Welcome to From Insults To Respect.
Some of my blog posts are designed to help readers improve their skill at providing negative criticism. In them, I present a system of rating the maturity of each incident (see HERE). I then describe an incident or two in which someone provides negative criticism, and then readers are asked to use the rating system to assign a rating. Immediately after doing so, I provide my rating, thereby providing an opportunity for readers to compare their rating with mine (for an example see HERE). Participating in this type of exercise is fun, and helps readers to think more deeply about when not to provide negative criticism, and how best to provide it when it makes sense to do so.
Today I offer readers another opportunity to practice this skill, this time utilizing two examples of different people criticizing President Biden’s military withdrawal from Afghanistan. Before getting to those examples, I shall describe how the rating system works so readers who have already read my earlier posts will have an opportunity to refresh their memories, and readers who have not will still be able to participate.
The Providing Negative Criticism Rating System
Below you will find preliminary descriptions of how people at five developmental levels of maturity provide negative criticism, that is, criticism that points out what we don’t like about someone’s actions, beliefs, or appearance. Level one is conceptualized as the most immature and uses observations of babies as its starting point. Each successive level is viewed according to this system as more mature.
It is perfectly permissible to disagree about whether or not one level is indeed more mature than another. Regardless of any disagreement, playing along with utilizing the system in these practice sessions still serves to clarify for readers what they personally view as mature and immature ways to deal with these types of incidents.
To utilize this rating system, readers compare an incident of negative criticism with each of the five levels, and then they decide which of the five levels best matches the incident being rated. Then they decide according to their own lights how mature the incident was handled:
- This level requires displaying one or more of the following:
- Cries without stating what the crying is about
- Physically attacks the person being criticized
- Damages property
(Although these three descriptors may not appear to be incidents of providing criticism, in some situations we can see that it is the very beginning of the development of this skill. Let’s say Jill takes baby Bob’s crayon away believing he is done with it. Bob begins to cry and takes a swipe at Jill. She manages, by moving away, to avoid Bob’s swipe. Bob now looks even angrier and crumbles up a piece of paper and flings it on the floor. An observer to this may conclude that Bob, in a sense, is criticizing Jill for taking the crayon.)
2. This level requires displaying one or both of the following:
- The criticizer does not explain what the offending behavior is, but instead expresses displeasure with general words of dislike, glares, insults, shouting, silence, or threats that do not involve bodily harm. (For example, someone might be making too much noise and the criticizer might turn to the noise maker and glare, or cry out, “Jerk!”)
- Threatens bodily harm regardless of what else is said.
3. The criticizer clearly states the criticism with enough detail so the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance, but couples it with glares, insults, shouts, or threats that are not about bodily harm.
4. The criticizer states the criticism without bodily attacks, damaging property, glares, insults, threats, or shouts, and with enough details so that the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance. If the person receiving the criticism becomes defensive or angry, the criticizer empathizes without returning, glares, insults, threats, or shouts.
5. When the criticizer provides criticism, he or she does so in a manner very similar to a level four response, but beforehand, the criticizer considers the person who is the target of the criticism, and the situation that he or she is in. As a result of such considerations, the criticizer may decide to alter the criticism.
Rating Two Incidents of Negative Criticism Directed at President Biden
On August 17, 2021 NPR published an article by Barbara Sprunt titled, “There’s A Bipartisan Backlash To How Biden Handled The Withdrawal From Afghanistan” (see HERE). There we find several quotes from people providing negative criticism of Biden. We’ll be looking at two of them.
The First Incident
In an August 16, 2021 tweet, given shortly after President Biden gave a speech explaining how the withdrawing of U.S. military forces from Afghanistan was going, Rep. Liz Cheney, who has on numerous occasions argued that we should remain in Afghanistan, wrote:
“Biden’s surrender strengthens our terrorist enemies, hands them a massive new caliphate [A government led by a chief Muslim ruler], abandons our allies & ensures a longer, costlier war for years to come.”
Now, if you will, compare Rep. Cheney’s style of criticizing Biden’s decision to withdraw U.S. military forces to each of the five levels of maturity to see if one of them best matches her style. After doing so, feel free to rate how she did on a scale of 1 to 5, the higher the number the more mature you think her criticism was. After you do this, compare your rating with mine.
My Rating of the First Incident
I can’t see if Rep. Cheney was crying when she tweeted her criticism, but according to this rating system it doesn’t really matter because she made it clear what her criticism was about. Since she did not physically attack Biden, nor is there any indication that she destroyed any property while she wrote the tweet, there is insufficient reason to say her criticism matches Level 1.
Level 2 begins, “The criticizer does not explain what the offending behavior is. Since Rep. Cheney is pretty clear what she objects to—Biden’s military withdrawal– I think her criticism is a poor match with level 2, so I’ll move on to see if her tweet better matches level 3.
Level 3 states in part, “The criticizer clearly states the criticism with enough detail so the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance.” I think this part of level 3 matches Rep. Cheney’s criticism. That is, she makes it clear that she did not want him to remove the U.S. military forces. If President Biden, as commander in chief of the U.S. military, wanted to accept her advice, it was within his power to do so.
