Tag: conflict management

Categories
assertiveness Bullied bullying comic strip confiict management conflict management conflict resolution emotional intelligence emotional maturity enjoyable relationships free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum interpersonal conflicts MATURITY relationships social intelligence wisdom

IS IT WISE TO BE ASSERTIVE?

assertiveness9When I first started to teach a graduate course at the University of Minnesota on conflict resolution, from time to time a student would ask me to compare what I was teaching to assertiveness training.

assertiveness5 “From what I know about assertiveness training,” I explained, “it teaches a very narrow skill that can be helpful at times, particularly for very shy people.  But it doesn’t adequately explain that for different situations alternatives to assertiveness may be the wiser course of action. The DIG Conflict Model that I am teaching provides students a toolbox with several tools that they can choose from.  Depending on the situation, one tool can be better than another to increase personal power and wisely resolve conflicts.

“For example, when I was twelve years old, I was playing some basketball in a Brooklyn playground during summer vacation.  After the first game, I was very thirsty and I thought about getting a drink at the fountain on the far end of the playground. But while I was playing, I had noticed a couple of bullies over by the fountain giving a hard time to kids smaller than they were.  The bullies were clearly bigger than I was.

assertiveness12“Assertiveness trainers, it seems to me, would have me go over to the fountain. If the bullies got in my way, I should just stand up to them, asserting that I want to get a drink.

“Although that is certainly one option that I could have chosen, it risked having the cookies pounded out of me or they might just block my way from getting a drink pushing and shoving me away, I first considered other options.  Perhaps I could come up with an approach that would achieve my goal of getting a drink in a less risky manner (see post titled The ABCs OF Power:  The Letter B).  It quickly occurred to me that my apartment is just a block and a half away.  In those days I could run like the wind. So, in two minutes I was back home safely drinking all the water that I wanted.  I then filled up a 36-ounce bottle with water and took it with me to the playground so I ended up having plenty of water after the next few games.

basketball playground“The next day that I played at the playground, I noticed that the bullies were gone.  When I went to get a drink at the fountain, I asked some of the kids who were playing there what happened to the bullies.  A couple of them told me how they had gotten their big brothers to tell the bullies to cut their crap out. In terms of the DIG Conflict Model, they used the power of creating a coalition (see post titled “The ABCs of Power: The Letter C“) with their big brothers to achieve their goal and it worked.  For the rest of the summer we all got our drinks at the fountain without any more conflicts.  And so, here is an example in which I believe I teach some skills beyond assertiveness. A conflict was resolved in a satisfactory manner with less danger or hassle than assertiveness.

“Let’s look at another example of how the DIG Conflict Model’s approach differs from assertiveness training.  candy counterIf you are at a movie theater and you want to buy some candy, as long as you manage to go up to the candy counter and purchase what you want, you have pretty much fulfilled all the requirements of being assertive.  But when I was a teenager, I worked at a candy counter.  I found that some of my customers treated me in a way that was distinctly more pleasant than others who used a cold, impersonal style.  As I thought about this, I noticed that the pleasant customers, when it was their turn on line, took a brief moment to look me in the eye and give me a respectful nod of the head.  Rather than using a demanding voice that ordered me to get what they wanted, they said in a pleasant voice, ‘Can I have some…’ or ‘I would like some…’ After I got them what they wanted, they again looked me in the eye while thanking me.

assertiveness1“Both styles—the cold impersonal demanding style and the more pleasant respectful style—took the same amount of time and both approaches led to customers always getting the items that they wanted.  Nevertheless, the DIG Conflict Model advocates that when we choose an approach to achieve what we want, we consider the golden rule—‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’  Since I preferred the more pleasant respectful style when I was serving others behind a candy counter, I began to use a similar approach whenever I went up to a candy counter as a customer.  I don’t think assertiveness training encourages people to think in this way.”

being-assertiveThe first few times that I responded to the question that asked me to compare what I was teaching to assertiveness training, the questioners seemed satisfied with my answer, and I then went on with the rest of my lesson.  But one day, a woman replied to my answer by voicing an objection.  “I have taken an assertiveness training class,” she said, “and your description of assertiveness training doesn’t match my experience at all.  For example, my instructor advocated being respectful while being assertive.”

assertiveness6Now, I could have asserted over and over again that I was right and she was wrong until she either stopped disagreeing with me or sat down and remained quiet, but I responded quite differently.  First, I summarized what I heard her say.  After she indicated that she was satisfied that I understood her position, I paused to think about it for a few moments.  I then replied, as follows:

“My views about assertiveness training are based, admittedly, on very little experience.  I have never actually taken an assertiveness class and learned about it from a couple of professors who both discussed the approach very briefly, maybe in five or ten minutes.  One of the professors, for an assignment, had the class read a chapter in a book about the topic and when we met for class afterwards, we discussed what we had read for a few minutes.  Therefore, I think it does makes sense that I learn some more about assertiveness so I can give a fairer reply to these types of questions.  Thanks for raising this concern.”

The questioner seemed satisfied with my reply, and afterwards, I did take the time to look more carefully at the assertiveness approach.  Here’s some of what I found out.

assertiveness2According to a Wikipedia article:

“Assertiveness is the quality of being self-assured and confident without being aggressive…. Dorland’s Medical Dictionary defines assertiveness as: “a form of behavior characterized by a confident declaration or affirmation of a statement without need of proof; this affirms the person’s rights or point of view without either aggressively threatening the rights of another (assuming a position of dominance) or submissively permitting another to ignore or deny one’s rights or point of view”.[1]”

Wikipedia’s section on assertiveness training states:

“The goals of assertiveness training include:[4]

  • increased awareness of personal rights
  • differentiation between non-assertiveness and assertiveness
  • differentiation between passive–aggressiveness and aggressiveness
  • learning both verbal and non-verbal assertiveness skills.

assertiveness3As a communication style and strategy, assertiveness is thus distinguished from both aggression and passivity. How people deal with personal boundaries, their own and those of other people, helps to distinguish between these three concepts. Passive communicators do not defend their own personal boundaries and thus allow aggressive people to abuse or manipulate them through fear. Passive communicators are also typically not likely to risk trying to influence anyone else. Aggressive people do not respect the personal boundaries of others and thus are liable to harm others while trying to influence them. A person communicates assertively by overcoming fear of speaking his or her mind or trying to influence others, but doing so in a way that respects the personal boundaries of others. Assertive people are also willing to defend themselves against aggressive people.”

