Tag: anger

THE IMMATURITY OF POLITICIANS

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date February 9, 2014
1 Comment on THE IMMATURITY OF POLITICIANS

Regular readers of this blog well know that I have been advocating that there are some ways of responding to interpersonal situations that are more mature than others. For example, in one post I describe four levels of maturity for responding to criticism. In another, I describe five levels of maturity for providing negative criticism. In those posts, I contend that when dealing with criticism the use of insults and threats tend to lower your level of maturity. Moreover, people who are less mature tend to be less liked and respected, and in the long run, less effective in achieving their goals. Shortly after I began to write these posts, I began to hear from some people who wondered if my levels of maturity don’t apply in the realm of politics. One reflection of this sentiment came from E. Mark Stern who wrote: My wife is in local politics. And though she decided to run for office knowing that there would be political opponents, she had not bargained for the name calling and personal attacks on her being….One may think of such bullying as much in the American tradition – a to be expected risk that elected officials need to grin and bear. But when attacks get personal, and one’s being is fair target, then it gets intolerable and the people one serves suffer for it. After reading these types of comments, I began to think of the many attack ads that we all are exposed to during political campaigns. And then I thought about what I had heard from several TV political analysts over the year–attack ads are used because they work. There is obviously a great deal of money to be made from producing and running these ads for the very same people who hire TV political analysts, so I decided to look deeper into this claim.

How Effective Are Attack Ads?

According to an August 8, 2013 article in Scientific American: “A comprehensive literature analysis published in 2007 in the Journal of Politics examined the effects of political ads. The authors reported that negative ads tended to be more memorable than positive ones but that they did not affect voter choice. People were no less likely to turn out to the polls or to decide against voting for a candidate who was attacked in an ad.” The Scientific American article goes on to say that the reviewed studies all had some drawbacks and therefore evidence on the effectiveness of negative political ads is best viewed as inconclusive. After looking at the scientific evidence for the insulting actions that politicians regularly engage in, I wrote two posts that tried to throw some light on this topic–one back on October 13, 2012 about two presidential debates, and a more recent one on January 13, 2014 about New Jersey’s Governor Chris Christie’s use of insults. Since I wrote those posts, a couple of particularly vivid examples came to my attention. The first again involves Governor Christie; the other involves US Congressman Michael Grimm.

The Governor Christie Example

This example I first learned about it on the Feb. 6, 2014, edition of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show. According to Rachel’s report, on Nov. 17, 1996, Chris Cristie, who had recently been elected to be a Morris County Freeholder, made a public apology and retraction to two people who ran against him in the Republican primaries. He had claimed in attack ads that they were under investigation for their part in some corruption scandal. Here is his apology: Dear Cissy and Ed, I am writing to express my sincere apology to both of you and your families concerning two political advertisements which ran on my behalf during the Freeholders Primary Election Campaign in May and June, 1994. The commercials ran over 400 times on cable TV. He goes on to state that “the ads were not appropriate. They should not have been part of my campaign when I ran against you. I fully intend, in any future campaigns in which I am involved, to be more sensitive to the impact of such tactics. I hope you will accept this heartfelt apology in which it is made.”

Rachel reported that the “spirit in which that apology was made is that it was legally required of Chris Christie after he was sued over those ads.” Although the ads were declared false after the election was over, Rachel expressed her belief that they worked for Christie who won that race. I’m not really sure I agree with Rachel that the ads worked. We really don’t know for a fact that Christie wouldn’t have won the election anyway. In addition to the apology, as part of settling the law suit, Christie had to pay money to the people that he ran the ads against. After the voters heard what he had done, they failed to reelect him when he ran again for the same seat. Moreover, he tried to get elected during that same period to another office, and again he lost. Christie was only able to get back into politics after that incident after raising a great deal of money for George W. Bush during Bush’s run for president, who then rewarded Christie by naming him top federal prosecutor of NJ even though he was never a prosecutor before at any level. The years went on, and finally Christie again ran for office–this time for Governor of New Jersey–and won.

The Rep. Michael Grimm Example

About a year or so ago, Rep. Grimm was being interviewed by Michael Scotto, a NY1 reporter, about President Obama’s State of The Union speech. When Scotto tried to turn the conversation to the subject of a two-year federal investigation into allegations of a campaign finance violations investigation, Grimm told him, “I’m not speaking about anything that’s off topic. This is only about the President,” and then he walked away. But as Scotto was talking to viewers back in New York, the Congressman stormed back into the shot and threatened and insulted him. “Let me be clear to you, you ever do that to me again I’ll throw you off this f—–g balcony,” Grimm said. “Why, why, I just wanted to ask you …?” Scotto responded. “If you ever do that to me again …,” the Representative shot back. “It’s a valid question,” Scotto said in his defense, but Grimm replied: “No, no, you’re not man enough, you’re not man enough. I’ll break you in half. Like a boy,” according to the NY1 transcript. The next day, Grimm issued a public apology: “I was wrong. I shouldn’t have allowed my emotions to get the better of me and lose my cool. I have apologized to Michael Scotto, which he graciously accepted, and will be scheduling a lunch soon. In the weeks and months ahead I’ll be working hard for my constituents on issues like flood insurance that is so desperately needed in my district post-Sandy.”

Discussion

I began this post by contending that: 1. there are some ways of responding to interpersonal situations that are more mature than others 2. when dealing with criticism the use of insults and threats tend to lower your level of maturity 3. people who are less mature tend to be less liked and respected, and in the long run, less effective in achieving their goals. If I am correct, why then do so many politicians regularly display behaviors that I characterize as immature?

One reason that we looked at was that many people have a financial interest in selling the idea that smear tactics do work. In actuality, the best scientific evidence currently available suggests that this claim is false. Since this evidence is not perfect, the best that we can say for the claim is that there is no convincing evidence to support it despite years of research that has focused on addressing this issue.

After discussing this research, I then presented two examples of politicians using immature ways to criticize others. Chris Christie used a smear campaign against his opponents in a Republican primary. Although he won the election, he had to issue a public apology, pay a financial settlement and he became unelectable for several years afterwards. Rep. Grimm desired to not have to publicize the fact that there has been an investigation into allegations regarding his campaign. When he criticized a reporter for bringing the topic up in front of a TV camera, he included in his criticism, threats and insults. Like Christie, he too had to issue a public apology. Moreover, because of his immature actions, the press publicized the story to a far greater audience leading to far more people learning about the investigation.

The levels of maturity for responding or providing negative criticism are most relevant to your interpersonal relationships. The relationship between politicians and their voters is best viewed as an intergroup relationship, rather than an interpersonal one. This intergroup relationship involves the group of people who might potentially vote for him, the group of people who have a vested interest in getting the politician elected, and the groups of people who are working to get someone else elected.

Although I contend that the levels of maturity are relevant in intergroup relationships, other issues often become more important. When people decide on who to vote for, they consider many issues, not just whether or not the candidate insults anyone. If some voters recognize that Governor Christie insults others a bit more than other candidates, they may feel that his stand on keeping taxes low is a far more important issue for them. Politicians, moreover, are not seeking to develop a sound interpersonal relationship with you. Instead, they are seeking your vote. They know very well that not everyone is going to vote for them. If they anger 49 percent of voters, but 51 percent end up voting for them, they achieved their goal, at least in the short run. When it comes to interpersonal relationships, if you act in a manner that leads to 49 percent of the people you personally know not liking you, those who don’t like you can begin to say things behind your back to people who actually personally interact with you. Some of what they say can be untrue and very unfair. You may find that when people that you like have parties, you no longer get invited. When you used to be invited to go bowling, now someone else is getting invited instead. These types of consequences have far more direct effects on your personal life than anything that is likely to happen as a result of a typical election. And so, for these reasons, I hope that you don’t come to believe that because many politicians act in insulting ways throughout their careers that this means that the notion of maturity is irrelevant to your own interpersonal relationships.

———————

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

Tags anger, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, Governor Chris Christie, Governor Christie, insults, interpersonal relationships, maturity levels, Michael Scotto, negative criticism, politicians, Rachel Maddow, Rachel Maddow Show, Rep. Michael Grimm

anger Bullied bullying conflict management conflict resolution criticism free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts MATURITY Name calling negative criticism playful teasing psychological maturity respect social intelligence taunting teasing types of criticism wisdom

PUTTING DOWN NON-GROUP MEMBERS

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date January 20, 2014
4 Comments on PUTTING DOWN NON-GROUP MEMBERS

On this blog, I have often discussed various reasons why someone might throw insults at you, and, depending on the reason, how to maturely deal with these challenging experiences (see for example, “Insults: A Comic Strip Guide“). If John is throwing an insult at you because he is in a bad mood, just asking in a concern manner, “Is everything OK, John, you sound like something is bothering you?” might be a useful way to begin to respectfully deal with this type of situation. You might want to respond differently, however, if you see that John is insulting you because he hopes it will encourage you to make a change he thinks you need to make. In this type of situation, beginning your response by initially ignoring the insult and instead summarizing his concern could be more helpful than asking if everything is OK or making a big thing about the insult.