The second part of the level 3 descriptor indicates that to get a 3 rating we would have had to observe that her advice was coupled with glares, insults, shouts, or threats that are not about bodily harm. I’m not seeing anything in her criticism that matches any of these descriptors. Of course, in a tweet two of the descriptors of level 3–glaring and shouting–can’t be observed, but in this rating system if we don’t observe the behavior we don’t penalize the person by lowering someone’s rating.
Now, I understand that some people looking at level 3 and seeing the descriptor “insult” might think that simply because Rep. Cheney negatively criticized Biden this in itself is an insult. For the purpose of this rating system, that is not the case. She would have had to call Biden some insulting name or directed an insulting gesture at him for one of her acts to count as an attempt to insult him. Therefore, I’ve decided her criticism does not sufficiently match the level 3 description.
How about level 4? Are its descriptors a good match for this incident of negative criticism? I think so. The match is particularly helped by the absence of insults. As for the condition in level 4 that describes how to act if the criticized person becomes defensive, in this incident we are not provided with any evidence that Biden did become defensive, so the condition of defensiveness is irrelevant.
What about level 5. To get that rating, I would have to see some evidence that Rep. Cheney prior to formulating it had considered the person who is the target of the criticism, and the situation that he or she is in. Perhaps she did, but in my opinion, if she had done so, she would not have criticized Biden at all. Here’s why.
Rep. Cheney well knew at the time she provided the criticism Biden had heard each of her arguments about keeping U.S. military forces in Afghanistan numerous times over the course of many years. Given what Biden was dealing with during the interval of time she criticized him, I personally think it was not the proper time to be repeating old arguments. The situation involved Biden having already decided that the U.S. forces are to be withdrawn, the U.S. had one airbase that could be used to get U.S. and allied personnel and equipment out of harm’s way, the base was surrounded by enemies with guns, and there was a terrible risk of suicide bombers killing people. The immediate focus should have been, in my opinion, on carrying out the mission as safely as possible. Rep. Cheney, in my opinion, would have acted in a more mature manner if she realized that there will be plenty of time after the mission is completed to argue over the wisdom of withdrawal. To wait until then would have been a better course of action. She, certainly has a right to express her opinion at any point in time, but I am going to withhold giving her the highest rating of a 5, because her criticism didn’t consider the current situation to my personal satisfaction. Thus, I think she deserves a rating of 4.
The Second Incident
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, on August 16, 2021, which was squarely in the middle of the withdrawal process, called the events unfolding in Afghanistan “the worst foreign policy disaster in decades.” He went on from there to say:
President Biden’s poor judgment produced the worst possible outcome in Afghanistan in only a matter of weeks. He has done long-term damage to America’s credibility and our capabilities. The American people, and especially our troops who have sacrificed so much, deserve more than this catastrophic leadership and empty words.
Now, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with McCarthy, utilizing the rating system, what level best matches his criticism?
My Rating of the Second Incident
I think McCarthy’s criticism best matches level 2 of this rating system. It does so largely because it fails to provide any specifics about what Biden could do differently that would have been an improvement. The criticism is basically McCarthy expressing dislike of what Biden was doing coupled with vague insults (“poor judgment,” “catastrophic leadership”).
My personal rating of this type of criticism is a 1, the lowest possible rating, because McCarthy never acknowledges the actual role that Biden has in this withdrawal process. Biden had simply decided to back the position of the vast majority of Americans that after 20 years it was time to end the war. Once this was decided, it was up to the generals who were actually in Afghanistan, knew best what the situation was there, had the best U.S. training on how to withdraw from a war zone, had ample time to come up with a withdrawal plan, and had the responsibility to implement the plan.
If well before the withdrawal process got underway McCarthy had identified a plan that he had reason to believe would be distinctly better than anything the generals could come up with, that would have been the time for him to begin a process to promote his plan, This would involve advocating that Biden thoroughly review his proposal, and that Biden order his generals to review it. If this had happened and Biden refused, then McCarthy would have had a legitimate reason to criticize Biden, though not when the heated withdrawal process was actually underway. As I see it, McCarthy’s negative criticism, occurring in the midst of the withdrawal process, amounts to his taking unfair, unkind potshots at a political rival.
Negative criticism, it seems to me, should only be provided if it has some potential for helping the target of the criticism improve in some tangible way.
Conclusion
Well, there you have it, a little practice session utilizing the rating system. I hope it has helped to clarify for you how to formulate mature negative criticism, and when to remain silent. By improving these skills, I’m guessing it will improve the respect others have for you, and help you to avoid needlessly creating hard feelings.
Now, not all negative criticism is provided in order to help the target of the criticism improve in some way. For example, sometimes it is done as part of a game called playful teasing. In the arena of politics, from which today’s two examples were selected, candidates might angrily launch criticism at a person because they know their potential voters are angry at that same person. By candidates demonstrating they are angry at the same person, they hope these voters will experience a shared connection with them and this will increase the likelihood of getting more votes come election time. This strategy is a major cause for the awful polarization and incivility in politics. Not all candidates are willing to campaign in this way, believing that our country would be better off if all of us learned to be civil with one another.
———————————
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.
Today, most people conceptualize the main issues of the conflict pretty much like the independent, nonpartisan think tank 
The biblical story of Moses describes a narrative that is helpful for understanding this theory. After struggling to survive for forty years in the desert that lies between Egypt and Israel, Moses’ weary followers come to view, off in the distance, the “land of milk and honey.” Moses then tells his Jewish people that God has declared that this land can belong to them if they kill all of the people currently living there. Even though the inhabitants of this desirable land had never done the desert wanderers any harm, they choose to engage in the brutal slayings.