assertiveness10This article also has a section titled “Communication.”  Among the descriptions that are provided is, “Assertive communication involves respect for the boundaries of oneself and others. It also presumes an interest in the fulfillment of needs and wants through cooperation.[5]”

book jacketWhen I began to flip through a few of the many books on assertiveness, I found that there were numerous approaches offered under this umbrella.  Some like, Too Nice for Your Own Good: How to Stop Making 9 Self-Sabotaging Mistakes by Duke Robinson, seem to approach the topic from a no-nonsense position. Others, like The Guide to Compassionate Assertiveness: How to Express Your Needs and Deal with Conflict While Keeping a Kind Heart, by Sherrie Mansfield Vavrichek, appear to teach techniques that take into account a genuine concern for all involved parties.

assertiveness11And so, in the end, I came to realize that my original description that contrasted my approach with assertiveness was far too simplistic.  And when answering the question, Is it wise to be assertive? my answer is, “Often there are some helpful ideas that fall under that umbrella. It is hard to be clear about this because there are simply way too many approaches that are referred to as assertiveness training to give a more definitive answer.

On this blog you will learn many ways to resolve a conflict. None violate principles taught in assertiveness training. Beyond the skills typically taught under the assertiveness banner there are discussions of skills that don’t violate assertiveness ideas, but can powerfully achieve your goals.

———————————-

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

Categories
confiict management conflict management conflict resolution dig for the conflict emotional maturity enjoyable relationships free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum interpersonal conflicts MATURITY

READING ABOUT EMOTIONAL MATURITY IS OFTEN NOT ENOUGH

charlie emotional immatureWhen you first learned to ride a bicycle, it probably helped that someone told you some basic ideas.  Perhaps your big brother explained to you that when you want to go forward on a bike, you must push down with your foot on the pedal that is highest.  When you do that you will see the other pedal start to rise up.  When the other pedal comes all the way up, you have to push that one down with your other foot.

This type of verbal description can be very helpful, but no amount of it will get anyone to be a smooth bicycle rider.  For that, people have to get up on the bike and try to coordinate all that they have heard, fall down, get back up on the bike, and try again and again, until they learn by doing.

Learning skills that lead to emotional maturity is similar in many ways.  To learn them, you have to apply what you have heard or read by doing it, make mistakes, and try again and again until you get smooth at coordinating the skills. In today’s post, I offer a suggestion for practicing the skills taught on this blog that won’t cost you a red cent.

A Suggestion for Skill Practice

calanderGo to your calendar and for each week over the next month, draw a circle on a day that you can spare five minutes.  Next to the circle, write “CONFLICT?”  This message is designed to remind you that on each of the circled dates you are to take five minutes to write down on a sheet of paper the most difficult conflict that you had or are currently having during the week.  refrig messageKeep this paper on your refrigerator door.  You will see it there each time you reach for some food.  This will help to remind you to check your calendar and to follow through with this plan.

When you write out your description of the conflict, use two sentences to describe the conflict from your perspective and two sentences from how you think the other party views or viewed the conflict.  Remember to use the DIG Conflict Model for doing this.

In addition to these weekly calendar reminders, also draw a double circle on your calendar on a day that falls close to a month after you start this plan.  Pick a day for the double circle day that you can spare a half hour to do the following:  Take down from your refrigerator your list of the different conflicts that you described each week.  Go to the first post of this blog and then begin to flip through the next 5 blog posts one by one by pressing the link below each post that takes you to the next post in the series.  You’ll find these next post links toward the bottom right of each post just before the comments section.  They appear as arrows pointing toward the right.  As you skim through each of these posts, think about how they might apply to any of your recent experiences and take note of some ideas that have begun to fade from your memory.

Anger managementRead over a few of the comics.  This will refresh your memory of some of the ideas that are connected to how the comic was used in the post.  It will also help you to keep your sense of humor as you wrestle with your conflict problems.

When you come upon posts that are specifically related to the various conflicts you described over the course of the month, thoroughly reread them.  If you have resolved any of the conflicts, write out the resolution and comment how well the resolution worked out.

As you do this, from time to time you will come up with some ideas about how you can better handle a similar conflict if it should come up in the future.  Write these ideas out.  Then, close your eyes and imagine you are carrying out these ideas.  Rehearse what you would say in your mind, how you would say it, and how you would reply depending on three or four possible reactions from the other party in the conflict.

rehearsing3Once you can smoothly carry out your imaginary rehearsal, do it three more times.  It helps to practice a little beyond just being smooth because this will help you to carry them out if the situation becomes emotionally charged.

After the first month of carrying out this plan, do it again each month over the course of a full year and you will find that you now can almost instantly describe conflicts using the DIG Conflict Model.  Moreover, you will have been practicing for a full year how to apply the conflict resolution skills taught on this blog to the types of conflicts you tend to face in your own life.

To help you to follow through with this skill enhancement strategy, let someone who is particularly reliable know about this plan.  Have that person ask you once a week if you have followed through with this plan.  During these reminders, spend a few minutes to discuss with this reliable person what you have been learning.

Such help should not go without a reward.  Let the person who is to be giving you the reminder know that if you manage to complete a whole year of this exercise, you will treat him or her to dinner at a fine restaurant. If you are too young to take someone out for dinner, then see if your parents will be your reminder.  Parents can often be persuaded to help their sons and daughters just out of pure love.

A fun way to supplement this strategy is to read the Cool Steve Trilogy, a coming of age series of three novels that take you on exciting adventures of a boy and his friends seeking to learn the secrets of becoming respected (see HERE). There you will find endearing characters that face many of the challenges that we all do. How they grapple with them will deepen your own understanding of how to handle similar challenges when you come face to face with them.

Jack's Picture cropedConflict resolution training programs have not advanced so far as to eliminate the need for problem solving every now and then.  Nor has there been an intervention created that will keep anger from rearing its mischievous head from time to time.  In order to prepare for such events, I encourage you to view lapses in your skills not as a sign of helplessness, but as a sign to get yourself as quickly and safely as you can to the region of challenge.  Once there, wisely use the relative period of peace and calm.