In earlier posts, we have discussed eight different reasons why people throw insults at others, and mature responses to deal with each of these situations. Today let’s focus on some ways to deal with situations in which you might find yourself being insulted by those in a group because they view you as a non-group member.

Putting Down Non-group Members

Many people have a desire to join together in a common cause. This can dramatically increase their own personal power. And it is one of the big reasons why playing a game like baseball can be so much fun. Hit a homer or even a ground ball that brings in the winning run, and your group is patting you on the back and cheering.

When immature people join together, however, because of their lack of empathy, they often join together to put down and humiliate non-group members–particularly if the non-group members are a minority or viewed as too powerless to defend themselves.

Sometimes we see this sort of behavior occur when a new girl starts a new school.

When someone faces these types of difficult situations, what is a respectable way to respond? No single blog post can fully answer this question, but I would like to throw out some ideas for your consideration. Let’s begin with a parable.

The Parable of Jason and Ron

As you look at the four pictures of this parable, let me add some details. When Jason says, “I’m sorry you feel that way, Ron,” he looks squarely into Ron’s eyes. Then he gives Ron a slight nod of his head and goes on his way. Throughout the interaction between Jason and Ron, Jason remains friendly, while at the same time, self-assured.

When I was in school, one day I noticed a boy handle a similar situation like Jason. The other students seemed to respect how the boy handled the teasing. So I began to rehearse this style in front of a mirror over the course of a few days. The next time one of the older students teased me, I gave it a try. It ended up working just fine.

The “Give The Teasers What They Want” Approach

Now I understand that the approach described in “The Jason and Ron Parable” might not work perfectly in every situation. Acting self-assured might actually increase the desire by group members to prove that they are powerful and the person being insulted is nothing but a pile of trash. To try to prove this, they might insult you even worse than if you said nothing, or they might even physically attack you. Because of this risk, many people faced with insults from a larger, more powerful group choose to give the teasers what they want–to feel they are more powerful than others. People using this approach, when faced by these teasers, keep their eyes down toward the ground, and try to walk away as quickly as they can without saying anything. In this way, they don’t challenge the teasers sense of power in any way.

I’ve seen people use the “Give the Teasers What They Want” approach and it sometimes works to a certain degree. The immature group members, with their lack of empathy toward others, after saying a few mean things, let the teased person walk by, and there is no more of these incidences. The group members feel that they had a little fun and the teased person gets away without any physical harm. His or her feelings might feel hurt, but this passes before too long.

I must admit that I used this approach a few times when I was young. It bothered me that I didn’t stand up for myself in a more “manly” manner, but at the same time I was glad that I got home safe.

The “Physical Attack” Approach

Now in contrast to the approach used in the “Jason and Ron Parable” and the “Give The Teasers What They Want” approach, some people have made the case that if anyone insults you, the only proper way to deal with this is to start swinging with everything you got. It doesn’t matter if you end up getting ganged up, beaten severely, or evenbeing killed, you must physically attack to maintain your dignity. Consider Mike’s story.

Mike’s Story

One day, I received a comment on my blog by a young man who recalled an incident that he had had when he was a new kid at school. “On the school bus,” he wrote, “I began to get picked on. I was not the kind of mature kid who ignored the situation and so I ended up getting into fights as a result. I’d like to preface my next statement with the following–I am not condoning fighting and do not recommend fighting as a solution to any type of verbal altercation. That being said, after showing the bullies that I’d stand up for myself, not only did the bullying come to an abrupt end, but I ended up becoming friends with several of them and seemed to garner the respect of many of the other kids on the bus. Again I’m not condoning fighting but am suggesting that in some cases a show of strength can be an effective way to resolve conflict.”

Here’s how I responded to Mike:

Hi Mike,

You are absolutely right. In some situations a kid who starts to get picked on will physically go at those doing the tormenting. The tormentors end up backing down, others end up respecting the kid who shut the tormentors up, and the kid even ends up making friends with the tormentors. This is a real possibility. Now, let’s consider other possibilities of a kid physically going at his tormentors so all of us can make an informed decision about how best to handle these types of situations.

In one case that I’m familiar with, a boy that we will call Cal, went to his dad and complained in a choked up voice of a bully picking on him on the bus. The dad, having had a very similar experience when he was young that you had, Mike, began to holler at his son. “If someone picks on you, you go at him with everything you have and that will shut him up. That’s how I handled that type of situation and it worked every time. I can’t believe you didn’t do that. Here you are crying over it. I’m ashamed of you!”

What the dad didn’t know at the time was that Cal had already witnessed another kid on the bus who was bigger and stronger than him try to do just what his dad had said to do. The bully quickly grabbed the arm of this kid, twisted it behind his back until it was excruciatingly painful. After the kid tried his best to get free, the twisted arm was twisted tighter and the kid let out a scream. The bus driver yelled to quiet down. The bully then loosened his grip on the kid, slapped him on the side of his face, and said, “If you ever start in with me again, I’ll catch you after school and you’ll really be sorry.”

Cal, seeing this happen to someone he knew was stronger than he is, became increasing depressed and when he began to talk about killing himself, he ended up in my office. Before long he blurted out all that he was going through.

Now, here’s another possible outcome of a kid going physically at bullies. The kid ends up winning the fight, or at least does enough harm to the bullies, that they settle down for the remainder of the trip. But the bullies belong to a gang, and having embarrassed the bullies on the bus, the gang decides to get revenge. The kid gets attacked and ends up with serious injuries, or even dead.

Or the bullies, seeing that they can’t get the kid to kowtow to them, end up working up their fury until they begin to get revenge by doing some things behind the kid’s back. The kid discovers his backpack has been slashed and in the crowd that is looking on, he sees the bullies smirking. Then the kid’s bike is stolen. Again the bullies have smirks on their faces. The kid tries to get even, the conflict escalates, and before long someone gets knifed or a gun explodes.

These are just some of the other outcomes that have occurred when someone has decided to physically attack bullies. Each person has to consider the situation and decide what is right.

Since writing the above reply to Mike, I read Malcolm Gladwell’s bestselling book, Outliers. In one of his chapters, I learned that communities that have a higher than average percentage of people who hold the attitude that the only way to deal with people being disrespectful to you is to physically attack them tend to have higher than average murder rates. Is that the type of community you wish to live in. Some of the bullets that fly by in those communities end up striking people who are not even involved in the anger arousing situation, including children. And so, I think people should think seriously about this issue.

Making a choice between which type of approach to use in any given situation requires some deep thought. I hope this post gives you some useful material as you go about deciding for yourself what makes the best sense.

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

Tags anger, bullied, bullies, bully, bullying, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, dispute management, disrespectful, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, insults, maturity, non-group members, out groups, psychological maturity, types of criticism, wisdom

bullying Chris Christie conflict management conflict resolution criticism emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults Name calling respect social intelligence wisdom

GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE’S USE OF INSULTS

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date January 13, 2014
1 Comment on GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE’S USE OF INSULTS

In earlier posts on this blog I have advocated that it can be helpful to become familiar with five levels of maturity for responding to negative criticism and five levels of maturity for providing negative criticism (see for example Providing Negative Criticism: Five Levels of Maturity). In those posts, I have contended that when responding or providing negative criticism the use of insults tends to lower your level of maturity. Moreover, people who are less mature tend to be less liked and respected.

If the arguments that I have made in those earlier posts are accurate, how then can I explain the successful career that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has had? Here is a man who is well known to use insults when he is criticized and when he is criticizing others. Here is a man who likes to characterize his use of insults as his way of being “blunt and direct” even though a person can surely be blunt and direct without seeking to insult people. Here is a man who has managed to get himself elected as a county legislator in New Jersey’s Morris County, appointed as United States Attorney for New Jersey, elected Governor of New Jersey twice, and viewed as one of the front runners for the next U.S. presidential election. Here is a man that many people have come to admire.

By addressing this apparent paradox between my proposed levels of maturity and the success of Gov. Christie, readers will have an opportunity to come to a more refined, precise understanding of how to utilize the levels of maturity as a guide for dealing with interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships.

Explaining the Paradox

First of all, as I have explained in earlier posts, the five levels of maturity for responding or providing negative criticism are most relevant to your interpersonal relationships and your intrapersonal relationships. As I define these terms, your interpersonal relationships are your interactions with people with whom you have direct, face to face interactions on an ongoing basis; your intrapersonal relationships involve interactions that you have with yourself.

The relationship that Gov. Christie has with his voters is best viewed as an intergroup relationship, rather than either an interpersonal or intrapersonal relationship. This intergroup relationship involves the group of people who might potentially vote for him, the group of people who have a vested interest in getting the governor elected, and the groups of people who are working to get someone else elected. Although the five levels of maturity are relevant in intergroup relationships, other issues often become more important.