The Pulitzer Prize winning historian, David McCullough, has acquired a set of relevant information.
And then George Washington, with the support from others, opened the vast Northwest Territory to pioneers who were willing to face incredible risks, hard work, and, like Moses’ followers, kill the natives of the region so they could gain ownership of a piece of property that had an ample water supply and fertile land.
We had landed sick among strangers, with no well-known friend to meet us with kindly greeting, and myself destined to be confined to bed from which, for a time, there seemed little hope that I should ever rise in health. Such was our introduction to pioneer life. 
To risk your own life along with that of your wife and children would typically be viewed as terribly wrong under most situations. Typically viewed as terribly wrong is the willing killing of fellow human beings because you want the land they are living on. To choose to do all of this while also knowing that the life you are heading toward involves backbreaking work may seem crazy to most of us, but such was the decision made by the hundreds of thousands of pioneers, all of this for a piece of rich land they could call their own. Please note that these pioneers were not Muslims, but Christians. For those who think the cause of the current Middle East is due the Muslim faith, please keep this in mind.
In the land where Israelis and Palestinians are living, there are regions where we see land beside the beautiful Mediterranean Sea. There, many people are thriving. Their jobs support seafood harvesting, international trade, and tourists arriving on ships. There are a few other regions where the inhabitants do very well, such as where the religious sites are. There, tourists flock, and by engaging in the restaurant, tour guide, and hotel industries, many in the region make out very well. 
There are also regions where the land is relatively fertile, and life on farms can be rather fulfilling. Regions in which universities and other educational institutions that have sprung up tend to be laid out on fairly attractive grounds. Earning a living by supporting these facilities tends to lead to a reasonably comfortable way of life.
The rest of the area is dominated by the Negev desert and the Judean desert. More than half of the region’s total land area is desert.
The other area where most Palestinians live is the West Bank, which is mostly rugged dissected upland, with some vegetation in the west, but somewhat barren in the east. In springtime, the khamsini, a dry, warm easterly wind, often blows from the extensive deserts of Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. This continues for a period of roughly fifty days. The khamsini carries fine desert sand that lends the sultry air an ominous yellow hue during the day. The desert sand falls to the ground as a result of short rain showers. The fine sand is a health hazard for people suffering from bronchitis, and is detrimental to vegetation, motors, and machinery.
The water situation in Palestine (the West Bank and Gaza Strip) is dire and it affects the quality of life, health and economic situation of every Palestinian. In some rural areas the water supply is far below the amount recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). Where most of the Israelis live, the water situation is somewhat better, but it is far more expensive to keep it flowing than what most Americans and Europeans have to deal with.
After World War II, no nation was willing to take any but a tiny few of the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust. Where could those now living in Israel go if they are pushed out of Israel? The answer leads them to hold on to the land they currently possess for dear life.
Add to all of this, the fact that these Palestinians are living in one of the most densely populated regions in the world. Moreover, they know the population there is rapidly growing. So, it is pretty clear to everyone living in this region that life for their children is likely to get worse.
Although different reasons are given for these violent conflicts, according to my theory, the real central reason was that the have nots who were being pushed out toward the more desert parts of this region could readily see from views up in the hills those who were living in the dramatically better lands; this aroused violently strong desires to obtain what they did not have–fertile land with ample water.
There we find a vibrant neighborhood officially known as Bay Ridge, but it has been given the nickname “Little Palestine.” Thousands of Arab-Americans live there. They have their share of rally’s advocating the freeing of Palestine, but they are peaceful. Another neighborhood, Bensonhurst, is an easy walk from Bay Ridge. Thousands of Jews live there, and yet there are no rockets being fired from Bay Ridge into Bensonhurst. Nor do we find any of the Arab-Americans flinging rocks at anyone. 
Recently, these Jews and Arabs marched shoulder to shoulder with one another and with their Black brothers in support of Black Lives Matter.
Then there are the numerous tree-lined streets and green, wooded Prospect Park with rowers enjoying its lovely lake. If these people want to grow some vegetables or fruit trees in their back yard, there is plenty of rich soil that can be brought to the task and rain is normally sufficient. However, for brief dry periods, if these people want to water their garden with a hose, that is perfectly permitted. For those folks who don’t live in a house with a backyard, they typically have jobs that put the purchase of such a home within reach, if not for themselves, then at least for their children.
If these people happen to fall on hard times and can’t afford to continue to live in Brooklyn, they know they could move across the Hudson River onto the New Jersey side where it is a bit more affordable. If Jersey is a little too densely populated for their taste, there are a total of fifty states that they can freely move. Throughout the US are numerous regions sparsely inhabited, and no passport is required to go there. In my view, this knowledge takes the edge off of any disagreements Arab-Americans and Jews might face.
It is now over seventy years since the United Nations General Assembly declared its majority recommendation that Palestine be partitioned into separate Jewish and Arab states, and both sides have been violently fighting over this ever since. It is not that there is something inherently evil about Palestinian or Jewish people. When Jews were seeking to establish the Israel lands as theirs, a group of them organized a terrorist organization. Palestinians have found that sections of their population are willing to carry out terrorists acts. Why can’t this be settled peacefully? If my theory is correct, it doesn’t matter if you are Palestinian, Jewish, Christian or anything else. When any people find themselves living on lands that is too hard to thrive, some of them will act violently to seek a better life. Blaming such groups, viewing them as being entirely evil serves nothing but to further hate and distractions.