——————————-

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

Categories
change conflict management conflict resolution emotional intelligence enjoyable relationships free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum interpersonal conflicts making changes relationships respect

TO CHANGE, OR NOT TO CHANGE?

My goal in writing this weekly blog is to encourage readers to make some changes that can lead to improvements in the quality of their relationships.  But some people have no patience for this line of thought. Below is a slightly edited version of a discussion that illustrates this view.  Names have been changed for privacy considerations.

The Discussion

open mindEd: I do not understand why adults would care about the opinions of others or why they would want to be with someone that does not want to be with them.  When people don’t like you for who you are, they can go take a hike.

Sue: I don’t think relationship break-ups should be dismissed out of hand. There is much to be said for not jumping from one relationship to another. It is better to grieve the loss and to spend some time alone trying to figure out what went wrong in order to prevent the same issues from presenting themselves next time.

Ron: Some people don’t mind being alone, so if they lose all of their relationships it doesn’t bother them.  But for those who don’t like to be lonely, making some changes can make sense. I’ve seen too many friends rush into a new relationship and repeat history. They end up hurting about being lonely once again but never stop to think about what changes they can make.

Sue: Too many people do not know the difference between being alone and being lonely. They go from one relationship to the next…without thought to the collective damage they do to themselves…and to others.

Ed: I disagree. Nothing goes wrong unless your two personalities do not match. If you broke up, that means you should move on. Trying to change yourself to accommodate the next possible relationship would simply be making yourself dishonest in the relationship and misrepresenting your true self. I have been in relationships in which I had to make a constant effort. It sucked. I am now in a relationship in which I am just myself and so is my wife. We will be celebrating our tenth anniversary this year and we have never had any problems with our relationship. We do not fight as there is no reason for us to fight.

Sue: It’s not about changing who you are.

Ron: In many cases, people who have one relationship after another find themselves dealing with the exact same issues from one relationship to the next. In this case, unless we DO change ourselves, our expectations, or whatever it is that keeps creating the problems that end our relationships, we will not ever know the happiness of a true relationship. There are a lot of damaged people in this world. Nothing wrong with that. Just a lot of people who have to do a lot of work in order to move past that which damaged them, and is preventing them from finding happiness within a relationship.

Sue: I agree with those pointing out the responsibility aspect of relationships. I do think it’s important to get out and spend time around people, get involved in groups and activities. Coop anyone up with nothing to do and they’ll become depressed. But just jumping into a relationship seems kind of selfish, just using the first person who comes along to distract from your own problems.

Ron: I think with any important decision, whether it’s voting, or a relationship, or even researching a given topic, it’s important to be careful and make choices responsibly with care to how they affect others and not just oneself, which is all I think many here are saying.

Some of My Thoughts On This Discussion

There are a few people out there who really don’t care much about having relationships.  They enjoy being alone and if a relationship comes along that they value, this is fine, but if not, this is fine as well.

For the rest of us, having a few valued relationships is up there with fine food and drink.  And if a boy gets used to having his meal served to him by his mother, if she dies, he will soon learn to get his meals some other way.  This new way may not be as pleasant to him, particularly at first.  It may not feel like he is acting “like this is his natural self,”  but in time, it will come to feel more and more comfortable and “natural.”

When we learn a new skill, at first it may not feel “natural” to us.  With practice, the skill soon becomes so smoothly executed that we don’t have to think much about it.  At that point, it does feel “natural.”

Now, there are people who, upon entering into a relationship, come to see that they would have to change so much about themselves in order to make the relationship work that they end up deciding to try to find someone else.  Some of these people find that very soon after the break-up they meet someone that is just right for them.  From these people’s experience, Ed’s comments in the above discussion might make sense.  Ed had decided to end his relationship with some woman rather than making any changes in his life, and he soon found a woman he enjoys being with.  So Ed’s strategy worked for him.  The only thing that Ed is wrong about is that just because this worked out so well for him doesn’t mean it will work out as well for many others.  He seems not to be open to this possibility. Nevertheless, I wish him well.

For other people, efforts to find someone whom they can have a rewarding relationship with may meet with one failure after another.  And for still others, even after a single relationship break-up, feelings of regret may lead to thoughts of “what if?”  These types of experiences can lead them to learn new skills to try out.

Some changes that a person might try out may never come to feel “natural.” When this happens, it makes sense to leave them by the wayside.  But some changes, with practice, may not only come to feel “natural,” but may also lead to treasured relationships.

Well, that’s my post for this week.  I hope you stop by again soon.

——————————-

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

Categories
conflict intensity conflict management conflict resolution Dagwood dig for the conflict emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum guilt

CAN A CONFLICT EVER BE TRULY RESOLVED?

“How’d things work out between Blondie and you?” you ask in a concerned voice upon running into your friend, Dagwood.  “Did you manage to resolve your conflict?”

“Yeah, um…well, I’m kinda not sure,” he replies.

Blondie Conflict resolvedWhen it comes to whether or not a conflict has been resolved, sometimes people feel confused, or they end up engaging in needless arguments about this. Today we spend some time clarifying this issue.

The DIG Conflict Model removes much of the uncertainty about this issue by:

  • being precise about the definition of a conflict
  • introducing the concept of conflict intensity
  • being precise about the point at which a conflict is resolved
  • introducing the concept of related conflicts

The Definition of a Conflict

A conflict exists whenever the following three conditions exist:

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

When using the DIG Conflict Model, we describe a conflict by using the word “DIG” to remind us to identify the three conflict conditions, the desire, the interference, and the guilt.  Sometimes a given situation has more than one conflict but people end up getting confused because they think that all of the conflicts are one big conflict.  When using the DIG Conflict Model, we clearly describe each of the conflicts separately and systematically.  This process dramatically reduces confusion and simplifies finding resolutions to each of the separate conflicts. Sometimes we have to dig to identify all of the conflicts in a situation but the DIG Conflict Model provides us some tools to make this relatively easy (see posts titled DEALING WITH CRITICISM BY DIGGING DEEPER and RESOLVING RECURRING CONFLICTS).

Conflict Intensity

Toward reaching our goal of reducing confusion about whether or not a conflict has been resolved, we have just clarified what it means to have a conflict.  We now move on toward this goal by learning about the intensity of a conflict.

The three conditions of a conflict (desire, interference and guilt) are not just present whenever a conflict exists.  Each of these three conditions may be present at a very high degree, a medium degree, or a low degree.