In an interpersonal relationship, if you attempt to insult the person whom you are interacting with, that person might insult you back and the interaction can escalate into violence. When we see Gov. Christie seeking to insult someone, he almost always has a group of supporters standing behind him and a team of armed security personnel well trained to intervene if an insulted party makes any moves at all that can be viewed as violent. Under this set of circumstances, it is far safer to play the part of a tough guy who doesn’t take any crap from anyone than if you, personally, seek to insult someone with whom you have an interpersonal relationship.

Here’s another difference between what typically happens during your interpersonal relationships and the intergroup interactions that involve the governor. When someone directly seeks to insult you, unless you are well trained in handling this in a peaceful manner, you are likely to take the insult personally. The emotions that arise in this situation are more likely to be stronger than if you see on TV, or in a large arena, the governor throwing insults at someone you are not likely to personally know.

The governor, moreover, is not seeking to develop a sound interpersonal relationship with you. He is, instead, seeking your vote. He knows very well that not everyone is going to vote for him. If he angers 49 percent of voters, but 51 percent end up voting for him, he’s achieved his goal. In the last election, the governor managed to get 60% of the vote and not only did this mean that he was reelected, but the media repeatedly described his win as a landslide victory. This victory meant that 40% of the voters voted for someone else. Now, when it comes to interpersonal relationships, if you act in a manner that leads to 4 people out of 10 not liking you, this can lead to far more direct problems for you then if 4 out of 10 people don’t vote for you in a statewide election. Those who don’t like you can begin to say things behind your back to people who actually personally interact with you. Some of what get says can be untrue and very unfair. You may find that when people that you like have parties, you no longer get invited. When you used to be invited to go bowling, now someone else is getting invited. These types of consequences have far more direct effects on your personal life than anything that is likely to happen as a result of a New Jersey election.

When people decide on who to vote for, they consider many issues, not just whether or not the candidate insults anyone. When Gov. Christie insults someone, many voters are apt to say to themselves, he isn’t doing anything different than all the other politicians. They therefore decide to choose a candidate based on other issues. If some voters recognize that Governor Christie insults others a bit more than other candidates, they may feel that his stand on keeping taxes low is a far more important issue for them.

Gov. Christie’s popularity, in my opinion, is largely based on his positions on the issues and, indeed, on some of his personal characteristics. Although the media plays up, and repeatedly show instances in which he insults people, if you really follow his career, you find that the vast majority of the time he conducts himself in a manner very consistent with the highest levels of maturity. When someone criticizes him, most often he listens without getting defensive, clearly shows that he understands the criticism, and when he agrees with the criticism, he says so. When he disagrees, in a warm and friendly style he very articulately explains why he disagrees. People who have not made up their minds on a particular issue have an opportunity to see his take on the issue and a significant amount of undecided voters end up becoming convinced that the governor’s position is correct.

Gov. Christie has demonstrated that he knows how, when he is criticized or when he criticizes others, to act in the most mature manner. When he does choose to throw an insult at someone, in the vast majority of cases he is very careful to do so when it is unlikely to harm him politically. You can be sure that when he was the United States Attorney for New Jersey, any time he disagreed with one of the judges involved in a case he was working on he never chose to directly insult the judge. If he had, his career would have taken a tailspin.

The governor knows full well that there are voters in New Jersey who will never vote for him no matter what he says. And so, when he chooses to insult someone, it is almost always directed at that group of people or the positions that they tend to believe in. By doing so, his supporters come to see him as a leader who will be a strong defender of the positions they hold dear.

In recent events involving some lane closings on the George Washington Bridge into New York City that created gridlock traffic in Fort Lee, New Jersey, Gov. Christie began to use his style of insults in a very different manner than I had become accustomed to, and it has landed him in a heap of trouble. The lane closings appeared to some reporters as a “get back” strategy designed to punish someone who didn’t support Gov. Christie in his latest run for reelection. When questioned about this, the governor became sarcastic, and he sought to insult the questioners, saying they were “obsessing” over a minor issue, and claiming that the questioners must “having nothing else to do.”

This incident does demonstrate that using the most mature levels of dealing with criticism can be important even in the political arena. If the governor, when he was being criticized for how he was handling the bridge lane closings incident, instead of responding with insults, replied in a manner consistent with a 4 or 5 level of maturity, his response would have looked something like this:

“I understand your concern. Those lane closings led to thousands of people being inconvenienced for several days. If it was one of my kids who ended up missing two hours of school for no apparent good reason, I would have been very upset, and as someone who cares about my fellow New Jersey citizens, I am very upset. Making this situation worse was that police and ambulances had difficulty getting to where they were needed. This is a very serious issue, and I am bound and determined to get to the bottom of what happened.”

Such a response would have shown the questioner and all that listened in that he shared their concerns and had empathy for those who were involved in the mess. Because of his more immature responses, a few days ago, after it became more and more apparent that his administration was indeed involved in a “get back” scheme, the governor had to apologize for his insulting actions. In his nearly two hours of addressing the criticism in a national televised press hearing, the governor did not even once attempt to insult those who were publicly criticizing him as they asked their questions. Instead, the governor modeled the most mature levels of responding to criticism. Will it be enough to overcome all that he created when he responded at the lowest levels? We’ll have to wait and see.

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

Tags anger, bully, bullying, Chris Christie, conflict management, criticism, disrespectful, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, insults, interpersonal relationships, maturity levels, respect, wisdom

anger challenge child discipline conflict management conflict resolution dig for the conflict emotional intelligence fairness free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults MATURITY Name calling parenting respect social intelligence threats wisdom

DEALING WITH SUBTLE FORMS OF CRITICISM

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date December 22, 2013
7 Comments on DEALING WITH SUBTLE FORMS OF CRITICISM

If you have been following this blog, you know that from time to time I have been discussing insults and criticism. In earlier posts, we looked at situations in which people end up feeling insulted because someone provided negative criticism.

I have argued that rather than to feel insulted, it is possible to learn to welcome criticism, as well as words that might come off as insulting. When we learn to respond skillfully to negative criticism and insults, we develop a confidence in these types of situations. This dramatically reduces our defensiveness.

An important step toward mastering this skill is to learn to clearly recognize when criticism is occurring. If you can’t identify when a red light is flashing, you won’t be able to know when to apply the brakes on the car, and you are likely to end up in a serious accident.

Illustration by Lois Hubertz

Similarly, if you can’t identify when criticism is occurring, you won’t be able to know when to begin to put in place the plans that effectively deal with criticism.

Although some forms of criticism are as easy to recognize as a red light, some forms of criticism are far more subtle and therefore often go unrecognized as criticism. I therefore have presented posts that discuss dealing with direct and implied forms of criticism. I’ve noted that when someone makes a suggestion, this usually implies some negative criticism.

I also explained how recommending that someone get some additional education also usually implies some negative criticism.

We also took a good hard look at certain forms of levity, in which negative criticism is designed to be charmingly provocative. It seeks to get people to think more deeply about an issue. As George Bernard Shaw put it in his provocative book, Back to Methuselah:

“When a thing is funny, search it carefully for a hidden truth.”

Shaw, to ward off defensive reactions to his quips, often created fictional plays and had the characters in the plays say them. Great examples are:

“No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.“

“The difference between a lady and a flower girl is not how she behaves, but how she’s treated.”

“Life isn’t about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself.”

Today we will spend a little more time practicing enhancing our skills for recognizing subtle forms of criticism. This will help to improve our ability to know when to start using our dealing-with-criticism skills.

More Examples of Subtle Forms of Negative Criticism

As we move forward, please keep in mind that for the purposes of this blog, if someone evaluates something as negative the evaluator has made a negative criticism.

FIRST EXAMPLE

In the above Calvin and Hobbes scenario, Miss Wormwood politely asks Calvin to put his tiger, Hobbes, in his locker. Calvin objects to this request by crying out—“In my locker?! He’ll suffocate!”

Calvin’s response to Miss Wormwood’s request is an example of indirect negative criticism. He doesn’t directly state he has evaluated her request and found that there is something wrong with it, or that it is bad, or something of that sort. Nevertheless, he indicates that if he did what she asked, his tiger would suffocate. To recognize this as a form of negative criticism, it helps to notice that in addition to Calvin’s statement there are other indications that he thinks there is something wrong with Miss Wormwood’s request. The exclamation marks after Calvin’s statement, the drawing of Calvin with his mouth being wide open as if he is shouting, and the fact that he is practically flying out of his seat while he is shouting, all add up to indicate that Calvin’s reply is rightfully classified as a form of negative criticism of Miss Wormwood’s request.

