the same arguments against the 2022 ruling as I made above, but the majority disposes all of them with the following statement:

“…reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text—especially text meant to codify a pre-existing right—is, in our view, more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field. Id., at 790–791 (plurality opinion).”

But the empirical judgment regarding this issue is not at all difficult. It is backed up by overwhelming evidence that more access to guns in a given population leads to far more deaths. Moreover, there have been zero cases of non-law enforcement officials ever successfully using an AR-15 for self defense, or in defense of other citizens, while that same weapon has been used to murder numerous innocent fellow citizens.

My Thoughts

Personally, I am convinced that the fewer guns we have in our country, the safer we all would be. At the same time, I recognize that many of our fellow U.S. citizens love owning AR-15 weapons. With this in mind, here is what I view as a reasonable compromise.

Average citizens could purchase such weapons, but when purchased, it would be sent by the seller directly to a licensed gun shooting range of the owners’s choice, where it would be locked up. The owners of these guns could visit their AR-15 whenever they wish, and use them for target shooting, competitive games, and can hug them, and even kiss them to their heart’s content. When they leave the range, the gun would be returned to the range manager who would secure it for safe keeping. For those who already own such weapons, they would be required to turn them in to a licensed shooting range where it would be locked up, but can be used at the range whenever the gun owners wish.

Well, that’s my view on this contentious issue. I hope readers will find that it provides some thoughtful considerations as they go about discussing the topic with others and reflecting on their own judgements.

Just as I was finishing up this post, a news bulletin came on indicating three police offices were shot and killed, and several others were wounded. Such incidents, which are up 19 percent this year, has led police departments around the country to be among the most vocal in pleading for more gun restrictions, explaining they are being outgunned by criminals. So, it is with this punch to the gut story, I close with the wish that all of my fellow citizens have a safe week.

———————————
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.

Categories
conflict resolution counseling helplessness William James

Counseling Someone Experiencing Hopelessness: First Session

Welcome to From Insults To Respect. Today’s post offers an approach for respectfully helping someone experiencing hopelessness during a first-hour counseling session. I commend it to you for I have found it remarkably helpful over my many years providing counseling services.

Helping people experiencing hopelessness can be rather challenging because many of them have no interest in doing anything about it. As the renowned psychologist and philosopher William James explains in a letter to his famous novelist brother, Henry James:

The two brothers. Henry is on the left and Professor William James is on the right

Henry is left of William

To suggest personal will and effort to one “all sicklied o’er” with the sense of weakness, of helpless failure, and of fear, is to suggest the most horrible of things to him. What he craves is to be consoled in his very impotence, to feel the Powers of the Universe recognize and secure him, all passive and failing as he is.

That said, if you find you are engaging with someone experiencing something like this, is there nothing else to be done other than offering your condolences? For your consideration, here’s what I refer to as a Jamesian approach because it is based on some of the writings of William James.

Beyond Just Offering Condolences

Who are capable of trying the approach I have found so helpful?

Most people have the ability to try this Jamesian approach. However, there are some who will not be able to do so because they have very little patience in the presence of anyone feeling hopeless. Such persons might cry out, “Enough with this helplessness crap. Snap out of it and get the hell on with your life for crying out loud!”

Now, admittedly these unsympathetic people sometimes find, upon confronting someone with their demand, it actually seems to have been helpful. The person who had been feeling helpless becomes enlivened with the demand and can then find themselves improving their functioning and end up thanking the demanding person.

However, some of these demanding people find their approach in the situation with which they were dealing didn’t work and conclude there is nothing else that can be done. These people, totally disgusted with the continuing helpless attitude, very likely will not be able to utilize the Jamesian approach I wish for you to consider.

That said, it just so happens that some people who begin with the lack of sympathy approach end up seeing it has been far from helpful. They may yet be left harboring some desire to be helpful in some way. If they didn’t end up completely severing any subsequent relationship with the person feeling helpless as a result of their demanding approach, they might, through a turn of mind, come to say, “Well, I guess I have the ability to try a more supportive approach.” Such persons might still be able to utilize the Jamesian approach.

As for everyone else who thinks they can spend an hour being present with the person feeling helpless and express empathy, while being a good listener in other ways can give the approach I soon will describe a try. I’ve never seen any harm from such attempts.