DESIRE
DESIRE

As an example, let’s say that in the picture on the right, John desires Mary with all of his might.  Asked to rate how much he desires Mary on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the greatest desire he can possibly have, he rates his desire for her a 10.

We asked John a few months later to rate his desire for Mary. Some of Mary’s mannerisms have begun to annoy him, and there are times when he has begun to think of finding a new girlfriend.  He still has some desire for her but at a lower degree then when he first met her.  This example illustrates how the desire component of a conflict can vary over time.

interference
INTERFERENCE

Now let’s look at an example of how the interference component of a conflict can be present at higher and lower degrees. In the picture on the left, Sue desires to get to a long-eared stuffed animal but Fred is interfering.  Sue knows Fred pretty well and she is convinced that once he decides to not let her get something, he usually sticks to it for quite some time.  Asked to rate how much Fred is likely to interfere with the achieving of her desire on a 1 to 10 scale, she answers 8.

But let’s say a few months later Fred’s behavior begins to change.  He still will interfere with Sue achieving her desire to get something but only for a minute or two.  By then he has grown tired of that game.  When Sue wants to get her long-eared friend down from the shelf and Fred tries to stop her, she knows that by waiting for a short period of time things will work out fine.  Now when asked to rate how much Fred will interfere with her achieving her desire, she answers 2.

GUILT
GUILT

Finally, let’s look at an example of how the guilt component of a conflict can be present at higher or lower degrees.  In this picture on the right, Mike comes home from work and sees his wife and some guy in each other’s arms passionately kissing.  Mike’s first reaction is that his wife and this guy are guilty of doing something terribly wrong.  If he was asked to rate just how guilty they were, he might say 10.  But let’s say that moments after he first sees this kissing scene he notices that there are four other people in the room all holding a script for a play.

His wife quickly withdraws from the embrace of the male stranger and warmly greets her husband.  Then she says, “Honey, I got the part I tried out for.  We’re all here rehearsing.”

Now Mike recalls that his wife did have plans to go this morning to a play audition. He doesn’t like the fact that his wife usually gets sexy, passionate parts, but he had agreed to marry her anyway.

Once Mike understands that his wife was rehearsing her part in a play when he had walked into the house, he still feels uncomfortable about what he had seen, but he now recognizes that his wife and the male stranger are not as guilty as he originally thought.  If asked to rate how guilty they are, he may say 2, or even a zero.

In the DIG Conflict Model, the higher each of the three components are rated, the higher the intensity of the conflict. Sometimes when a conflict’s intensity had been very high, if it is no longer as high, people think the conflict has been resolved, but not according to the DIG Conflict Model.

The Point that a Conflict is Resolved

According to the DIG Conflict Model:

Whenever Party A perceives that a conflict exists, it will be resolved from Party A’s perspective when Party A lowers his or her rating of any of the three conflict conditions to zero.

An example of a resolved conflict will be provided in the next section. But first, let’s take a look at what a related conflict is.  Then we will be familiar with four important aspects of conflicts–its precise definition, its degrees of intensity, the point that it is resolved and that some conflicts are related to other conflicts.  Then we will see how this will help us to avoid many misunderstandings that lead to needless confusion and arguments.

Related Conflicts

The best way to understand what is meant by a related conflict is by considering the following parable:

The Parable of Jack in the Restaurant

spigetti 1A dad takes his wife and five-year old son, Jack, to a restaurant.  Jack’s meal comes first, a nice big plate of spaghetti and meatballs.  After Jack quickly shovels into his mouth a couple of forkfuls of his dinner, the dad says, “That looks pretty good, Jack.  Do you mind if I have a little taste of the tomato sauce?  If I like it, I might want to get something with it next time we come.”

“NO, DAD!  I just have enough for me!”

This is frustrating to the dad and he perceives that he has a conflict with his son because he desires a taste of the sauce and perceives that his son is interfering with his desire.  Additionally, he believes his son is guilty of being selfish. 

spigetti 2As he thinks about what to do about this conflict, his wife and he receive the meals that they ordered. 

About fifteen minutes later, the dad still desires a taste of the sauce, but not quite as intensely as before because his hunger has subsided. He then glances over to Jack and notices that there is about half of his original portion of spaghetti left on his plate and the pace of his eating has slowed up quite a bit. His son’s desire to eat his spaghetti has also become less intense.

“Jack,” the dad says softly, “do you still mind if I have just a little taste of your sauce?”

spigetti 3“Sure, you can have some, Dad.  I’m starting to get full.”  And with that, Jack slides about a third of the remaining spaghetti on his dad’s plate while making sure that there is an ample amount of sauce along with it.

In the fifteen minutes that the dad first desired a taste of the sauce, the situation transformed from a clear conflict situation to a non-conflict situation because the dad has achieved his desire to taste the sauce.  But wait!  A minute later, the dad, still a bit bugged about something, suddenly realizes he still does have a conflict with his son.  He tries to summarize it by using the DIG Conflict Model.  “I desire that Jack not be selfish,” he thinks to himself, “but his actions at dinner suggest that he will continue to interfere with this desire if I don’t do something about it, and he’ll continue to be guilty of being selfish.”

This conflict, although related to the earlier one, is different for it has a different desire.  The original conflict’s desire was about getting a taste of the tomato sauce.  That conflict was resolved when the dad got a taste of the tomato sauce.  If asked to rate how much he wants to taste the sauce right now on a 1 to 10 scale, he would say zero.  This new conflict’s desire is about Jack not being selfish.  Thus it is different enough to be thought of as a new conflict with perhaps a distinctly different set of approaches required to address it. 

Now that the dad has clarified in his mind what the new conflict is all about, he begins to reflect upon possible resolutions. “Perhaps I expect too much from a five-year old boy.  There is still plenty of time to teach Jack to care about others, and as he matures, he may just naturally become more altruistic.  Perhaps it might help if I tell Jack some stories, from time to time, about heroes who act in unselfish ways even when they are hungry or are struggling to meet other needs.  And if I model altruistic behavior for Jack with my own behavior, this too can help.  As I think on this some more it occurs to me that maybe in the future if I would like to have a taste of Jack’s food, it would be wise for me to wait until he is at least half done with it.  This way, if Jack was in a particularly irritable mood because of his hunger, he will have some time to take care of his own hunger desires and to calm down a bit.”