Although Miss Wormwood takes Calvin’s negative criticism in stride, other teachers might become defensive, and yell something like, “Don’t you talk back to me, young man!” This might silence students, but leave them seething with anger that is expressed by a rejection of the school enterprise; or it might lead to shouting back at the teacher, creating an escalation of conflict that takes valuable learning time away from the class.

If Miss Wormwood would have become defensive and started to yell at Calvin in response to his negative criticism, this would, according the the DIG Conflict Model, be rated an immature level of responding (see Responding to Criticism: Four Levels of Maturity). Instead, she steers in the direction of Calvin’s criticism by offering the compromise of putting his “tiger” under his desk where it will be at least out of the way. This, according to the DIG Conflict Model, is one of the most mature responses (see Responding to Criticism: The Most Mature Level). We see, in this example, that Calvin quickly complies and his teacher can now go on with her lesson without any further delay.

SECOND EXAMPLE

Here’s a Sally Forth comic that illustrates that whenever there is a transaction involving a request or demand, we would be wise to anticipate negative criticism will be present as well.

In this comic, because Sally is visiting her mother for a few days, Ted is left on his own to deal with his nine-year-old daughter, Hil. When Ted tells Hil it’s time for bed, she begins to reject his demand. Is Hil’s rejection of the demand a form of criticism?

Well, consider her reply to her dad: “But Mom’s not here! We don’t need a bedtime!” Hil has negatively evaluated her dad’s demand by expressing her disagreement with it. If you tell someone you disagree with what he or she has done, you have negatively criticized the person’s act.

If Ted was skillful at first recognizing that Hil was providing him criticism, he would be in a better position to say to himself, “From what I’ve learned about the different levels of maturity, let me see if I can design a mature response.” What if he came up with something like this?

“Hil, I admire the way you seek to defend your freedom. I want to encourage that. And you know I’m crazy about you. At the same time, I also love your mom, as I know you do. It seems to me that we don’t want to break her rules behind her back. The bedtime schedule is designed for you to get enough rest so you will do well in school. Both of us have seen what happens to you when you don’t get enough rest. When your mom gets home, if you want to discuss the rules, we can do it with her, you and me all altogether. That would be the fair thing to do, wouldn’t it?”

These Examples are Designed to Encourage Deeper Thought

Above, I provided two examples of someone providing negative criticism. For each example, a response was described that I think is pretty mature. Please note, however, that I am NOT claiming that they are the ideal responses. Nor am I trying to make the case that the responses portrayed in the above examples are the only mature responses that can be made. There is a great deal of flexibility that we have for coming up with high level responses. I present the above examples in an effort to challenge you to think more deeply about what mature levels of responding look like according to your own lights.

Well, that’s my post for this week. To all of you who celebrate the beautiful Christmas season, I wish you good cheer, peace on Earth, and good will toward all of our fellow human beings!

With Warmest Regards,

Jeff

Tags anger, challenge, conflict, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, dispute management, disrespectful, emotional intelligence, emotions, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, frustration, insults, negative criticism, parenting, threats, types of criticism

anger Bullied bullying conflict management conflict resolution criticism emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts MATURITY Name calling negative criticism playful teasing taunting teasing types of criticism

THE ART OF PLAYFUL TEASING

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date December 19, 2013
5 Comments on THE ART OF PLAYFUL TEASING

Young group of men who are bullying one of them.

Teasing is a game sometimes known as bantering, joshing, crackin’, rankin’, playing the dozens, and trash talk. You are judged in part on the quality of your insults and also how well you keep your cool on being insulted.

Even the most mature people may like to play the teasing game, for they enjoy the duel of wits and the occasional humorous comeback.

MATURE VERSUS IMMATURE TEASING

Mature people are distinguished from immature people in this game by their lack of desire to hurt somebody in this game. Their empathy helps them to realize that the smiles and the lighthearted tone they try to set throughout the game sometimes mask real tensions. Thus, they keep their senses tuned to the subtleties of the repartee, and know when to back off when things begin to get too serious.

Less mature people, partly because of their lower levels of empathy, may think that the more awful they can make someone feel during this game, the better they are at it. When the criticizers have themselves been humiliated by other immature people, they may come to be even more motivated to humiliate others as a way to take out their own pain on others.

IS PLAYFUL TEASING REALLY WHAT IS GOING ON?

If you find that you are being criticized and it doesn’t seem to be motivated by a desire to get you to improve, and you’re not sure what else may be the reason, my advice is to first theorize that it’s just some playful teasing. If the criticism is provided with a smile, or by someone you know who likes to tease in a friendly way, you can be pretty sure that it is just for fun. Then, if you reply with a smile and a comment such as, “That’s a good one,” it shows that you can take a little teasing without getting defensive. If you want to take the game a little further, you can throw a friendly insult right back, like “Same to you, fellow.” When you’ve had enough of the game, smiling and giving the other player a pat on the back can be a good way to draw the game to an end.

Sometimes you are not sure if playful teasing is the name of the game. Then you have to be careful about throwing insults back at the insulter. If it turns out that the criticizer’s comments are not meant to be playful teasing, throwing back insults might make the situation worse. Here are some ideas that permit you to play along while providing you time to figure out what’s really going on.

After the first insult, consider responding in a kidding around way by crying, “OH YEAH!?” As you do this, pretend, in an obviously joking around way, that you have become defensive at the insulter’s comment. But then follow up your fake outrage with a broad smile. This shows that you can play along with the insult while, at the same time, you can take a joke.

If the insulter again insults you in a manner that still leaves you uncertain if the person is just teasing, consider saying the following. “It looks like you have some more missiles to send my way. Okay, hit me with your best shots. I already know that you think my nose is too big and my mother is a fool, so there’s no need to bother with those. Go ahead. I can take it.”

Then, if the insults continue, cry out, “Look out! Incoming torpedoes! Mayday! Mayday! I’m going down! I’m sinking! I’m sinking!” Then fall to your knees, and cover up your ears.

All of this allows you to continue to play along without throwing insults back at a criticizer who may not be playing the teasing game. By the time you fall to your knees, if you still aren’t clear about what is going on, get back up and try saying in a concerned, caring way, “Listen, at first I thought you were joking around. Now I’m not so sure. Is everything okay?”

This often leads to the insulter revealing what is actually motivating this behavior. But if the insulter walks away, and then begins to insult you on another occasion, it’s time to go down the list of other desires that motivate criticism (see HERE).

If you find that the person, or the group of people teasing you are playing the game of teasing in the immature manner—that is, just trying to make you feel as awful as possible—what can you do? I suggest that you just give a quick nod at the comment and then get as far away as possible. Then do your best to stay away from such people.

Now, I certainly realize it is not always easy to avoid a person or a group. Students or bus monitors who ride the school bus are pretty much forced to be confined with a certain set of students for a period of time a couple of times each day. Or the group you want to avoid might be in your classes. As you leave the class you might be stuck walking down the hall with the criticizers. In such cases, when you feel that you have reached your limit of dealing with the put downs, sometimes the following approach is worth a try.

To begin, this approach only requires that you learn to say two words—Please, enough. That’s the easy part. For some, learning how to say these words is the hard part of this strategy.

To use this technique, after two or three insults, say, in a very serious way, rather softly, but loud enough to be clearly heard, “Please.” Then pause for about three seconds while looking firmly into the eyes of each person who has been teasing you. Than say, “e” using the long “e” sound. Then, after another second, say, “nough!” When you look into the eyes of each of the name callers, you are NOT to glare at them in a threatening manner, with your eyebrows pressed to the middle of your forehead. Rather, you are seeking to be firm and very, very, serious.

If immediately after you finish saying this, somebody begins to insult you again, repeat the same words in a similar manner, but this time say it distinctly louder, though just short of shouting. At this point you are seeking to communicate that dire consequences are at hand. You must be firm and look squarely into the eyes of each insulter once again. Then you are to remain very serious while staring either out the school bus’s window or straight ahead where you are walking, but not at any one of the criticizers. You are to remain silent, without talking to anyone, for the remainder of the period you are stuck together, looking the whole time like you are through fooling around and enough is enough!

When the end of the time period that you are stuck together comes, immediately take your stuff and hurry away from the group continuing to look like you are very much annoyed.

The next time you see them, again, turn very serious and silent. If the group members don’t bother you, after a few minutes you can slowly begin to reduce the tension you have created. If the group members again insult you at any time, be silent and serious while again staring out the window or, if you are walking, straight ahead.

The game of immature name calling is kind of like a tennis game. In tennis, if someone hits the ball over the net to you and you refuse to hit it back, people will stop playing with you. Similarly, if someone insults you and you remain silent, often the insulter will find the game too boring to continue.

Although the style I want you to consider comes fairly easy to some, others must learn it with someone who can model the right tone and expression. Some people I worked with over the years found it hard not to put a smirk on their face after they said, “Please, enough!” Some came off as embarrassed while they carried out the technique. If you are not sure how you look while carrying out each step, observe yourself in a mirror. Also run through a role play with a couple of friends or family members and ask them if it looks right to them. Better yet, find out who directs plays at your school. Find out the director’s office hours, and go and explain what you want to learn.

