Tag: dispute management

Resolve Conflicts In Private Whenever Possible

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date February 19, 2016
No Comments on Resolve Conflicts In Private Whenever Possible

One day I was presenting to a high school class a lesson on mature ways to resolve conflicts when a student we will call Tony raised his hand. When I called on him, he said, “Dr. Rubin, how would you resolve this? This here Tina (he points to her) and I were dating, and now I decided to end it. I’m seeing another girl. But Tina, she keeps calling me even though I told her to stop.”

Tina’s face has now turned red and other students have started calling out their views about what was going on. Some shouted that Tony didn’t just tell Tina not to call, but he had done so by becoming verbally abusive toward her in an effort to get her to stop calling. Some felt that Tony had to be abusive or Tina wouldn’t stop calling, although she had continued to call him despite his abusiveness.

Part of me wanted to begin an intervention to resolve the conflict right there in the classroom in order to model some of the very skills I had been teaching. But seeing the emotional reaction of Tina, and noticing the escalation of feelings that were being expressed by others in the classroom, I quickly explained to the students that it is usually best to work these types of conflicts out in private. I offered to meet Tony separately, and then Tina, and then, if they both agreed, I would meet with both of them together without the rest of the class watching on. I then asked the rest of the class why this might be the best way to work this out.

As the discussion continued, I mentioned that there are a few research studies that are related to this issue. They suggest that people are more likely to escalate an argument into a fight when spectators are around (see, for example, “Impression Management and the Escalation of Aggression and Violence,” R. B. Felson, Social Psychology Review, 1982). There are, of course, exceptions to this. For example, if two people agree to have a third party mediator help to resolve a conflict, the presence of the mediator tends to reduce subsequent aggression. And in a courtroom, the public has a right to observe the legal proceedings involving certain conflicts for a number of valid reasons. To protect everyone in this process, there are courtroom officials on hand that help to assure that disagreements don’t escalate to violence. Moreover, if the presiding judge sees audience members interfering with the legal process, he or she can order them removed by trained security personnel.

As my classroom discussion continued, it became clear to me that the topic raises four relevant questions worth thinking about:

At what point does it make sense to ask for a private meeting?
Where is the best place to have the meeting?
What is the best way to ask for the meeting?
Are there useful things to do to prepare for the meeting?

Although every situation is different, and each situation may require a different answer to these questions, in the remainder of this post I will offer some suggestions I think are worthwhile to consider.

At what point does it make sense to ask for a private meeting?

In my opinion, usually as soon as you recognize that some tension is beginning to surface, it’s time to ask for a private meeting. I say this because even if you think you can tolerate the tension, others around you may not. In many situations, in addition to the participants in the conflict beginning to feel uncomfortable with what is going on, others are also feeling roughed up. People may feel as if they are walking on egg shells in the presence of the antagonists.

In a business environment, this can create a hostile work environment for the other employees not directly involved in the conflict. Many supervisors are trained to intervene in such situations in order to put a stop to this, and for some, they hate this part of their job. Thus, they may just choose to get rid of one or both of the antagonists. Additionally, some supervisors may be less inclined to promote employees that can’t get along with one another.

In a school setting, it also usually makes sense for a student to seek to work out a conflict with another student as quickly as possible. As in the business setting, in addition to the two antagonists in the conflict being affected by the mounting stress, other students can start to feel uncomfortable. For example, one party in the conflict might say something to the other party, and when this is overheard by others, some may be torn between two friends. Sometime one of the two parties may insult the other who is a relative of the insulted party. Before long, the whole school climate can be adversely affected.

It is also important for students to keep in mind that there may be a time when they will need a recommendation from a teacher or counselor for a job or college application, and the last thing that you want is for someone to write that you have difficulty getting along with peers.

Where should the meeting take place?

In my opinion, whenever possible, a face to face meeting is way preferable than a phone conversation, texting, social media platforms, or emails. The use of the eyes, facial expressions, and hand gestures, humanize the interaction far beyond what is achievable in less personal interactions.