As each school year begins I like to once again post this discussion of how I would rate a school district’s handling of an incident in which a bus monitor was taunted by some middle school children during their bus ride home.
Nevertheless, when I heard the district say, “The Greece Central School District has a clear Code of Conduct and all staff and students have been fully trained,” I found myself cringing. In my opinion, if a bus monitor makes a referral about tormenting and bullying on the bus, if the monitor is left feeling that nothing is done, something is seriously wrong.
Feeling depressed? If so, you may decide to consult with a psychiatrist or other medical doctor. By doing so, chances are your description of your feelings will be translated into a language of symptoms, diagnosis, and mental illness, and you will leave the doctor’s office with a prescription for pills marketed as “antidepressants.” Unfortunately, this medicalization approach is so inconsistent with scientific evidence that many people view it as a remarkably successful flimflam funded by the enormously wealthy pharmaceutical industry.
To throw light on this, today’s post briefly summarizes the scientific theory that runs counter to the mainstream psychiatric pathologizing “antidepressant” approach. Then, it addresses the question, Are doctors and the pharmaceutical industry supporting the pathologizing of depression really engaging in deliberate deception?
A few weeks ago I presented a 
Moreover, our findings suggest that these relationships are at least partly mediated by negative self-evaluations that people have when they experience undesired emotions. Attempts to promote the value of feeling good over the value of feeling bad by emphasizing social norms for these emotions may therefore have the effect of making people feel bad more often.
Psychologist William James, back in 1902, in his classic book, The Varieties of Religious Experience, provides us a ton of such examples. Most of them involve a religious conversion experience, but James also provides examples that appear to be a result of “…the eruption into the individual’s life of some new stimulus or passion, such as love, ambition, cupidity, revenge, or patriotic devotion.”
A recent 
Depression is an adaptation that evolved because it keeps organisms focused on (ruminating about) complex social issues until they can be resolved and that medications work not so much by addressing a nonexistent deficit in neurotransmitters in the synapse as by perturbing underlying regulatory mechanisms to the point that they reassert homeostatic control over those systems. If the latter is true then medications may work to suppress symptoms in a manner that leaves the underlying episode unaddressed and patients at elevated risk of relapse whenever they are taken away. 
For example, he describes studies that demonstrate depressed individuals who are treated to remission with cognitive therapy are less than half as likely to relapse following treatment termination as a matched group of depressed folks treated to remission with antidepressant medications. He goes on from here to argue that some people have trouble working through their depression efficiently because they misinterpret life events in a negative fashion and that cognitive therapy helps them examine the accuracy of their beliefs, and by so doing it relieves their distress more quickly. Prof. Hollon goes on to say, “it 
Although Prof. Hollon focusses on the benefits of cognitive therapy, other research has found that counseling that focusses on resolving interpersonal problems, and humanistic approaches to therapy that empathetically values what each person is going through, are also often helpful. Such approaches avoid the numerous side effects of “antidepressants” and the awful withdrawal reactions that occur upon ending one’s reliance on drug treatment.
As long as the drug has been approved by the FDA for depression, then I’m willing to give it a try with my patients. In time, I carefully monitor whether or not the drug is being helpful. With the antidepressants most of my patients have done well on them, and several have told me it has saved their life. I also want to add that the leading experts in the field support the use of these antidepressants as first line treatments for depression and argue that it would be malpractice to not prescribe them to depressed patients. Even if I was to agree with your research analysis, I could not risk getting sued for malpractice.
As far as the pharmaceutical industry engaging in a flimflam, here I have little first hand knowledge to draw any firm conclusions. My knowledge chiefly comes from reading The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us And What To Do About It. It was written by Marcia Angell, M.D., the former editor in chief of the prestigious medical journal The New England Journal of Medicine and she is currently a member of Harvard Medical School’s Department of Social Medicine. I came away from reading her book thinking that the enormous profit motive in the industry does lead to substantial bias in how research is carried out and the information they provide to medical doctors.
I do think the FDA does serve a valuable function for evaluating treatments for diseases that have clearly objective criteria for identifying their existence. For example, when patients who have a cancerous tumor, it can be objectively seen by doctors with the use of an imaging device. How large each of the patient’s tumor is can be assessed objectively by measuring its circumference. In a clinical trial that has half of the patients randomly assigned to a group that gets a placebo, and the other half to a new drug, if, after three months, the placebo group’s subjects tend to have tumors that grew larger, while those getting the new drug have shrunk, this shows a clear benefit for the drug treatment.
Unlike these types of objectively identifiable conditions, with depression doctors rely on a subjective indication of effectiveness, that is, a conversation. Moreover, the studies that the FDA looked at to approve the “antidepressants” were done with patients who took the actual drugs for a mere few weeks, even though doctors regularly advocate that their patients take the drug for far longer, often for the rest of their life. It is the long term studies that came out after the FDA approval process that has begun to indicate that these drugs are likely to be worse than non-drug approaches.