I encourage you to avoid becoming discouraged if you end up botching the performance the first few times you try this during practice sessions. I’ve worked with students that at first kept cracking up throughout the process. Every one of them eventually learned to effectively utilize this technique. Five sessions, each lasting about fifteen minutes, can usually get a shy guy to put together an academy award winning performance.

There are times when those who are doing the teasing are being so cruel and relentless, that the wisest course of action is to inform authorities such as a school principal and the police. This may take courage, but keep in mind that if you remain silent, not only will you continue to be cruelly treated, but so too will others.

Tags anger, bullied, bullies, bully, bullying, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, dispute management, disrespectful, emotional intelligence, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, playful teasing, respect, threats, types of criticism

conflict management conflict resolution emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum guilt Hope psychological maturity respect Romeo and Juliet social intelligence wisdom

NELSON MANDELA AND THE ART OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date December 8, 2013
7 Comments on NELSON MANDELA AND THE ART OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

“Great anger and violence can never build a nation. We are striving to proceed in a manner and towards a result, which will ensure that all our people, both black and white, emerge as victors.” (From Nelson Mandela’s speech to European Parliament, 1990.)

As I write this post, we are in the middle of South Africa’s 10-day mourning period for Nelson Mandela. Although I myself have never set foot in South Africa, I, along with millions of Americans, and millions more around the world, find our hearts merging with those of his country’s citizens. It is, of course, a period of remembrance of a man who learned to forgive his oppressors; a man who in his later years developed a smile full of wisdom and kindness; a man who could fill up Yankee Stadium with thrilling cheers; a man deeply respected.

For me, Nelson Mandela provided us an enduring inspirational lesson on conflict resolution.

Nelson Mandela and Conflict

When we attempt to come up with a brief description of a conflict, it helps to have a good definition of “conflict” at hand. On this blog, we have been using a definition derived from the DIG Conflict Model.

A conflict exists whenever the following three conditions exist:

Party A desires an act will occur.
Party A perceives that another party is likely to act in a manner that interferes with the desire.
Party A perceives that the other party would be guilty of doing something wrong if he or she carries out the interfering act.

Notice that each of the three conditions has a key word italicized—desire for the first condition, interferes for the second, and guilty for the third. If we take the first letter of each of these key words and put them together, they spell DIG; hence the DIG Conflict Model’s name.

Party A, in the above definition, indicates the individual who is theoretically engaged in a conflict and from whose perspective the conflict will first be described.

For most of Mandela’s life, the major conflict that existed in his country can be briefly described as follows:

The large majority of people living in South Africa desired to have basic civil rights but interfering with this was the government’s apartheid laws and policies. The majority of the people felt that those supporting the laws and policies of apartheid were, and would continue to be, guilty of doing a terrible wrong.

Many of the people who participated in the conflict experienced its guilt condition as so large that their attention was focused mostly on that particular condition, and it became hard to focus their attention on solving the desire-interfering problem. To understand this better, we have to take a couple of minutes to see how each of the three conditions of a conflict can vary in size and how that affects efforts to resolve a conflict.

The Three Conflict Conditions Can Vary in Size

The three conditions of a conflict (desire, interference and guilt) are not just present. Each of these conditions, like the sides of a triangle, can vary in size.

The Variability of Desires. People have different desires, some not as strong as others. We can get a feel for this by considering the following scenarios:

Over the course of a few months, Juliet meets four young suitors at different times. First she meets Tom, spends an hour with him at a nice café, and the next day she has no desire to ever see him again. A few weeks later she meets Dick at a play, and the next day she has a small but not overwhelming desire to see him. The following week, during a stroll through a lush park, she is introduced to Harry. The next day she finds that she wants to see him even more then she wants to see Dick. And then she meets Romeo. Juliet’s passion leads her to follow Romeo through the gates of death.

Let’s say twenty-four hours after each of these four meetings, Juliet is asked to rate on a zero to ten-point scale how much she wants to see each. Zero indicates she has no desire to see the guy, and ten indicates the greatest desire she can imagine. For Tom, she provides a rating of zero; for Dick, a three; for Harry, a six; and for Romeo, a ten.

Once a person desires something a certain amount, over time it can change. We all know cases in which both the bride and groom swear at their wedding that they desire to be together for the rest of their lives, and then after a few years, they have no desire to be with one another for another minute, let alone for the rest of their lives.

The process of asking people to rate from one to ten how much they desire something allows us to measure this kind of variability. A similar process can be used to measure the other two conditions for a conflict—interfering and guilt.

The Variability of Interfering Acts. Recall that in a conflict an interfering act refers to a party doing something that gets in the way of Party A’s desire. With that in mind, consider the following scenarios:

Juliet wants to marry Romeo. Her father gives his blessing and says, “Marry him whenever you want.” Juliet is asked to rate on a zero to ten- point scale the degree she perceives that her father will act in a manner that is interfering with what she wants. Zero indicates “not at all interfering.” Ten indicates “completely interfering.” With a delightful smile, she indicates a zero.

Let’s change the scenario a bit. Juliet wants to marry Romeo. Her father says she can see him as much as she wants six days a week. He goes on to say that on Fridays she can also see Romeo as much as she wants, but only during the day. From suppertime to bedtime on Fridays she will meet some other eligible men in the city. If after three months of this plan, Juliet still wants to marry Romeo, her father tells her he will give his blessing. Although Juliet wants to marry Romeo right away, she indicates that it appears to her that her father’s plan will not be completely interfering with what she wants by giving it a rating of three.

How about this scenario? Juliet wants to marry Romeo. Her father forbids her from ever seeing Romeo and has hired some thugs to kidnap and transport him to Australia, thousands of miles away. Juliet indicates that it appears to her that her father’s interfering act is a ten.

These three scenarios illustrate that, like desires, interfering activities can be perceived as varying on a scale from zero to ten. So too can the guilt condition.

The Variability of Guilt. Like the desires and incompatibility conditions of conflicts, people don’t perceive guilt as just present or absent, but rather they perceive varying degrees of it. For example, let’s say Juliet passionately desires to marry Romeo, but discovers that the prince has ordered that anyone marrying Romeo will be beheaded, along with all of her family. Under this set of circumstances, Juliet may not blame her father at all if he refuses to give her his permission.

What about a different set of circumstances? Juliet passionately wants to marry Romeo. In this case, the prince is not involved. Juliet’s father earns a meager living running a grocery store in town. Many of his customers hate Romeo. If they were to hear that Juliet’s father gave his permission for her to marry Romeo, they would stop shopping at his store.

The whole family depends on the income from the store. Juliet believes her family would somehow survive, but they would lose the house that they love and have to make other major sacrifices. In this case, Juliet may blame her father for refusing to give his permission for her to get married, but perhaps just a little bit.

In our final example, Juliet’s father refuses to give her his permission to marry even though everyone in town likes Romeo and thinks he would make a great husband for her. When Juliet asks her father for an explanation for his refusal, he replies, “Because I said so!”

Under this set of circumstances, Juliet may believe her father is completely to blame for his interfering act. In the case of so large a guilt condition, Juliet may begin to focus on doing something terrible to make him “pay” for his guilt. Her angry emotions can make it difficult to think rationally and creatively.

Back to the Mandela Conflict

In 1980, when Nelson Mandela was still in prison, I spoke for over an hour to a person of color about his views on South Africa’s apartheid policies. The entire time he was very angry and he spoke about all of the awful things that those supporting apartheid were guilty of doing. Each time I tried to get him to discuss what the country can do to move forward in order to achieve his desire to obtain civil rights for all of the people of South Africa, he would begin to answer me, but before he could finish his first sentence, he switched back to talking about another set of actions that supporters of South Africa were guilty of.

I believe this type of discussion was typical of many of those embroiled in this conflict until Mandela was finally released after 27 years in prison. Mandela spoke with authority when he modeled for his people a very different form of discussion, a form of discussion that was less angry, less blaming of who did what, and more on how to achieve the desire for civil rights and how to end the interfering acts of apartheid supporters. He spoke with authority in part because the people knew that if Mandela could forgive after how he suffered in prison for so long, perhaps they could find a way to do so as well.

Oh, there were those who wanted revenge despite hearing Mandela’s approach. Would have more violence bred even more violence?

In the end, the South African people decided overwhelmingly that Mandela’s approach was the wiser of the two paths that laid before them. Yes, there remains many serious problems that remain for the South African people to solve. But the people have spoken, and there are many signs that exist to say they were right. Today, according to a recent Gallup poll:

In closing, I want to leave you with the words of former President Bill Clinton. Upon being interviewed about the death of Mandela, Clinton said:

“His enduring power is that he showed us that there is truth and freedom in forgiveness and in the mental and emotional discipline to live in the present and think of the future.”