A conflict is related to another conflict when at least one of the three conflict conditions of the original conflict is similar to at least one of the conflict conditions of the other conflict.  In the parable about Jack and his dad, initially the dad had the following conflict with his son— I desire a taste of the sauce and perceive that in attempting to get a taste, Jack will create a loud disturbance in the restaurant.  Additionally, I believe Jack is acting selfish.  A few minutes later, the dad, recognizing he has resolved his first conflict but now has another conflict, says to himself, I want Jack to not be selfish, but his actions at dinner suggest that he will continue to act selfishly if I don’t do something about it.  It’s wrong to be selfish.”  Both the initial conflict and its related conflict are connected because both of their guilt conflict conditions are similar (Jack is guilty of being selfish).

Discussion

We have now become familiar with four aspects of a conflict–its precise definition, its degrees of intensity, the point that it is resolved and that some conflicts are related to other conflicts.  Familiarity of these four aspects of conflicts help to avoid some unnecessary confusion and arguments.

For example, let’s say a young woman named Sally had a very high intensity conflict with her boyfriend.  A week later she now finds that it is much less intense.  She may think, perhaps it has been resolved. How can she decide?

She can begin by describing her conflict when it originally surfaced using the DIG Conflict Model.  Then she can rate what the degree of each of the three components (desire, interference and guilt) had been on a scale of 1 to 10 .  Then she can rate each of these three components as they are currently perceived. If none of the three components are at zero, she would recognize that she still has the same conflict with her boyfriend, but it is just at a lower intensity.

This process clarifies in her mind that she still has some work to do if she really wants to fully resolve the conflict.  It also draws her attention to each of the three specific components of the conflict.

If you practice using this process, in time you will discover that this simplifies what remains to be done and opens avenues that may lead to problem solutions. For an excellent illustration of this, see the post titled THE ABCs OF POWER AND THE GUILT CONDITION.

Now, let’s change our Sally example a bit.  This time she goes through the process of clearly defining her conflict and rating the degree of each of its three conditions. She discovers that she actually did resolve her original conflict, but it has turned into a related conflict.  She now has a clear way to understand what has happened.  Moreover, as with the Jack in the Restaurant parable, the process of defining precisely what the new conflict is can point her to some solutions she might not have otherwise considered.  Recall that Jack’s dad, once he clarified in his mind what his related conflict’s desire is–reducing his son’s selfishness–found it helpful for coming up with ideas about how to teach his son to become more altruistic.

Well, I hope you find in this week’s post some food for thought.  May you all have a week with some peace, some excitement and moments of wonder.

——————————-

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

Categories
anger conflict management conflict resolution dig for the conflict free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum guilt guilting wisdom

CONFLICTS AND GUILT

Blondie guilt tripA conflict exists whenever the following three conditions exist:

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

On this blog, when we think about describing a conflict we use the word “DIG” to remind us to look into the situation for a desire, something that interferes with the desire, and the perception of guilt. If there is no guilt, there is no conflict, but there still remains a desire-interference problem. All conflicts contain a desire-interference problem, but when guilt is present we have a conflict.

In the above Blondie comic, it is pretty clear that Dagwood has a desire to take a nap and interfering with this is his promise to fix a doorknob. He seems to me to be struggling with whether or not  to feel guilty if he doesn’t keep his promise.

Also in the comic, we see that Blondie appears to have a conflict with Dagwood. That is, she desires that the doorknob gets fixed and interfering with her desire is Dagwood’s nap. She seems to think he is guilty for not keeping his promise.  Is she seeking to punish him for his guilt by not preparing his sandwich?

Today’s post focuses on the guilt condition of conflicts.

Guilt and Conflicts

On the right we see Mary and Ron.  Ron desires Mary and she desires him.  They currently are not experiencing a conflict.

Consider a different scenario, one that we all have faced from time to time.  You are going to the dentist and you have a desire to experience no pain, but you perceive that the dentist will probably act in a manner that will interfere with this. Do you perceive that under this set of circumstances you are likely to be having a conflict with the dentist? Why?

The DIG Conflict Model, which uses our above definition of “conflict,” indicates that if you do not perceive that your dentist is guilty of doing something wrong, there is no conflict. If you don’t blame the dentist for the pain but accept it as a necessary part of the dental procedure, the interfering condition is experienced in a very different way than when we experience a conflict.

In the dentist situation that I just described, you would still have a desire-interference problem–how can you get through this situation as best that you can given that you desire not to experience pain, and yet you are likely to experience some pain?  All conflicts have a desire-interference problem in it, but not all desire-interference problems are conflicts.

dentistConsider, if you will, a slightly different set of circumstances then our original dentist scenario. This time you have had a dental procedure done almost painlessly by Dr. Beam.  Now a new dentist, Dr. Vopee, is performing the same procedure and as he does so, you are experiencing a great deal of pain.

According to the DIG Conflict Model, how you perceive this situation is crucial in determining whether or not you are experiencing a conflict. If you are blaming Dr. Vopee for this pain, believing he is doing something wrong, you are very likely to be experiencing a conflict with him. On the other hand, if you perceive the pain as due to the fact that no two procedures are exactly alike and that the pain must be due to the difference in the procedure rather than any incompetence of Dr. Vopee, then you will NOT experience a conflict with him.

What people who are in any given situation perceive is far more important than any act by itself.  It is very possible for Sally to perceive that she has a conflict with Bob when Bob has done nothing to interfere with her and has no intention of doing so in the future. This can happen, for example, if Sally’s neighbor lies to her about Bob’s actions.

Let’s explore a little more what it means when we say someone perceives that someone is guilty of doing something wrong.

Some Definitions of Guilt

According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guilt there are a few definitions for “guilt.”

1:  the fact of having committed a breach of conduct especially violating law and involving a penalty; broadly :  guilty conduct
2a :  the state of one who has committed an offense especially consciously
  b :  feelings of culpability especially for imagined offenses or from a sense of inadequacy :  self-reproach
3:  a feeling of culpability for offenses

My Definition of Guilty

As far as I’m concerned, you are free to define “guilt” or “guilty” in any way you choose. I have a very specific reason to use the word guilty in the sense that I choose–because I want to distinguish it from a very different experience and this can get muddled if I use the word too loosely. And so, I define “guilty” as follows:

If I perceive that someone has done something wrong and I become frustrated and angry at the person and I begin to seek to punish the person, I view that person as guilty.