Now, my next suggestion might sound contradictory because I earlier emphasized that the meeting is best held in private. However, in my opinion, the ideal place is a semi-private place such as a coffee shop or fast food restaurant that is unlikely to have present anyone either party knows, and at a time when the place would be relatively quiet. In such places, you can find a seat that if you speak softly you are unlikely to be overheard. And even if you are overheard, it is very unlikely to really matter.

The value of having a few people around just out of earshot is that you and the other party will be less likely to get into a shouting match. Moreover, just knowing that someone in the semi-private place might end up calling 911 if things begin to look like they are turning dangerous can keep stress at levels that are more conducive for clear thinking.

Now, I understand that for high school students, setting up a meeting in an ideal place might not be possible. Many students live far from a convenient meeting place. If there is no public transportation available, setting up a phone conversation might be your best option.

What is the best way to ask for the private meeting?

Rehearse in your mind what you are going to say at least ten times. I suggest using a soft, concerned voice. It seems to me that you would want to avoid any name calling or threats. Something like the following has worked for me:

For this example, let’s call the other person in the conflict, Jill. Looking directly into Jill’s eyes, say, “I’m beginning to feel some tension between us, Jill.” Then pause, to see and hear how Jill reacts. Listen carefully, and look like you are listening carefully, by looking up to her eyes from time to time. When she appears to be finished, summarize what she has said without trying to defend yourself in any way. Then pause to see if she wants to add anything more or to correct something you said in your summary. Then say, “I think I understand, Jill. Listen, not only am I concerned about what feels to me like tension between us, but the others around us are going to start to feel pretty uncomfortable about it as well. That’s not good for them, and for a number of reasons it’s not good for either of us. So, I think it makes sense that we discuss this fully in private.” Then tell her where and when you want to meet.

This can be done in a couple of minutes by calling Jill over to a relatively quiet area and speaking softly. If Jill refuses to meet with you, let her know that that is her choice. Then, just end by saying softly that you hope she thinks about the concern you raised and let her know that you hope she changes her mind about meeting to discuss this.

In my opinion, even if the other person chooses to not meet with you, bringing this issue to his or her attention plants a seed. It is very possible that you might begin to see some improvements shortly afterwards.

Are there useful things to do to prepare for the meeting?

I suggest writing out a statement in advance describing the situation in your own words. If there is someone you respect that is not involved in any way with what is going on between you and the other party, consider showing that person what you have written. Then have a discussion about the situation with this respected person.

Before the meeting, remind yourself that you want to give the other party a chance to tell his or her side of the situation without interruption. Above all else, you want to give the impression that you are a good listener. This involves looking, from time to time, into the eyes of the other party and summarizing what he or she says.

Well, obviously there is far more to resolving these types of conflicts, but that’s all the time we have for today. I hope you give these ideas some thought.

——————————-

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

Tags conflict, conflict management, conflict resolution, dispute management

child discipline conflict management conflict resolution criticism interpersonal conflicts social and emotional skills learning student discipline student insubordination

On Slamming Insubordinate Student Down

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date November 1, 2015
6 Comments on On Slamming Insubordinate Student Down

By now, most of you have repeatedly seen the shaky video that shows a police officer grabbing an insubordinate sixteen-year-old female student, Shakara, who is sitting at her desk (see HERE). When the officer’s hand is very close to the student’s throat, she hits at his arm. The officer then flips her over and flings her to the front of the classroom.

The student reportedly refused to put away her cell phone and then refused to leave the class after repeatedly being ordered to do so. Subsequently, the police officer was fired for using inappropriate force and because his maneuver violated department policy and training.

The Media’s Criticism

Numerous media commentators expressed outrage at what had occurred, but none that I’m aware of provided a detailed description of what would have been a better way to handle such events. For example, a Washington Post story, penned by its editorial board, states:

There is no question the young girl involved in the incident was wrong in allegedly refusing the teacher’s request to stop using her phone, and in not leaving the classroom when asked. But there are methods short of slapping on handcuffs available to schools for dealing with disrespectful children. Not only does this girl now face criminal charges that could dog her for the rest of her life, but a classmate who recorded the incident on her cellphone was arrested as well.