Three types of situations in which the Jamesian approach can be utilized

The first two types of situations one can utilize this approach involves a professional counselor or psychotherapist. The client arrives for an appointment. The professional then begins the session by asking the client, “What concerns would you like us to address?” The despondent person might reply,

“There really is nothing to address. I only came for this appointment because my sister kept urging me to speak to a professional about my situation and I finally gave in. To me this whole appointment is a waste of time. My situation is hopeless.”

Or, the person might respond,

“I’ve been feeling stressed out and hopeless and I heard I might qualify for disability benefits. I can sure use the extra money.”

As you will soon see, neither of these two situations provide any obstacles for utilizing the approach.

The third type of situation the Jamesian approach can be helpful involves nonprofessionals that know someone they care about who has reached that helpless state of mind and are willing to see if they can set up a time to spend an hour with the discouraged individual.

The Jamesian Approach

Phase 1 (first half hour)

You begin by asking the person you hope to help, in a soft, caring manner, “How have you been doing?” Over the course of the next half hour, your job is to listen with all the empathy you can muster, to whatever your counselee wants to share with you.

If your conselee becomes angry with him or herself, your job is not to convince the person that becoming angry at one’s self is wrong or foolish. Rather, you make sure the person knows you heard what is being said, by making the following type of reply. “I see you are angry about… (summarize what the person said about why he or she is angry)” and then in a soft, caring voice say, “I understand you have been through some very rough experiences.” It is essential during this half hour that you do nothing that can appear to be correcting or constraining the expression of the counselee.

 Listening in a sympathetic manner during the first half hour is time well spent. During this time you will be modeling for the counselee an alternative to how he or she might want to respond to the situations that currently has been leading to angrily insulting oneself. People learn a great deal by observing others. Your job in this first half hour is to be a superb model of reacting to very human mistakes by remaining supportive to the notion that we all goof-up from time to time.

If your counselee finishes earlier than a half hour, begin to ask the following questions. “Please talk to me about when you first began to feel so helpless?” and “I’m interested to hear how you have been functioning since you have been going through this very tough experience. If the functioning question is answered in a sentence or two, you are to invite some additional sharing of the counselee by asking, “Have you been able to go to work?” If yes, ask, “How has that been going?” If there is still time left during the first half hour, also ask the counselee if he or she has been able to do home chores, such as cleaning and making meals. If this hasn’t filled up the first half hour of your one hour session, continue with these additional questions: “How have you been sleeping?” “Have you been staying connected with some people you care about?” With these series of questions, you should have no difficulty passing this half hour of listening in a caring manner.

Phase 2 (second half hour)

Now, in seeking to introduce phase 2, sometimes the counselee is not quite finished sharing what she or he has been going through. If this is an intense part of the distressed person’s experience, I recommend not interrupting. Instead, at the close of the hour you will have to set up another hour session. However, I have found most times you will be able to gently say,

“I’d like to pause here for just a few minutes, if that is ok with you. I would like to tell you a story that many people who are going through a similar experience as you, find helpful. In referring to these experiences as similar to you, I recognize each person’s experience is unique. That said, with us being fellow humans, we can often see certain similarities that might help us make some useful connections with our own unique situation. So, would it be ok if we pause here just for a few minutes so I can tell you this story?”

It is very rare, from my experience, that the counselee will refuse this request, but if they do so, don’t press the case of the value of hearing the story. Just respond by saying, “Maybe I can share the story with you on another occasion.”

If your counselee agrees to hearing the story, it is ok to read it. Here’s the story.

During William James’s life he became the greatest American psychologist and philosopher of his time, and remains even today enormously well regarded for his wisdom. But as a young man of 25, while studying for his Harvard medical degree, he suddenly dropped out. As he explained the reason, “it was as if something hitherto solid within my breast gave way entirely, and I became a mass of quivering fear. . . . I awoke morning after morning with a horrible dread in the pit of my stomach.”

After about 6 years of these dreaded experiences, he suddenly began to feel much improved. Here’s how Will’s father explains it in his letter to his other son, Henry, in March of 1873:

William JamesHe came in here the other afternoon when I was sitting alone, and after walking the floor in an animated way for a moment, exclaimed “Dear me! What a difference there is between me now and me last spring this time: then so hypochondriacal” (he used that word, though perhaps in substantive form) “and now feeling my mind so cleared up and restored to sanity. It is the difference between life and death.” He had a great effusion. I was afraid of interfering with it, or possibly checking it, but I ventured to ask what especially in his opinion had promoted the change.