For example, if I make a wrong turn to go to my friend’s house and when I discover my error if I have a strong emotion of frustration that springs up in me and I cry out, “What an idiot I am for making that mistake,” I am feeling guilty that I made the mistake and the reason I am calling myself an idiot is because it is my angry effort to punish myself.

I use that specific type of definition for “guilty” to distinguish it from how I define responsibility, which, as I view as a more mature response. When people act responsibly, they recognize that they did something wrong, experience a strong feeling of frustration, recognize at the same time that as long they are a human being they are going to make mistakes. They recognize that the strong feeling of frustration is a good thing because it leads them to focus on what they did wrong, and the emotionality helps spur a process that increases the possibility of fixing the error in the long term, decreasing the chance that they will make the same mistake. Part of this frustration reaction leads me to focus on what I can do next time to prevent the mistake. This is a wonderful process and I welcome the experience as I would a helpful friend. When I see guilt springing up in me, I have been getting more and more skillful at transforming it into my helpful friend.

"Not guilty, because puppies do these things." - New Yorker CartoonSome people think guilt occurs whenever they see that someone has done something wrong. It is not wrong to define it this way except when we are using the DIG Conflict Model.  But even when we are not using the DIG Conflict Model, it will still be beneficial to keep the idea of angrily desiring punishment when someone does something wrong separate from the idea of learning from the experience of making a mistake by experiencing frustration in a friendly, non-punishing manner.

If you see that your five-year old son has made a mistake when trying to add 7 plus 3 and he came up with 9, you may see that he has done something wrong, but you might experience this as somewhat different than when you feel someone is “guilty” of doing something wrong.  You may think that your son almost got the right answer, and he’s trying, and this is part of the learning process. You might not feel angry at him, nor think he deserves to be punished for his efforts. Perhaps you might gently correct him and give him a warm smile.

Another Example

A husband comes home from work. He doesn’t look like he is responding in a friendly, gentle manner as he perceives that his wife is doing something wrong. His face looks angry about it. We can easily imagine that he is likely to make some punishing statements toward the two people who are kissing, and perhaps he might even go further by making some other punishing acts such as hitting or seeking to divorce his wife.

When thinking about conflicts, it is useful to distinguish between guilt that arouses anger and seeks to punish versus viewing someone doing something wrong without it being accompanied by anger.

Now, some of my students ask me, isn’t there a place in this world for righteous anger?  Doesn’t the guy who finds his wife cheating on him have a perfect right to be angry and to seek to punish the cheats?

The DIG Conflict Model does not attempt to decide this philosophical issue for all people for all situations and for now through to the end of time. Instead, it seeks to free people who have learned when they were young a rigid pattern of responding to their perceptions that someone did something wrong. If you have learned to react to a perceived wrong in only one way–with frustration, anger and punishment, perhaps you may welcome the freedom to choose between guilt or a friendlier response.

Well, that’s my post for today.  I hope you find that it offers some food for thought.  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.

Categories
Beetle Bailey conflict management conflict resolution criticism dig for the conflict emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts Name calling recurring conflict social intelligence types of criticism

RESOLVING RECURRING CONFLICTS

One day Beetle Bailey and Sarge have a conflict:

Beetle aAs you can see, eventually the conflict is resolved.

But a few days later, the two have another conflict.

Beetle fix the blameAgain and again other conflicts spring up between these same two individuals.  These recurring conflicts come about with a distinctly higher frequency than usual for two people in the types of situations in which they live and interact.

When we see two people having an unusual amount of recurring conflicts, at some point we might want to dig a little below the surface to figure out why.

Using the DIG Conflict Model to Help with Challenging Conflicts

From time to time on this blog, we have been using the word DIG to remind us of a simple way to briefly summarize any conflict.  The letters in the word “DIG” reminds us to look for a desire, what is interfering with achieving the desire, and if someone feels that the person who is viewed as interfering with the desire is guilty of doing something wrong.  We also noted earlier that the word “DIG” is a useful memory device because sometimes we have to dig below the surface to understand a conflict (see DIG FOR THE CONFLICT and DEALING WITH CRITICISM BY DIGGING DEEPER).

In an earlier post, I discussed two digging tools that help us to find ways of improving our style of providing criticism and resolving conflicts (see WHY IS CRITICISM SO HARD TO BEAR?).  There, I mentioned that it is helpful to stay mindful that when people are criticized, their desire to be liked and to maintain their freedom may become threatened.  By keeping this in mind, we can often come up with less threatening alternative styles to engage people during our disagreements.  During recurring conflicts, these tools for digging can be very helpful.

Today, we are going to look at three other digging tools because they are especially helpful when we notice that we are dealing with recurring conflicts.

Three Digging Tools Especially Helpful for Resolving Recurring Conflicts

The three digging tools we will focus on today are in the form of questions:

1.  What desire might be motivating the conflict?

2.  What other desires might be motivating the conflict?

3.  Why do the people involved in the problem have this desire in this situation?

To familiarize yourself with this aspect of conflicts, please consider the following Beetle Bailey comic:

Beetle 1From this comic, we might get the impression that Sarge views this situation as a conflict he is having with Beetle, a conflict that we might describe from his perspective as follows:  Sarge desires Beetle to wait in a certain spot and interfering with his desire, Beetle wants to wait in a different spot.  Sarge believes that if Beetle doesn’t follow his order, he will be guilty of insubordination.

Suppose we ask Sarge if, from his perspective, these two sentences capture a conflict he is having with Beetle, and he replies, “Yes!  That lazy bum is trying to goof off again!”

At this point, something strikes me over the head, urging me to dig a little deeper than the two-sentence conflict description Sarge has said captures his conflict with Beetle.  It seems to me that Sarge and Beetle seem to be having far more conflicts with one another than is usual between a sargent and a private under his command.

Hmmm.  To begin digging into this conflict, I put my tools out there where I can easily get at them.  In bold letters I write out the following three questions.

1.  What desire might be motivating the conflict?  2.  What other desires might be motivating the conflict?  3.  Why does the party have this desire in this situation?