Recall that doctors often will defend their use of “antidepressant” by saying, “With the antidepressants, most of my patients have done well on them, and several have told me it has saved their life.” The problem with this, as noted earlier in this post, is that people with depression spontaneously recover at a high rate even without treatment. It is this fact that leads to the doctor’s misattribution.
Consider another example. Dr. Smith has prescribed an “antidepressant” for depressed patient Marc. Not feeling any better despite taking the drug for several weeks, Dr. Smith tells Mark, “It takes time for the drug to have an effect, so give it a little more time.” A few more weeks go by with no improvement, so Dr. Smith tells Marc, the dose of the drug needs a little adjustment because some folks need a little more than others. When a few more weeks go by with no improvement, Dr. Smith responds by prescribing a different “antidepressant.”
I have presented the case that medical doctors typically genuinely believe their prescriptions for”antidepressants” are effective, and therefore are not deliberately seeking to mislead their patients in order to make more money. Their process of coming to their belief about the effectiveness of these types of drugs is indeed deeply flawed, but a quality evaluation appears to be a too arduous process for each doctor to perform. I have heard that in my area doctors in medical practice for a medical company find their company advocates each patient be seen for a mere few minutes. I do think medical doctors must understand that their drug information is coming from people selling the drugs. Although I respect doctors for their life saving efforts, I would respect them more if they would ban together and hire a team of epidemiologists to provide an independent evaluation of the risk and benefits of these treatments.
When I discuss problems with the “antidepressant” approach for dealing with depression, some folks who are currently taking such drugs sometimes decide to stop taking their pills. Suddenly stopping them all at once can be risky because of a variety of distressing withdrawal reactions possibly including waves of suicidal feelings. For help in deciding on the safest way to go about the withdrawal process, I recommend tapping into Mad In America’s “Drug Withdrawal Resources” page (see 
We have all experienced name calling, insults and teasing, even the greatest presidents, the most talented athletes, and every member of your favorite band. If someone insults you, calls you names, or teases you, it does NOT mean that you are a bad person.
Now, as I was wondering what to write about for this week’s post, I noticed C-SPAN had just announced the results of its 
“Did Stanton say I was a d–d fool?” asked Lincoln at the close of the recital.
he inference is erroneous. Lincoln, so far as I could discover, was in every respect the actual head of the administration, and whenever he chose to do so, he controlled Stanton as well as all the other Cabinet ministers.” Fry related a conflict between President Lincoln and Secretary Stanton which concluded with the following dialogue in Stanton’s office. Stanton said: “Now Mr. President, those are the facts, and you must see that your order cannot be executed.” The President cordially replied: “Mr. Secretary, I reckon you’ll have to execute the order.” Stanton objected: “Mr. President, I cannot do it. The order is an improper one, and I cannot execute it.” The President stared down the shorter Stanton and firmly issued an order: “Mr. Secretary, it will have to be done.” And indeed it was.
As for the Gettysburg Address—one of the most powerful speeches in human history, one that many American schoolchildren can recite by heart (Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth …) and a statement of national purpose that for some rivals the Declaration of Independence—a Pennsylvania newspaper reported, “We pass over the silly remarks of the President. For the credit of the nation we are willing that the veil of oblivion shall be dropped over them, and they shall be no more repeated or thought of.” A London Times correspondent wrote, “Anything more dull and commonplace it wouldn’t be easy to produce.”
I think Alexander Hamilton Stephens, who had served as the Vice President of the Confederacy, well expressed what many who had an opportunity to get to know Lincoln came to feel about him. Thus, in a speech several years after the war, Stephens recalled getting to know Lincoln when they both served together in the House of Representatives prior to the war. “He was warm hearted; he was generous; he was magnanimous, ‘with malice toward none, with charity for all.'”
If you can keep your head when all about you 
A couple of years ago I wrote a post titled, “
Don’t you dare start with this crap or I’ll give you a real reason to cry! You’re acting like an infant!!! Now you stop this instant and get to bed!!!”
“I see you are feeling sad. That’s understandable. You were enjoying the game so much, and you’re disappointed about having to stop. You know, when we feel sad, it’s to help us figure out how to better handle what we do in the future. I wonder how we can better handle the going to bed situation. Any ideas, Carl?”
A team of researchers (Brock Bastian, et al.) published an article in the peer reviewed journal Emotion titled, “Feeling Bad About Being Sad: The Role of Social Expectancies in Amplifying Negative Mood.” The authors begin by summarizing previous relevant research, then describe four studies they carried out to throw light on this subject, and then present their conclusions. The entire article can be viewed for free 
Daily we are reminded of the value of happiness, from TV advertising that highlights the hedonic pleasures of consumption, to national campaigns designed to improve happiness and well-being.
Meanwhile, commonplace emotional experiences such as sadness, depression, or anxiety are pathologized and medicalized, viewed as deviant from desired norms…. Negative emotions are touted as bad for our health… and can be “cured” with an array of drugs and interventions designed to quickly and efficiently return us to normality. On the other hand, the many benefits of negative emotions, such as their creative potential…, importance for interpersonal relations…, and role in achieving a rich and meaningful life… are rarely prominent in current social discourse. 
[T]he importance placed on happiness and the devaluation of sadness is not as apparent in Asian cultures. In Japan, acceptance, emotional balance, and even hardship are highly valued, and the pursuit of happiness often has “immoral” connotations.