He said several things: the reading of Renouvier (specially his vindication of the freedom of the will) and Wordsworth, whom he has been feeding on now for a good while; but especially his having given up the notion that all mental disorder is required to have a physical basis. This had become perfectly untrue to him. He saw that the mind did act irrespectively of material coercion, and could be dealt with therefore at first-hand, and this was health to his bones.

We see in the above that at this time James had viewed his distressful experience that led to his departure from medical school as a “mental disorder” that he had to accept as due to something wrong with his body and therefore he could do nothing but accept that he had this condition. Then, his conceptualization began to develop from a physiological pathology model to one that gives at least some freedom to the will.

William’s Father with his brother Henry on the righ

He came to this understanding from his own counselor in the form of reading the works of the philosopher, Charles Renouvier, especially in the sections that provides a vindication of the freedom of the will. At the same time, he was also reading the poems of William Wordsworth. What did these poems have to do with one who had been so suffering for many years?

Charles Renouvier

Wordsworth’s poems are often about his deep love with being in nature, as we get some sense of from considering some of the lines from “I Wandered Lonely As a Cloud:”

I wandered lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o’er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host, of golden daffodils;
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

This exuberance with being in nature, for Wordsworth, spilled over into his life even when he was not in nature as we see in the following lines:

A poet could not but be gay,
In such a jocund company:
I gazed—and gazed—but little thought
What wealth the show to me had brought:
For oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood,
They flash upon that inward eye
Which is the bliss of solitude;
And then my heart with pleasure fills,
And dances with the daffodils.

mature William JamesFor William James, he not only read Wordsworth, his reading led him, through an act of will, to go out in nature. The particular scenes he came upon of woods beside a body of water lifted his spirits. It also got him walking, which is well documented to improve health. It also improved his interpersonal relations, for he discovered some people who shared this love of nature, and they often would join him on his nature walks. Sometimes he and his companions would walk in silence, just enjoying the pleasant sounds of birds and the rippling of water. Other times they would enjoy discussing common interests.

Later in his life, William James added another element to his understanding of the disturbing experiences he had as a young man. It was prompted by a quarrel.

Healthy-minded individuals often believe that those who worry are “morbid-minded” and “diseased.” In their defense, some of those referred to as morbid-minded have argued that “the world’s meaning most comes home to us when we lay them most to heart.”

After describing the argument between the so-called “healthy-minded” and the “morbid-minded,” James then states:

In our attitude, not yet abandoned, of impartial onlookers, what are we to say of this quarrel? It seems to me that we are bound to say that morbid-mindedness ranges over the wider scale of experience, and that its survey is the one that overlaps. The method of averting one’s attention from evil, and living in the light of good is splendid as long as it will work. It will work with many persons; it will work far more generally than most of us are ready to suppose; and within the sphere of its successful operation there is nothing to be said against it as a religious solution. But it breaks down importantly as soon as melancholy comes; and even though one be quite free from melancholy one’s self, there is no doubt that healthy-mindedness is inadequate as a philosophical doctrine, because the evil facts which it refuses positively to account for are a genuine portion of reality; and may after all be the best key to life’s significance, and possibly the only openers of our eyes to the deepest levels of truth.

To James, people confront events daily that create feelings of helplessness, pain, sadness, horror, and dread. James argued that the feelings that go along with these kinds of events can lead toward truth. Thus, he counteracts any tendency to assume that those referred to as morbid-minded are automatically inferior to those referred to as “mentally healthy.”

So, this is a story of one man’s experience of feeling helpless to do anything helpful by an act of his will, and thus spent years in a deeply disturbed state. Through being counseled by reading the writings of Renouvier (specially his vindication of the freedom of the will), along with discovering the health promoting effects of spending time in nature and with some people who shared his developing love of nature, he found this was health to his bones. As the years went by, he came to understand that there can be some benefits that come from the experiences many so called healthy-minded people view as morbid-mindedness or, more frequently in today’s culture, “mental illness.”

Here this ten-minute story ends. At its conclusion, gently ask if your counselee would like to share any thoughts or feelings that came about upon hearing about William James’s experiences and ideas about what people today often refer to as having a mental illness. Then, in the few minutes left of the hour, begin again to listen in the caring manner I described above.

Well, I hope this post has provided an approach for beginning a counseling experience with someone suffering from a sense of hopelessness. Until next time, may all of your concerns be addressed with wisdom, love, and kindness.

——————————-

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.

Categories
Trump supporting violence against demonstrators Trump Tower rally lawsuit

Trump on Beating Up People

Welcome to From Insults To Respect.