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

Tags anger, apartheid, conflict resolution, dig for the conflict, emotional intelligence, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, Nelson Mandela, psychological maturity, respect, South Africa, violence, wisdom

anger cold shoulder conflict management conflict resolution criticism emotional intelligence fairness free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts MATURITY psychological maturity respect social intelligence wisdom

GIVING SOMEONE THE COLD SHOULDER: WISE OR FOOLISH?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date December 1, 2013
11 Comments on GIVING SOMEONE THE COLD SHOULDER: WISE OR FOOLISH?

Welcome to From Insults to Respect. Today we begin with a Blondie comic:

In the above scenario, as Dagwood gets into bed, rather than greet him with warm, open arms, Blondie has turned her back to him. Because she has become angry with him, all that Dagwood is going to get from Blondie on this night is Blondie’s cold shoulder.

What Does it Mean to Give Someone the Cold Shoulder?

When we are in a relationship, if someone does something that results in arousing our anger, we often seek to punish the person whom we believe to be the source of our anger. One way to do this is to act in a manner that is typically referred to as “giving him the cold shoulder.” Of course it is not just women who give guys the cold shoulder; guys do it to their spouse perhaps just as much as women.

Although when I think of someone giving the cold shoulder to someone, the image that typically comes to my mind is two people in a marriage relationship, but the fact is that a friend can do it to a friend as well.

According to Wikipedia, “the phrase “cold shoulder” has been used as a description of aloofness and disdain,^[1] a contemptuous look over one’s shoulder,^[4] and even in the context of a woman attempting to decline the advances of an aggressive man.^[6] Overall, it remains widely popular as a phrase for describing the act of ignoring someone or something, or giving an unfriendly response.^{[5] “}

Is the “Cold Shoulder” Technique Good or Bad?

I have had discussions with people who use this type of punishment and many of them are just fine with it. They report that whenever they use this approach, almost always, after awhile, the argument somehow gets worked out and their relationship, overall, has been wonderful. And they say that they know people who have had a valued relationship lasting a lifetime despite one or both parties in the relationship using the cold shoulder from time to time.

Although I agree that there are certainly worse ways to deal with disagreements than giving the person you are angry with the cold shoulder, nevertheless, I believe there is a much better alternative.

Notice that in the above comic when Dagwood becomes angry with Blondie, instead of giving her the cold shoulder, he lovingly says, “Please, Honey, I need a moment…”

Regular readers of this blog know that I have long advocated that when you see yourself becoming angry, it is wise to provide the other person in your relationship a time out signal that you have worked out when both of you were in a pleasant mood (see ANGER, STRESS AND THE SIGNALING TO BACK OFF TECHNIQUE). This postpones any deep problem solving until you give yourself some time to calm down.

In the Blondie comic that we just looked at, Dagwood’s signal is “Please, Honey, I need a moment…” Notice that he includes in his signal a sweet nickname for her. This can be very helpful. By learning to express your signal in a loving way, it decreases the likelihood that the problem will turn into a more heated problem that will be harder to solve in the future.

Also notice that Dagwood, in this example, says he needs a moment. Sometimes we need more than a moment. There is nothing wrong with taking even a week to calm down and to figure out how to best handle the problem you are experiencing. However, if you do think that it will take you more than 24 hours, I agree with the position that Thich Nhat Hanh takes in his beautiful book, Anger: Wisdom for Cooling the Flames. Before the 24 hours are up, do your best to tell the other person why you think you are angry in a loving manner if it is a family member, or a friendly manner with others. Hanh writes, “Try your best to say it peacefully. There may be some sadness in your voice, that’s fine. Just don’t say something to punish or to blame.”

At the beginning of this post I presented a comic in which Blondie makes it clear to Dagwood that she has no intention of telling him why she is angry. I think that keeping it a secret about why you are angry is simply not fair. And when you do something that strikes the other party as unfair, you now have created an extra reason to fuel the anger in the relationship.

If you agree with me that within 24 hours it is only fair to share in a loving or friendly way a little description of what you are experiencing, at the point that you provide your description there is no need to try to solve the problem. But Hanh and I both agree that you owe it to the person who is in a relationship with you to at least give him or her some explanation for what is going on within you. If you find that you don’t think you can say the words of this communication using a loving or friendly tone, at least try to write a brief note indicating a little of what you have been experiencing.

To help you to make the best use of the time that you are seeking to calm down and to problem solve, I hope you will read the two of the posts in which I discuss this process–Being a Wise Friend to Your Angry Self, Part 1 and Being a Wise Friend to Your Angry Self, Part 2.

Hanh aptly summarizes this process when he wrote:

When we are angry, we have to go back to ourselves and take good care of our anger. We cannot say, “Go away anger, you have to go away. I don’t want you.” When you have a stomachache, you don’t say, “I don’t want you, stomach, go away.” No, you take care of it. In the same way, we have to embrace and take good care of our anger. We recognize it as it is, embrace it, and smile…

Our practice is based on the insight of non-duality. Both our negative feelings and positive feelings are organic and belong to the same reality. So there is no need to fight; we only need to embrace and take care…. You may think that you have to combat evil and chase it out of your heart and mind. But this is wrong. The practice is to transform yourself. If you don’t have garbage, you have nothing to use in order to make compost. And if you don’t have compost, you have nothing to nourish the flower in you. You need the suffering, the affliction in you. Since they are organic, you know that you can transform them and make good use of them.

Well, that’s my post for today. I hope you find within it some food for thought. And please feel free to provide comments or ask questions by typing in the Leave a Reply box at the very bottom of this page.

Have a wonderful week!

Jeff

Tags anger, arguments, Blondie, cold shoulder, conflict, conflict management, conflict resolution, disagreement, dispute management, disrespectful, emotional intelligence, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, insults, negative criticism, psychological maturity, respect, silent treatment, wisdom

anger bullying child discipline conflict management conflict resolution criticism dig for the conflict emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts MATURITY Name calling respect stress taunting teasing wisdom

RESPONDING TO INSULTS BY IGNORING

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date November 24, 2013
5 Comments on RESPONDING TO INSULTS BY IGNORING

If you have been following this blog, you know that I have often discussed different ways to respond to insults.

For example, some people respond to negative criticism that is designed to be constructive as if it was an insult. They then become angry, defensive and end up storming away. In a post titled CRITICISM AND WISDOM, I encouraged people who respond in this way to this type of criticism to learn to change their attitude. I explained that this type of criticism does not have to be viewed as an insult, but rather, as something potentially helpful and something that can lead toward wisdom. Rather than becoming defensive, we can learn to welcome this type of criticism and even encourage the criticizer to feel free to provide additional criticism in the future. This takes practice, but it can be achieved.

Sometimes people begin to throw insults at you because they are angry about a conflict they have with you. In this type of situation, rather than to respond to the insults by becoming defensive and returning the insults, I advocated in an earlier post learning a plan to DIG FOR THE CONFLICT in a friendly, assertive manner.

More recently, I mentioned that in certain types of situations RESPONDING TO INSULTS WITH QUIET SADNESS can be helpful. This type of response is most helpful when the insults are being provided because the insulter is in a stressed-out mood about something that has nothing to do with you, or because the insulter is jealous of you.

When I engage in discussions about the above types of responses, people sometimes ask me what I think about just ignoring an insult.

In the above Luann comic strip, Delta tries to get Luann to consider ignoring Tiffany. I wonder if it would be better to ignore her insult but not ignore Tiffany.

This ignoring insults strategy has been with us for a long time. I remember a principal many years ago advocating that kids should learn to ignore insults because tossing insults at someone is a lot like a game of tennis. That is, in tennis, if Ron serves a ball to you, if you refuse to hit the ball back, Ron will quickly become bored and find someone else to play with. Similarly, if Ron throws an insult at you, if you ignore it, rather than throw the insult back, Ron will soon become bored and leave you alone.

There are times when I have used the ignoring approach fairly successfully. I remember a time when I was about 12-years old. I was passing three guys who were hanging out on a street corner. They appeared to be around 18. When they started insulting me, I ignored it and just kept walking. They let me pass with just one more insult. It was all over in a matter of seconds and no physical harm had occurred to me. And so, the ignoring strategy worked pretty well.

However, when I got home, my imagination took flight. I wondered if my sense of being a “true” man had gotten roughed up just a bit. Maybe, I thought, if I really had guts, I should have told those guys a thing or two even at the risk of being beaten to a bloody pulp. Then I imagined being Superman, and I used my super powers to beat all three of them up.

But now that I’m quite a bit older and I have a far more secure sense of my manhood, I think that under the circumstances that I found myself as a 12-year old, my actions were indeed reasonable. I’ve learned over the years that nothing I could have done differently would have been really likely to have had any real positive impact on those three guys.