Among the findings, there was a clear tendency for Australian individuals to feel worse about themselves when experiencing negative emotions than the Japanese individuals who were more likely to view sadness as normal and helpful.
Emotions are fundamentally social phenomena. Our research provides the first evidence that people’s generalized beliefs about how others expect them to feel may play a central role in their emotional experience and well-being. Our work shows that the more people hold beliefs that others expect them not to experience negative emotions, the more frequently and intensely they are likely to experience those negative emotions. Such ironic effects also relate to indicators of well-being, such as satisfaction with life and depression. 
Now, relevant to this discussion, there does exist some evidence that sometimes people who experience depression end up hurting themselves, or lapse into periods in which their functioning diminishes. This evidence is used by many psychiatrists to urge people to take psychiatric drugs. But, is it really the depression that leads these people to hurt themselves, or is it how they respond to their sad feelings that lead to various undesirable outcomes?
During an early part of my psychological services provider career, I was hired as a school psychologist in Rochester, New York. There, students were regularly referred to me because a teacher or parent had become concerned about how a student was doing at school.
When I met individually with these students, I first introduced myself, and then I’d say something like, “I was asked to meet with you to see if we can figure out how to make school better for you.” Then I’d spend a little time trying to see if we had some common interest, such as some music stars, baseball players, TV shows, etc. By connecting with students in this pleasant way, it lightened up our exchange. Next, I got down more directly to the business at hand, seeking to find out, from the student’s perspective, how school was going.
Early in my tenure in this job, this meant that I would just ask the question, “Say, by the way, how’s school going for you this year?” Typically, I would get just a very brief answer, such as, “OK,” or, “I hate school.” Naturally, I wanted to explore more deeply this issue, so I would clumsily begin to ask followup questions and too often I wouldn’t get much that was helpful. However, in time, I developed a psychological interview that really managed to be insightful in figuring out ways to improve a student’s school experience. So, today I thought I would share it with you, for I think it would be helpful, not only for other school psychologists, but for teachers and parents as well.
Well, there you have it, an outline for a psychological interview that will help to draw out important information regarding a student’s school experience. Why might this be a useful thing to do? I found, when using this approach, that students very much appreciate an adult really taking the time to see how they are doing. Moreover, discussing the results of the interview with people I respect and the parents and the educators working with the student often led to some helpful ideas for improving the student’s school experience
To take one example, I once interviewed a student we will call Bobby. He indicated that this school year was going very bad for him by circling a 1 on that question. On further questioning, Bobby indicated he found school had him sitting way too much, he had no friends, and he enjoyed and thought he was good at playing chess.
Bobby had learned to play chess when he was younger. His older brother had taught him, and they had enjoyed playing against one another, but in recent years his brother preferred playing with some guys his own age. With no one to play with, Bobby would read some books on chess, and he also watched a lot of TV. On the questionnaire, it became clear that he got no exercise other than two times per week when he had his physical education class.
To address the issue of a lack of exercise and that Bobby felt uncomfortable sitting so long at school, he and his whole family began to take an hour walk after supper twice a week, and on the weekend they would take an even longer hike. This added walking each week made it much easier for Bobby to sit for long periods during school hours, and it no doubt is supportive of a healthier lifestyle.
I had derived this level along with the three higher levels by first making a lot of TV shows with a variety of actors. In each show, the actors respond to criticism in different ways. Then I asked others to view the shows. Together, the viewers and I discussed our reactions to the way the actors in the video recordings handle criticism.
So I wrote a post about this titled, “
Incredibly, the topic of crying continues to be brought up by readers of this blog, thus leading me to write several additional posts delving into more and more subtle domains. Examples of these can be found in posts titled “
You been down to the bottom with a bad man, babe
How well did the character in the song handle this crying situation? In thinking about this, I think we can agree that when someone is crying, there are times when it can be annoying. For example, I was once in a hotel room, extremely tired, trying to fall asleep. A baby on the other side of my wall began to let it all out at the top of her or his lungs. I recognized that it wasn’t the baby’s fault, and as a parent myself, I felt some compassion for what was going on. Nevertheless, I sure wished that baby would please stop crying.
In the Dylan song, the character he created is not a baby, he cares about her, but pleads with her to stop crying. He tries to be helpful by offering to pay her fare to go to a more pleasant place–the river. He also lets her know that if she wants to have a friend to talk with, he’s more than willing to make himself available. He does say please, when pleading for her to stop crying.
Hmmm. Well, if the person identified as babe in the song is crying and it begins to wear on my nerves, I don’t think I would ask her to please stop crying. I guess what I would do is say something like, “Babe, I’m going to take a walk around the block for a few minutes to deal with some feelings that are coming up within me regarding what you are going through. I’ll be back as soon as I can, and then if you think of anything I can do to help, please let me know.” As I prepare to leave, I might go over to her, give her a tender kiss on the cheek, and a gentle loving touch on the back of her shoulder.
“Crazy” is a concept used when people are puzzled about the actions of others or themselves. By using this type of name calling, it really doesn’t provide any clarification, but to some, they think it does. So, we might hear something like the following conversation:
Nevertheless, I would like you to consider the following possibility.
Trump’s supporters, in addition to being called crazy, have repeatedly been called mentally ill as a way to make sense of what seems to be irrational. Because the mental illness concept is supported by many doctors, including many psychiatrists and psychologists, some folks have been left with the impression that it must be a more sound, scientific concept than “crazy.” Is it?