As I begin to think about this a little more, I wonder if the desire that I identified in my first attempt to describe the conflict is the best that I can come up with.  Is this really about Sarge’s desire to have Beetle wait in the exact spot that he has pointed to?

In this situation I don’t see how Sarge thinks Beetle is likely to behave in a manner that is interfering with what Sarge says he desires.  Beetle just asks if he can wait sitting in the shade.  Sarge knows Beetle well enough by now so that he must realize that once he orders Beetle to wait where he tells him to wait, he isn’t likely to be insubordinate.   Moreover, it wasn’t any problem for Sarge to figure out how to get Beetle to wait where he wanted him to wait.  All he had to do was bark orders at Beetle, something he’s done numerous times.  Perhaps Sarge has some other desire that is part of the reason he is getting so worked up here.

My memory scans over the other recent conflicts I’ve seen happen between Sarge and Beetle.  I recall, over and over again, situations that had Sarge perceiving Beetle as lazy.

Beetle 2I also recall seeing many times over the years Sarge becoming furious about Beetle’s laziness.

Beetle 3OK, so in most of the situations that conflicts spring up between the two, laziness is an issue.

Let’s pretend, for instructional purposes, that I can explore with Sarge whether or not we can reword the original conflict description as a recurring conflict.

“Sarge, I’m gonna describe your conflict a little differently than before because I don’t think the original description is as good as we can make it.  If you don’t mind, let me know if it is more or less accurate.  Earlier I described it from your perspective as follows: You desire that Beetle wait in a certain spot and Beetle interfered with your desire when he indicated that he wants to wait in a different spot.  You believe that if Beetle doesn’t follow your order, he will be guilty of insubordination.  You agreed that it is pretty accurate.  But what if I describe it instead like this: You have a desire to have privates under your command that are energetic go-getters, and after Beetle was assigned to your outfit you have found his laziness has been interfering with this desire.  You believe Beetle is, and will continue to be, guilty of laziness.”

“Yes, that is a much better description of my conflict with Beetle than your original description.”

“I thought it might be.  Beetle has been in your outfit for years.  Specific conflicts arose.  To deal with his laziness I’ve noticed that you have yelled at him, given him KP duty that required that he peel potatoes up to his ears, and used all manner of threats and physical attacks.

Beetle 4Beetle at least listens to your orders, though sometimes taking them a bit too literally.  But, nevertheless, he is never blatantly insubordinate.   Although Beetle continues to be lazy, you found that with a little assertive hollering (“I SAID WAIT HERE, AND I MEAN RIGHT HERE!”) he usually complies even if he has to stand in place while a steam shovel comes roaring by.”

“Yeah, but he keeps acting lazy.  It’s driving me BERSERK!”

“I can tell it’s starting to really get to you.”

“You’re telling me!!!”

“This last conflict you had with Beetle was resolved with so little difficulty that it really didn’t qualify as a conflict or even a problem.  And yet, Sarge, you remained angry.  And this kind of troubling interaction with Beetle has been happening in one situation after another.  Something else has to be going on.”

Beetle 5“Sarge, I noticed that in each situation that you get angry with Beetle Bailey, it usually has to do with his laziness.”

“You’re right about that!”

Once Sarge clearly understands the nature of his recurring conflict, he is in a better position to seek out a resolution.  Before he understood this, when he would complain to his fellow sergeants about Beetle not doing this or that, they would ask, “Well, did you get him to do it?”  When Sarge would answer yes, they would shrug, and say, “At least he’s not insubordinate.”  But now Sarge tells his fellow sergeants, “See if you can help me with this problem.  I want privates under my command to be energetic, hustling team members, and after Beetle was assigned to my outfit I’ve found his laziness has been interfering with this desire.  Beetle continues to be guilty of laziness.  Any of you have any ideas to fix this?”  

“Well, I had a recruit once by the name of Bob,” says one of the sergeants, “and he was the laziest bum I ever saw in my life.  Well, what I did was, I told this here Bob, the next time you do anything that strikes me as lazy, I’m gonna put you on KP duty until you go a whole two weeks without my catching you acting lazy.  Then I’m gonna let you off KP duty until I catch ya being lazy again.  We’re gonna keep doing this until you stop being lazy.  Anyway, it worked like a charm.”

Now I’m not saying this plan is ideal or that it will work every time.  I simply lay it out there as a part of a parable designed to give you an example of a recurring conflict and to suggest that by digging a little to better define a conflict, we are oftentimes better positioned to seek more specific, helpful advice.

——————————-

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

Categories
Chris Christie conflict management conflict resolution criticism free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults politicians Rep. Michael Grimm

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 Madow
Rachel Madow

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

Rep. Michael Grimm emerged Wednesday at the Capitol, calling his rant a 'mistake.'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. Michael Scotto says he isn't frightened by the threats, 'I'm not taking it personally.'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.

Categories
conflict management conflict resolution criticism free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts MATURITY negative criticism social intelligence types of criticism wisdom

LEARNING TO HANDLE CRITICISM MATURELY: A PRACTICE SESSION UTILIZING COMIC STRIP EXAMPLES

In an earlier post, eight reasons were given for why someone might criticize or insult you. Becoming familiar with the various reasons is helpful because once you identify the reason, it becomes easier to choose a plan to maturely deal with the criticism.  If you see that someone is just playfully teasing you, just a smile may be all that is needed as a response.  If someone is criticizing you because he or she is in a bad mood, all that might be needed is a gentle, sympathetic response such as, “Is everything okay?”

One of the most frequent reasons why people might criticize you is to encourage you to make some type of improvement.  For example, let’s say we’re going out to dinner at a fancy restaurant. I see that you have a stain on your shirt.  I might say, “Your shirt has a stain on it.”  In this example, I criticized your shirt because I want to encourage you to change your shirt for something that I think would be an improvement.

When we discussed handling this type of criticism, I proposed that there were:

Five levels of maturity for responding to this type of criticism (see posts titled RESPONDING TO CRITICISM: FOUR LEVELS OF MATURITY and RESPONDING TO CRITICISM: THE MOST MATURE LEVEL).

and

Five levels of maturity for providing this type of criticism (see post titled PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM: FIVE LEVELS OF MATURITY).

Today we will have some fun practicing identifying what level of maturity is being displayed by a comic strip character and then describing what the character would have to do to earn a more mature rating.  By diligently working on the following exercises, you will find that you will be far better at applying these skills to real life situations.