In recent news articles, we have learned that a group of people who were demonstrating in front of Trump Tower are suing Trump and his company for damages from what they claim was his security officers’ “wanton and malicious assaults and batteries.” Trump denied under oath knowing anything about the incident until a day after it happened, but his former lawyer Michael Cohen said he was an eye witness to Trump ordering the confrontation, according to newly filed court papers.

Michael Cohen

Cohen is not viewed as the most reliable of witnesses because of his history of lying to Congress about Trump’s business dealings with Russia, for which he served some time in prison. Nevertheless, he now has agreed to make his current testimony under oath on May 17th. He would be risking going to prison again if he is found lying, and he has nothing monetarily to gain from providing his testimony.

Benjamin Dictor

The protesters’ lawyer, Benjamin Dictor, well knows he can’t depend entirely on Cohen’s testimony to win his case. Thus, he will present testimony from the numerous eye witnesses who were present. He is also including deposition excerpts in the court filing that show Trump on numerous occasions encouraging violence, many of which have been impressively documented by the New York Times, (see HERE). To take one example, there are recorded comments he had made about protesters during his 2016 presidential campaign, including a rally where he told attendees that “if you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, just knock the crap out of them, would you?”

Trump defended his comment by saying, “It was very dangerous, We were threatened. They were going to throw fruit, very violent stuff.” He made his encouragement for violence at a time when no one had thrown anything.

As another example, there is a video clip showing security going through the process of peacefully removing an interrupter at a rally, while Mr. Trump cries,

Trump7“I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They would be carried out in a stretcher, folks. I’d like to punch him in the face, I tell you.”

trump 5After another incident of this kind, Mr. Trump, when questioned about it by a reporter, stated, “This guy started screaming by himself, and, I don’t know, roughed up, he should have, maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.” Then he said, “Violence would help to deter protesters.”

In perhaps the most disturbing example that I have seen before the January 6 attack speech, Mr. Trump is seen defending a guy who had just sucker punched an interrupter who was being peacefully escorted out of an arena. When Mr. Trump was asked about this incident by a reporter, he answered, “He (the guy who sucker punched the protester) obviously loves this country, and maybe he doesn’t like seeing what’s happening to the country.”

To be fair, Mr. Trump sometimes says he doesn’t condone the violence. Trump-punchingBut then he says things like, “In the good old days this doesn’t happen because they used to treat them very, very rough. And when they protested once, you know, they would not do it again so easily.”

So, if he thinks those were the “good old days,” it sure sounds to me that he wishes we could be discouraging protesters by doing this type of thing today.

In addition to using these publicly available examples of Trump supporting violence, the evidence to be provided to a jury will include numerous examples of his fast and loose, misleading statements about the facts of a case. For example, after stating he didn’t know about the incident until the next day, he then began to defend his bodyguard, Keith Schiller:

Donald Trump sings RNC Loyalty Pledge, New York, United States - 03 Sep 2015
“He did nothing wrong. He went out — I didn’t know about it. But he went out, he heard there was a disturbance, and he went out. And he took a 50 cent sign down that was racist. He sees people dressed as Ku Klux Klansmen or whatever. People were probably complaining. He was attacked from behind, and they tried to get his gun, I don’t even know if he was carrying a gun. But if he was, they were obviously trying to get it.”

So, we see here that first he says he didn’t know about the incident until the next day, but then claims he knows the protesters were dressed as Ku Klux Klansmen. Pictures from the demonstration showed two persons dressed as Klansmen while attempting to illustrate that they thought Trump is a racist like Klansmen are. Then, Trump, probably recognizing he is under oath, hedges his statement by saying, “or whatever.” He then says his bodyguard was attacked from behind and they tried to get his gun, but then, again undoubtedly recognizing he is under oath, he claims he doesn’t know if he was carrying a gun, but if he was, they were obviously trying to get it.

I don’t know for sure, but my guess is this testimony, and others like it, when laid out in front of a jury is likely to indicate Trump is willing to make up any story to help his case, but is constrained during his testimony because lying under oath is seriously different then his statements at rallies where he can claim first amendment rights to protect him. Under oath, lying is against the law and a person can be charged with a felony for doing so.

So, this is where the case stands. And now I hear Trump supporters say that Trump is right for encouraging violence against anyone that might dare to protest against him. Let’s examine this position.