When psychiatrists use their mental illness classification system and call it a diagnostic system, they do so despite numerous scientific arguments about its shortcomings (see 
You have trouble starting your car. You bring it to Fred, your friendly local mechanic. On hearing your concern, he provides an initial theory of what is causing this—perhaps your car needs a new starter. This is the initial “theoretical” diagnosis. Then, Fred inspects the starter and finds that it is in fine shape. Thus, his original theory of what is wrong proves incorrect. He then theorizes that your spark plugs are dirty. He takes a look and finds that they are indeed dirty. He cleans them up, puts them back in their proper place, and the car starts right up. In the end, he “diagnosed” what was wrong with your car—it had dirty spark plugs.
The psychiatric mental illness diagnostic system is described in a manual published with the title, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). There it refers to itself as a manual for making diagnoses. This masks the difference between the following three types of statements:
The DSM does not claim its so called “diagnostic classifications” are just a theory of what the cause is for the expressed concern; it doesn’t even provide a theory. The manual’s developers explicitly say it is theory neutral. The DSM labels are just type 3 statements, that is, just statements that restate expressed concerns into medical jargon. Thus, the lack of reliability and validity for the DSM classifications and applying the word “diagnosis” to them in a misleading, imprecise manner are just three of its many serious principles of science violations.
Contrast psychiatry’s DSM “diagnosis” system with a diagnosis system used by other doctors. If someone comes to a virologist expressing a concern about being feverish, having difficulty breathing, and loss of taste, the doctor will label these as the patient’s medical complaints, rather then simply translating the complaints into medical jargon and then claiming the jargon constitutes the diagnosis. Instead, the virologist, after writing down the various complaints, will then look for the cause for these complaints. If it is found that there is the presence of the Covid 19 virus, the doctor will say the diagnosis is a Covid 19 infection.
On one fine spring day, I was sitting on a Central Park bench and two women were sitting one bench just to my right reading their newspapers. Suddenly, one of them cried out, “Sophie, can you believe this! The story I’m reading here, oh my God! This young boy, seventeen years old mind you, the same age as my Jonathan, he’s struggling with ideas about suicide. Seventeen years old, his whole life before him and he wants to kill himself. What would lead a boy to this?”
With that explanation, the two women nodded to one another, and continued on to another story, seemingly satisfied that they now knew why the boy was dealing with this issue.
In my opinion, even a play, which lasts but two or three hours, can only provide in its narrative a simplified account of what real life stories are all about. And yet, in today’s world, for many people a very different type of play is sufficient for providing the reason why someone is dealing with a challenging concern. This new type of play begins with the curtain rising. A character says to the audience he is struggling with feelings of suicide. A psychiatrist then proclaims the character has the mental disorder known as major depressive disorder, and then the curtain comes down. That’s the whole play. And people walk away fully satisfied that an adequate explanation has been provided.
That said, I leave you with the following suggestion: If you have a theory of why people continue to support Trump and his continued claims that he won the 2020 presidential election by a landslide, let those with whom you want to share your theory know it is a “theory,” and forgo the mental illness name calling. By doing so, you may not get as many cheers from people who agree with you. Nevertheless, among people truly seeking to deepen their understanding of this difficult to understand phenomenon, you will be more respected. Moreover, for those who may disagree with your theory, they will appreciate your ability to distinguish fact from theory. You’ll come across, I theorize, as more open-minded and you will be modeling a higher level of discourse than what we have been hearing from many of our political leaders.
Welcome to From Insults to Respect. Today we examine a conflict witnessed by millions that involves U.S. Congressman Jim Jordan at a U.S. House Coronavirus Hearing angrily questioning infectious disease expert Dr. Fauci. It can be viewed on YouTube 
Briefly, Congressman Jordan desired to defend the U.S. Constitution and the liberty of Americans. In his view, interfering with his desire are a set of recommendations developed by the CDC that Dr. Fauci has given voice to as part of the job the current president has hired him to do. Jordan appears to believe Dr. Fauci is guilty of promoting recommendations that interfere with liberty and the Constitution. At the same time, Dr. Fauci desires to do his job without facing personal attacks and a style of questioning that he referred to as ranting.
At first, Dr. Fauci is reluctant to describe the objective measure, explaining it depends on a variety of ever changing conditions, such as the percentage of people who will agree to be vaccinated, how resistant new emerging variants of the virus will be to the available vaccines, and other factors that can sprout up. But, after making clear that any estimate that he gives must be viewed as very tentative, Dr. Fauci finally provides his best guess–when the number of daily infections drop to 10,000 a day, which may very well be reached by early to mid summer if the vast majority of people are vaccinated.
You said that when Texas ended their lockdown, ended their mandates, this was inexplicable and this would, quote, “lead to a surge in cases.” But Texas is at the bottom of the 50 states. But all of the states at the top are lockdown states. So, that guess didn’t look too good. What explains why Texas is so darn low as compared to the rest of the states. Lockdown states have a much higher rate than the state of Texas which over a month ago said that we’re not going to have all these lockdowns and all of these mandates that you say we have to have a lockdown.
Jordan: Dr. Fauci, when is the time? When, in your written statement you say, “Now is not the time to pull back on masking, physical distancing, and avoiding congregating settings. When is the time? When do Americans get their freedom back? 