Exercises with Comics

These exercises require that you read a comic and then respond to one or more questions.  After you create each of your answers, you will have the opportunity to compare it to how I would go about analyzing the situation.

Here’s an interesting one.  Linus criticizes his sister, Lucy, in the hope that this will encourage her to make an improvement. How would you rate Lucy’s response to Linus’s criticism?

Linus and Lucy MY ANSWER:Of the FIVE LEVELS OF MATURITY FOR RESPONDING TO CRITICISM, the lowest level is described as follows:

1.  This level requires displaying one or more of the following:

  • Weeps or sobs with tears or pouts
  • Physically attacks the criticizer
  • Damages property

Because Lucy hits Linus, she deserves a rating of 1, the lowest level of maturity.

It is interesting that after she hits Linus, Lucy does begin to ask for more information about the criticism he had provided.  This is encouraging from a developmental point of view.  It suggests that Lucy is at least trying to come to some understanding about the criticism.  Mature individuals do process the criticism they receive rather than just ignore it.  But once Lucy has shown Linus that she is likely to slug him when he provides her criticism, he is unlikely to be willing to provide her even more criticism out of fear he would get slugged again.  And so, even though Lucy is interested in learning more about this “talking too much” issue, she may not get a fair and accurate report.  The fact that we silence people from providing important information to us when we hit them is one of the reasons hitting leads to a very low rating.  Wise people encourage criticism rather that discourage it.

Although Lucy’s interest in the criticism does suggest that maturity is beginning to blossom within her, the rating system calls for a rating of 1 if she hits someone regardless of what else she does.  However, if you would like to give her a little higher rating because she shows some real interest in the criticism, that’s fine with me.

In the next comic, Charlie Brown is provided two types of criticism, first positive and then negative.  How would you rate each of Charlie’s two responses?

Charlie and patty
My Answer: As Patty is telling Charlie what’s on her mind, he seems to be smiling, and then he says, “Well, thank you, Patty…I appreciate the compliment.”  This seems to be very consistent with a level 4 response.

Patty then replies, “Don’t mention it…I think that’s the least a person can say about you…”  Charlie appears to be offended by this.  There is a hint of a lowered eyebrow in the final picture (Mr. Shultz often used a lowered eyebrow to convey anger).  Also, Charlie’s mouth is wide open, and the word, “LEAST” is in bold letters, followed by an exclamation mark.  I’m going to give Charlie’s second response a 3 because it matches the level 3 description, which states:

3.  This level requires displaying one or both of the following:

  • Displays defensiveness without directly insulting the criticizer (raising voice’s volume or pitch)
  • Displays a lack of interest either by verbally indicating this, or with nonverbal cues, or complete silence. 

I think Charlie’s response matches level 3 because he made it pretty clear to Patty, without hitting her or calling her any names, that he has become defensive as a result of her second criticism.  If Charlie had said the same words, but with a twinkle in his eyes, followed by a friendly smile, I would have given his response pretty close to a level 4.

Let’s do a Calvin and Hobbes comic; they’re so much fun.  As you read it, please take a look to see how Susie handles Calvin’s criticism and then give her response your rating.

Calvin1My Answer: After Calvin criticizes Susie’s statement about Hobbes looking cuddly by saying, “HA!”she does not cry, hit Calvin, destroy any property, insult or glare at him, nor does she indicate that she is uninterested in his criticism, so she doesn’t deserve to get a 1, 2, or 3 rating for her response.  She begins by saying, “Ferocious?”  This indicates to me that she has heard at least a part of the criticism and is giving it some thought.  Summarizing the criticism is one way to show that whatever was said by the criticizer has been heard, and this is an important part of a level 4 response (“…the person criticized makes it clear that he or she fully understands what was said.”).

Later in her response, Susie indicates that she disagrees with Calvin’s criticism by saying, “No, he’s not.  He’s a big cutie.”  Then she hugs Hobbes and smiles sweetly.

Level 4 responses permit people to disagree, but it must be done without being disagreeable.  I’m not sure if Calvin completely sees Susie’s style of disagreeing with him as not being disagreeable, but it strikes me as rather sweet.

In the last scene, Calvin and Hobbes argue and Hobbes says, “I was beguiled by her feminine charms, yow.”  Because we, the readers, know Hobbes is really a stuffed animal, the words of Hobbes really are designed to capture a little of how Calvin feels inside.  Thus Calvin recognizes at some level that Susie’s responses in the interaction he had with her were somewhat beguiling.  I guess I’m leaning toward giving Susie a rating pretty close to a level 4.  She could have been a little warmer to Calvin and showed some empathy for his desire to have a stuffed tiger that looks ferocious, so I’ll remove some fraction of one off her level 4 rating and give her a 3.8.  If Susie was a student of mine, I’d provide her rating in the following format—“I gave you 4 points because your plan best matches the level 4 description, and then I subtracted .2 points because you didn’t show you fully understood Calvin’s criticism.  Therefore you earned a 3.8.”

In the following Baby Blues comic the wife is angry about something.

cluelessIt looks pretty obvious to me that the wife is angry because her husband is relaxing while she is doing one chore after another.  Pretend that you are her and you decide to criticize your husband.  This leads you to pause to consider how you are inclined to do this.  You see within yourself that you plan to act nasty to him.  Please rate that plan and then see if you can come up with something more mature.

My Answer: If I was imagining I was the wife in this situation, I would rate the plan that is used in the comic a 2 because it best matches the level 2 description:

This level requires displaying one or both of the following:

  • The criticizer does not explain what the offending behavior is, but instead expresses displeasure with glares, insults, shouting, silence, or threats that do not involve bodily harm
  • Threatens bodily harm regardless of what else is said

In seeking to figure out a more mature response, I think I might end up creating something like this— I’d say to my husband, “When I’m cleaning around the house and you are relaxing, I prefer that you get up and get your own drink.  Are you okay with that?”  Then I would listen to his response in a caring manner, show him that I heard what he said, and then, if I wanted to provide some additional negative criticism to him because I disagreed with his response, I would pause to rate the response I am inclined to make, and try to create something more mature.

Well, this concludes our little practice session for today.  I hope you had some fun.

———————————-

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

 

Categories
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

calvin argumentOn 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.

Categories
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

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