To create real change with boys like that requires an intervention that a typical 12-year old could hardly be expected to create. It would have to involve, for example, someone the older boys genuinely respect, or creating a coalition of citizens working together to take the type of nonviolent actions that was used to put a stop to the disrespectful treatment of blacks during the civil rights demonstrations of the 1960s.

For young children and those individuals who have trouble learning words, the great benefit of the ignoring approach is that it is perhaps the easiest strategy to learn. Not even a single word is required, and it indeed can often produce better results then returning insults with insults.

Close cousins to the ignoring approach, is to learn to use a particular word or phrase in response to the first insult followed by ignoring any following insults. The most popular of course is “Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never harm me.” Others are:

“So.”

“Good one.”

“Nice try.”

“I’m not going there.”

This “word or phrase approach” can give the person using it the experience of doing something to stick up for oneself. The word or phrase is meant to convey to the insulter that you recognize the game that the insulter is trying to play, and you are smart enough to know how to refuse to play it if that’s what you wish to do. There is a sense of empowerment that comes with being involved in a choice and taking some outward action to exercise your choice. Ignoring, or covering your ears to pretend to ignore, without saying anything may seem “weaker” to you than at least saying something on your behalf in a pleasant, self-assured manner.

This strategy works best when the word or phrase is uttered in a pleasant, friendly tone while looking squarely into the eyes of the insulter. If you instead say the word or phrase with a sneer or with any other action that tries to convey that you are somehow better or smarter than the insulter, the strategy is likely to make the situation worse. You don’t want to do anything that makes the insulter angrier than he or she may already be. That might lead to an escalation of any underlying conflict and violence. A sneer amounts to returning the insult, when that’s just what you want to avoid. Any action that comes off as returning the insult will most likely motivate the insulter to try harder to make you feel bad.

Now, although ignoring or using a quick word or phrase followed by ignoring is easy to learn and often much better than returning the insult, for most situations trying to first find out why the person is throwing out insults is a much better course of action (see INSULTS: A COMIC STRIP LOVER’S GUIDE). By asking the insulter in a concerned manner the reason for the insult can lead to a quick fix for some underlying problem. And of course, if this “asking in a concerned manner” approach doesn’t work, you can always use the ignoring approach or one of its cousins afterwards.

Well, that’s my post for this week. I’m hoping readers will take some time to post a comment about these ideas. What has worked for you? What has been your experience in trying any of these strategies? I’d love to hear from you.

Have a great 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 and social intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.

Tags anger, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, dig for the conflict, dispute management, disrespectful, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, Ignoring, insulter, jr, Martin Luther King, psychological maturity, respect, violence, wisdom

anger challenge comic strip conflict management conflict resolution criticism emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts jealousy Name calling playful teasing psychological maturity respect social intelligence taunting teasing The Cool Steve Stories wisdom

RESPONDING TO INSULTS WITH QUIET SADNESS

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date November 17, 2013
3 Comments on RESPONDING TO INSULTS WITH QUIET SADNESS

A couple of weeks ago, I provided readers of this blog a post titled, “How I Met Cool Steve.” There, I told a story from one of my novels about a teenager, Jeff Star. At one point, Jeff is in an angry mood because his teacher gave him so much homework, and perhaps he is also having some jealous feelings about how much respect the other students have for Cool Steve. Jeff Star tells us what happens next:

Suddenly I hear, “Hey, Jeff Star!”

I turn to my left and spot Cliff calling after me. “Jeff, that guy Steve you were asking about,” Cliff calls out, “well, here he is.”

There, standing by Cliff is Cool Steve with a smile on his face. As I walk over, I’m feeling a completely unfamiliar nervousness. What’s he smiling about? I think to myself. Cool Steve! Cool Idiot if you ask me. And then, when I open my mouth, I find myself saying in a loud tough voice, “So you’re Steve. I’ve been hearing about you. The word is you’re a Jerk!”

As I glare at Steve, with his Mack Truck shoulders, my heart pounds furiously. From the corner of my eye I notice Steve’s friend, Cliff, watching on, his mouth closed so tight he seems to have no lips. His words from yesterday come to mind—“Steve’s the best athlete I’ve ever personally known.”

Big deal! I’m ready to go at him.

I’m waiting for an angry come on, or a quick jab from his right. My muscles are as tight as a hangman’s noose.

I notice several students who were walking home from school have put on their brakes, and their eyes are flashing back and forth between me and Steve.

Steve’s eyes lower, his forehead creases. Then his eyes look into mine and I see, instead of fury, sadness. “I guess,” he begins to say haltingly, “well… I was hoping… you know… starting a new school here… well, I was hoping the guys would like me.”

Those dark, glimmering eyes of his….

“Jeff,” says Cliff, “why did you say that?”

My eyes dart to him and back to Steve. Cold perspiration beads up on my forehead. The students looking on are almost drooling. What should I do?

Uncomfortably, I find myself shifting my stance as I look into Steve’s eyes…the sadness there…eyebrows down. They look like they are on the verge of becoming watery as he looks directly into my eyes, then down, and then back up into mine. My fury begins to turn into a feeling of downright stupidity. “Listen Steve, I… I don’t know why I said that… everyone I talked wit’ said you were okay.” I take a quick glance at Cliff and the other students watching on…and then hurry away.

A few minutes later, I’m pushing the elevator button in my apartment lobby. Jeez, I just made a great impression, I think to myself, a wonderful great impression. Steve’s eyes… man, who is this guy?

In junior high, whenever I started to put someone down, I got returned insults and fistfights. Such reactions would turn me into a raving lunatic. Now, with the way Steve acted, I don’t know how to respond to his quiet sadness.

In contrast to the beliefs of many people, the story, “How I Met Cool Steve” puts forth the theory that someone can be respected even if they respond to an insult in a different way than to return the insult or to physically attack the insulter. As a boy growing up in Brooklyn, I became pretty acquainted with the typical way to respond to insults. Most often, voices would get loud, and the exchange led to a very uncomfortable feeling between the two parties. When the two parties came back together, there were often more uncomfortable verbal exchanges. From time to time physical fights would break out, school pants got ripped at the knees as one guy tried to pin down the other on the cement ground, and I saw more then one guy end up with a broken nose. Parents had to take time off from work to meet with the principal, and sometimes the insults led to larger groups ganging up on other groups to defend the honor of someone.

Malcolm Gladwell, in his fine book, Outliers, discusses regions where people are willing to fight in response to even the slightest insult. He refers to these regions as having a “culture of honor.” One of the clearest consequences of having an above average “culture of honor” is that the murder rate is quite a bit higher than average.

In the Cool Steve story, there is something about how Cool Steve uses his eyes to negotiate through his challenging experience with Jeff Star.

How we use our eyes can dramatically influence an experience. To illustrate this, consider this example. When I first began to drive in New York, I was astounded that there were times when I was trying to ease over to the left toward my exit, when I would encounter some aggressive drivers. They would lean forward and the expression on their faces seemed to say that they would kill me if I dared to move in front of them.

As I reflected upon this, I recognized that there were times that I too acted like one of these aggressive drivers. But then one day, someone began to indicate that he wanted to move in front of me, and as I started to get into my angry, aggressive mode, the person seeking to move in front of me deliberately caught my eye with his friendly gaze and indicated with his hand that he wanted to move over. There was something in his eyes that seemed to be just asking me if I minded if he moved over, rather than like he was trying to bully his way over. Instantly, I found my whole self dramatically change. I quickly eased off the gas peddle and waved him over. I felt a reduction in my anger. His eyes somehow let me know that he was not merely an it–but rather, a fellow human being.

Afterwards, I began trying this approach whenever I wanted to move over in heavy traffic, and it has been an enormous help.

How we use our eyes can have similarly helpful effects when someone throws an insult at you. By looking gently into the insulter’s eyes and softly letting the insulter know you are sorry to hear whatever the insult is about often eases tensions. Then, if you look sadly down toward the ground for a couple of seconds, and then gently back into the insulter’s eye, this has a way of making a personal connection.

As I began to try this in my teenage years, I was amazed at how well it worked. At first, I had a little fear that my friends would think less of me, but this proved unfounded. Occasionally, a friend would say to me, “You should have slugged that guy who insulted you right in the kisser.” I’d shrug my shoulders, and that put an end to it. All of my old friends stuck with me, and I ended up often becoming friends with the insulters.

Now, some people in my conflict resolution classes over the years have asked, “What’s wrong with standing up for yourself?”

My answer is, “Nothing is wrong with it. I encourage people to stand up for themselves. But there are smart ways to do it and not so smart ways to do it.”

Consider the following Luann comic:

Here we see Luann preparing to stick up for herself so that as soon as Tiffany throws an insult at her, Luann will be ready to return the insult. If you are a follower of the delightful Luann comic strip, you know that this back and forth insult pattern has been going on and on for years. And if two people are fine with continuing to act this way toward one another, they are free to do so.