Dr. Fauci: When we get the levels of infection in this country low enough that it is not a really high threat.
Jordan: What measure. I mean, are we just going to continue forever. When do we get to the point? What measure, what objective outcome do we have to reach before Americans get their liberty and freedom back? 
Jordan, his voice has become louder: You don’t think that American liberties have been threatened the past year, Dr Fauci? They’ve been assaulted, their liberties have.
At this point, Jordan again interrupts in the middle of Dr. Fauci’s sentence and begins to list examples of Americans loss of liberty, and among them, he says, “The governor of our third largest state meets with physicians and that video is censored because it dared to disagree with Dr. Fauci, so I just want to know when Americans are going to get their liberties back.”
Dr. Fauci: My answers are consistent with [cross talk] may I answer the question please. My recommendations are not a personal recommendation. They are based on the CDC guidance and which are underscored by…
Dr. Fauci: Right now we have about sixty thousand infections a day, which is a very large risk for a surge. We’re not talking about liberties, we’re talking about a pandemic that has killed 560,000 Americans. That’s what we are talking about.
Dr. Fauci: Well, you just said people can’t assemble in their own homes. They can. That’s a CDC recommendation. [after some crosstalk Dr. Fauci continues] You are going to see a gradual, from, right now we are at an unacceptable high level, regardless of who you are. We’re going to see, as more and more people are vaccinated and we get over three million people a day, you are going to see the level of infection go down and down, and gradually there will be more flexibility to doing the things you are talking about. 
Dr. Fauci: You are asking for a number. If I have a number, it would have to be my best estimate, and that would be that when the number of infections a day are well below ten thousand a day. At that point, there would be a gradual pulling back of a number of the restrictions you are talking about, particularly when people are vaccinated more and more because a combination of, if you are vaccinated you are protecting yourself for sure, and the more people who get vaccinated in the community, the lower the number of infections will be.
Dr. Fauci: You’re ranting again.
Let’s begin with Congressman Jordan. Most of his questions were relevant and initially he doesn’t sound particularly belligerent. In my opinion, he could have done better throughout by asking his questions in a warm and friendly manner. When Dr. Fauci made a few comments that Jordan objected to, rather than utilizing the conflict resolution skill of disagreeing without being disagreeable, he instead angrily raises his voice and repeatedly interrupts Dr. Fauci in mid-sentence. What would disagreeing without being disagreeable have looked like in their exchange? I think by empathetically providing statements from time to time that indicated he knows Dr. Fauci has been the bearer of bad news throughout the pandemic and that’s a rough situation to be in, could have helped to traverse some of the roughest terrain of this conflict.
Now, let’s turn to critiquing Dr. Fauci’s handling of the conflict. With the exception of three brief moments, I think he kept his tone of voice in a matter of fact manner that was fitting for this occasion. Where he faltered on this score will be discussed shortly.
swered the questions posed to him in a manner that struck me as fair given the number of factors in steady flux. His biggest mistake, in my opinion, occurred by not taking advantage of making a connection with Jordan on their shared values.
I share with you the love of liberty and freedom, Congressman Jordan, and well recognize the enormous frustrations that have been ongoing during this pandemic. The restrictions about family gatherings have been awfully hard, numerous people who have a business ended up with devastating losses, people have lost their job, and on and on, all of this has been terribly difficult to deal with emotionally as well as financially. And yet, according to the best scientific data we have available, if we did nothing to try to decrease the spread hundreds of thousands of more people would have died, and hospital personnel would have been even more overwhelmed than they had become at the height of the U.S. experience with this pandemic. 
In its preamble it states its purpose is, and I quote, “…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” 
Now we are engaged in providing a common defense to battle this pandemic, a battle that has led to the deaths in one year of nearly twice the total number of deaths that occurred during the four years of World War II. Sacrifices are being made. I’m not happy about them, but I was hired by the president to provide my recommendations based on science and a vetting process involving experts at the CDC, to decrease the spread of the virus. Consistent with our Constitution, it is up to our elected officials to decide which recommendations to make mandatory. Citizens have the right to file a suit in court if they believe their rights are being violated. 
If Dr. Fauci would have made these types of connections with Jordan’s values, it may very well have taken the wind out of Jordan’s sails, tempering his ire.
In conflict resolution we often teach people to make “I” statements rather than insisting on an opinion. Thus, Dr. Fauci might have done better if instead of saying, “No, you are. That is exactly what you are doing,” he said pleasantly, “Well, although you don’t view it as a personal thing, I’m experiencing it as exactly that. To be clear, I did not advocate that the video be censored, and I fully support freedom of speech.”
I get why Dr. Fauci was exasperated at this point. He believed he had provided the best answer available, but I do think Jordan was in his rights to ask for a more specific guess. Dr. Fauci eventually did provide more specifics that came when Jordan made this request.
Dr. Fauci’s frustration with Jordan’s interruptions and his angry tone of voice is understandable. And though ranting may have been an accurate description, most people would view Dr. Fauci’s comment as an insult. Insulting someone in the middle of a conflict just leads to more trouble than it is worth. I think Dr. Fauci would have been better off just saying something like, “Congressman Jordan, I am having a hard time dealing with your tone and frequent interruptions. I understand you have strong feelings about this, as I certainly do. Maybe we need a break so I can deal with how I’m feeling.”