The Trump Supporters versus the Trump Rally Interrupters’ Conflict

Trump supporters desire that at the rallies they attend for Mr. Trump they get to hear what he has to say without interruptions. They view the interrupters as interfering with this desire when Mr. Trump is trying to speak at the rally, and an interrupter begins shouting. Trump supporters typically would say they believe interrupters are guilty of doing something wrong when they interrupt, and many support violence against the interrupters.

This conflict statement is my best guess of the perspective of Trump supporters with regard to his position and dealing with rally interrupters. I have derived it from discussions that I personally have had with a few of his supporters, and what I have heard from them during TV interviews.

My Views On Trump’s Violence Advocacy

First of all, at the outset, let me say that I have some sympathy for the Trump supporters regarding their perspective on this conflict. I hold the position that regardless of who the rally is for, those who come to hear the candidate should be able to do so without people interrupting him or her.

trump1There are fair opportunities for demonstrators from the full spectrum of opinions to put forth their views as people file into the site of the rally and when people leave. As long as this is done peacefully and without interfering with the flow of people into and out of the site, this seems consistent with principles of free speech which is something I personally treasure.

Once in the arena, I believe the candidate should be treated civilly. Interrupting the candidate’s speech is not in the interest of the supporters who took the time to get to the site, nor is it in the interest of the interrupters.

A supporter of Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump scuffles with a protestor during a rally in Richmond, Va., Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2015. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

Interrupters, by their actions, will only succeed in hardening the positions of the supporters who tend to become infuriated at such interruptions.

That said, I do disagree that there is no better way to deal with rally interrupters than beating them up. These types of interruptions is a commonly resolved problem candidates have been facing for years. The best minds in professional arena security personnel and law enforcement have designed a process to deal with these types of situations. The process varies slightly from place to place, but basically it goes like this:

A protester is removed by security as Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign stop Saturday, Nov. 21, 2015 in Birmingham, Ala. (AP Photo/Eric Schultz)

Typically, whenever someone begins to create a disruption, security officials hustle over and firmly inform the interrupter that if he or she continues to do anything that seeks to disrupt the speaker, he or she will be ushered out of the rally site. This usually takes a few seconds and is sufficient in most cases to settle things down.

If not, several additional security officials are called. When they arrive, they now are an overwhelming presence and are well trained to handle aggressive conduct.

The disrupter is then told, “You now have a choice, either agree to be ushered out of the rally site with us, or law enforcement will be summoned. If law enforcement is summoned, you will be placed in handcuffs, arrested, charged with disturbing the peace, taken to the police station, and you could end up facing a fine and/or imprisonment. trump11Moreover, once law officers arrive, any effort that you make to avoid the law officers’ arrest will lead to the far more serious charge of resisting arrest. So, those are your options–either you now come peacefully with us as we usher you out of here, or deal with law enforcement. We recommend coming with us. Let’s go.” Then the security officials firmly, but not violently, lead the interrupter away.

This message to the interrupter takes less than two minutes and in the vast majority of incidents it is sufficient to peacefully resolve this type of situation. In my opinion, Mr. Trump is not doing security any favors when, during this process, he begins to taunt the disrupter.

The effective use of the technique I just described works best when the disrupter is in a state that he or she can think somewhat reasonably. Mr. Trump’s baiting disrupters while the process is going on increases the probability of igniting rage within the interrupter, and the probability of violence goes up. Even well trained security personnel can become injured dealing with this, and the whole process can take far more time to resolve.

Moreover, Mr. Trump’s actions tend to drum up rage against the interrupter, and as we saw in one incident, this led to a Trump supporter sucker punching him. Further, the rage that is produced at the rally, when witnessed on TV, leads to further rage. We saw this happening on March 11, 2016 in Chicago shortly after Trump’s taunting was televised. Trump supporters and protesters clashed so viciously that the event had to be cancelled. Then, the next day, at another rally, this one in Vandalia, trump10Ohio, a furious man jumped a barrier and rushed the stage. No one was hurt, but Mr. Trump was obviously shaken up from the incident, sweating profusely. The January 6 storming of the Capitol is the most devastating example.

In my opinion, we are much better off letting security and law enforcement do their job without wildly throwing out taunts and supporting the days when it was okay to beat up people.

reasonableSimilarly, if Trump felt those demonstrations in front of Trump Tower should not be happening, he always has the option of calling law enforcement, expressing his concern, and then letting them decide if any laws are being broken, and if so, law enforcement will professionally handle the situation. In the case currently under way, he was clearly not in any danger. He claims he didn’t even know about the incident until the next day. Even if he knew about the incident as it was going on, he was safely in his office numerous floors above the event.

———————
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.