But let’s say Luann is getting tired of this old game. If she really wanted to effectively stand up for herself, she would first try to figure out why Tiffany is insulting her. It has long been my impression that Tiffany is jealous of Luann because some boys prefer Luann to her. Returning insults at Tiffany won’t resolve that issue. Gently looking sadly into Tiffany’s eyes and asking her in a concerned voice why she is throwing insults at her might lead to a more lasting solution to this type of problem.

Now, of course this quiet sadness approach is just one tool to have in your conflict resolution toolbox. It is not quite right for every situation. In the past, I recommended a few others (see for example, INSULTING CRITICISM: WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?). We’ll also be looking at other effective ways to stand up for yourself in future posts, ways that oftentimes work far better than returning insults.

Have a great week!

——————————-

Tags anger, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, dispute management, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, jealousy, Luann comics, Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers, violence

anger bullying conflict management conflict resolution free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts Mike Tomlin N.F.L. pranks respect Richard Incognito Ryan Tannehill teasing threats Troy Polamalu

The NFL and Bullying: How to Change the Culture

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date November 10, 2013
No Comments on The NFL and Bullying: How to Change the Culture

This is my third “NFL Bullying” post since the topic splashed all over the national media this past Monday. The first (“The N.F.L. Culture and Bullying“) presents the theory that one reason why bullying is sometimes viewed as acceptable is the belief that it can increase motivation to reach a level of excellence not achievable without bullying.

Whereas there may indeed be legitimate examples of some people achieving more in some valued area than they would have because of some insult, there are many arguments that insults are far more likely to be harmful rather than helpful. From my own observations, insults most often just lead to a nasty exchange and wasted energy. Moreover, some talented people who might have made an excellent contribution to a team may end up quitting altogether rather than putting up with what they feel is abuse.

Off the football field, recent research has found that harsh verbal discipline by parents led to increases in teenage depression and more behavior problems, including fighting with peers, trouble in school and lying to parents (see Longitudinal Links Between Fathers’ and Mothers’ Harsh Verbal Discipline and Adolescents’ Conduct Problems and Depressive Symptoms).

I am therefore not convinced that people, to be fully motivated, need to be insulted. In the NFL, players know that if they do well their records will show this. Millions of dollars help to motivate. Lack of effort will lead to being cut from the team. When players do well they are cheered by millions and receive more financially rewarding sponsor deals. The players want to do well not only for themselves but for their teammates and to be respected as a skillful player by their fellow professional football players. The coaching team is hired to demonstrate passion for excellence, and they convey this attitude through modeling. With these types of motivators, hazing, with its likelihood of causing more harm then good, makes little sense.

My second post on this topic (N.F.L. Bullying: The Real Reason For It) argued that whereas part of the reason for the hazing of rookies in the NFL is the belief that it can challenge players to perform better, the larger reason has to do, in my opinion, with a completely different dynamic. I expressed this dynamic as follows:

“Veterans recognize that the rookies are after their jobs. When Joe Quarterback sees a fresh new quarterback on the team, he says to himself, After all my hard work and effort and all of the damaging blows that I’ve taken for the team, now this young son-of-a bitch wants to take my job.”

This underlying anger is the real fuel igniting the bullying. I likened what the bullies of the NFL are doing to what white racist southerners did to blacks in the south.

Now I do want to make it clear that I certainly don’t have enough information to say if any specific person involved in the Incognito-Martin incident is guilty of doing anything wrong. But I personally think there is ample evidence that there is currently too much bullying going on in the NFL, and we should go ahead and start discussing ways to change the culture. Why do I believe this?

One reason is the words used by Ryan Tannehill, QB for the Miami Dolphins, while defending his teammate, Richie Incognito, who is being accused of bullying. “Does he [Incognito] like to give guys a hard time?” said Tannehill. “Yes. Does he like to pester guys and have fun? Yes. But he brought a lot of laughter and a lot of cohesiveness.” (Quoted in Bloomberg Press in article titled, “NFL Bullying Accusation Forces Teams to Look at Own Locker Rooms“).

These kinds of statements even from someone trying to defend Incognito supports my contention that it is time to start thinking about changing the NFL culture. A much better culture would impart to the players a clear understanding that there are far better ways to bring cohesiveness to a team than giving teammates a hard time and pestering them and that laughing about such behavior doesn’t make it excusable. I’m not alone.

Jason Reid, a writer for the Washington Post wrote a column on this topic titled, “Miami Dolphins Blacks’ Support for Richie Incognito in NFL Bullying Affair is Troubling.”

Here’s what Reid had to say:

“Miami Dolphins players don’t get it. Their support of suspended guard Richie Incognito – even after they learned he used a racial slur in a threatening voice mail left for biracial linemate Jonathan Martin – is among many troubling aspects of the bullying controversy that has engulfed the NFL franchise.

But for me, what’s most disturbing is that several misguided African- American Dolphins players – Mike Wallace, Mike Pouncey, Brent Grimes and Michael Egnew have been among Incognito’s most vocal defenders – identify more closely with Martin’s alleged tormentor than they do with Martin. Their support for Incognito shows the wrongheaded thinking that can arise from the locker-room culture and long-standing beliefs in the African American community about what behavior is socially acceptable for blacks.”

IF indeed there is too much bullying going on in the NFL, such verbal statements can be one way to change its culture.

There is some hope that the culture can indeed be changed. According to a recent USA Today report, at least one NFL team has already managed to do this at least for one team–the Pittsburgh Steelers. There we learn that:

The attention hazing and bullying have received this week surprises Pittsburgh Steelers safety Troy Polamalu. Having only played for one organization his entire 11-year career, Polamalu says he’s never seen any young players deal with anything even resembling hazing.

“Coach Tomlin has always said that if you are willing to help us win than you’re part of our family,” Polamalu said. “Whenever anybody young or new comes into here, we always have open arms and are willing to help them get used to their professional lives, whether it’s getting a car or giving them some change before they start getting paid.”

In another report, this one from ESPN, Polamalu said that the Steelers’ ethos starts at the top with chairman emeritus Dan Rooney and president Art Rooney II.

“They’ve really instilled a family environment that’s permeated our locker room so whenever a rookie comes in we accept them with open arms. We teach them the best way we know on how to be professional, how to take care of your body, how to train, how to learn the defense, the offense, whatever it may be.”

In the same article, Steelers’ coach Mike Tomlin is quoted as saying:

“We take a simple approach in that young players can be quality reasons why we’re successful so if they’re capable and willing to help us in terms of what we desire to get done as a football team then we’re all committed to helping them help us,” the seventh-year coach said. “I think our veteran players embrace that and have mentor-like relationships with our young guys…”

These statements suggest that it is possible to create a culture in the NFL without the hazing of the younger players that appears to go on elsewhere.

In my view, the culture should start at the point just before a player’s contract is signed. The coach should look the player in the eye and say emphatically, “I don’t know what you’ve been taught while playing football before, but if you sign with us, you must agree that you will not participate in any hazing or putting down of players, young or old. Is that absolutely clear?!”

Moreover the contract should clearly have wording indicating the consequences of breaking this rule that includes suspensions and monetary penalties. The coach should underline where in the contract these provisions are, and they should be fully discussed. If the player doesn’t want to agree to these terms, he should be told that he’ll have to find work elsewhere.

Now, I understand that one of the strategies of football teams is to insult players on the other team. This is done in the hopes of getting the insulted player so angry that he will start a fight and end up either getting thrown out of the game or costing his team some other penalty. And so, teams do have to train their players to handle these types of insults. This can be done very effectively without hazing in the following way.

Coaches can have the players practice responding to insults by saying, “Nice try.” The players are told that when they say these words, it actually means, “I am not stupid enough to fall for that trick.”

The players should undergo repeated training on this. The training periods should begin with the coach standing in front of all of the players. He then states, “We are all going to now practice handling insults. This practice session will be done like this. I’ll shout an insult and all of you are to call out, ‘Nice try.’ After your reply, I’ll then shout, ‘What do we mean when we say, Nice try?’ Then in unison, all of you will call out, ‘I am not stupid enough to fall for that trick.'”

This drill should be done with twenty repetitions and then repeated on several different occasions. Then the players are told by the coach that during intra-squad scrimmages, to practice using the “Nice try” technique, from time to time he will have one squad start to insult the other squad players during the practice game. At such times, the individuals being insulted are to practice responding to the insults by saying with a smile, “Nice try.” The coach should mention that it is only during these types of practices that players insulting players will be tolerated.

With this type of practice, players can become competent in handling insults during real games that is consistent with a respectful culture among fellow team members.

——————————-

Tags anger, bullying, conflict management, criticism, dispute management, disrespectful, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, insults, Jonathan Martin, Miami Dolphins, N.F.L., NFL, respect, Richie Incognito, threats