The principal’s office — not a police station — is where both should have ended up, and it is hard not to suspect that that would have been the outcome had the offending students been white. That underscores the need for school officials everywhere to take a hard look at their disciplinary systems for bias and put in place practices that make schools safe, and also inclusive, for all students.

Notice that the editorial advocates that this issue is best handled in the principal’s office. But what if the student is refusing to go there, as is apparently alleged in this case?

In an earlier post on this blog, I advocated that an essential feature of mature criticism is that it is provided with enough details so that the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance. I have not found, even after an hour of scanning the various media reports and editorials about this disturbing incident that, in my opinion, adequately provides a description of what would be a better response than what actually occurred. So, in this post, I’ll try to model a more mature form of criticism.

An Example of Being Specific and Practical When Providing Criticism

The first step, in my opinion, is to clarify what happened because there are some conflicting reports. According to Shakara’s attorney, Todd Rutherford, she had obeyed orders to put her cellphone away, and the dispute arose because she did not put it away fast enough. He went on to say, “She wasn’t yelling. She wasn’t disrupting the class. She wasn’t a threat to anyone.”

Another female student in the class reported that her classmate had her cellphone in math class. “She just had it out. She wasn’t talking or anything.”

In contrast to these two reports, the Washington Post reported school officials alleged that Shakara refused to stop using her phone which can be viewed as disturbing the class. Other media outlets specifically used the word disturbing the class as a reason for the occurrence. For example, according to a report by WISTV.COM,

“The student was told she was under arrest for disturbing school and given instructions which she again refused,” Lott [Richland County Sheriff] said.

Just what was meant, specifically, by the phrase “disturbing the class” was not made clear. So, given these somewhat contrasting descriptions, I’ll first provide criticism that specifically lays out an alternative way to handle a situation in which the student is violating a specific school rule but is not disrupting the ongoing classroom lesson. Then we’ll turn to an alternative way to handle a situation in which the student is violating a specific school rule and is disturbing the ongoing classroom lesson.

Example 1: In the event that the school had a policy that all cell phones are to be off and out of sight whenever a class is in session, as is true in my local school district, and a student is violating this rule without disturbing the class lesson, here is my suggestion for a response that would be, in my opinion, a distinct improvement over what apparently took place:

Teacher to Shakara: “There is a school rule that all phones are to be off and out of sight, Shakara. Please make sure your phone is shut off and place it out of sight.

Shakara, not complying, says, “The rule is unfair.”

Teacher to Shakara: In a pleasant, authoritative (in contrast to an authoritarian) tone of voice, “If you believe a school rule is unfair, there are some things that you can do that won’t land you in trouble for being insubordinate. You can make an appointment with me and the principal, and if you would like, you can also bring to the meeting your parents and some other advocates with you, to make your case. There are groups of lawyers from the Legal Aid Society and perhaps the American Civil Liberties Union that might want to help you to change something you feel is unfair. If you are dissatisfied with what occurs at that meeting, you can work your way up the chain of command, setting up a meeting next with the district superintendent, and then, after that, to the Board of Education, and then into the civil court system. You have a perfect right to try to change rules like this, and I think it would be educational for you to consider doing this. However, if you want to try to change the rule by being insubordinate in class, as long as you are not disruptive, we’ll get on with the class. Afterwards, you will not be able to return to class until your parents are called, and you and they attend a meeting. At that meeting, you will have an opportunity to explain your position. Then the school principal will decide what other consequences you will have to face for being insubordinate. Now, do you, or any other students in the class have any questions about this?”

After answering any questions, the teacher would then ask politely, “Shakara, I am now giving you your choice, either shut off your phone and put it out of sight, or face the insubordinate charge.”

If the student doesn’t comply, the teacher would then continue with the class lesson as long as the student does not disturb the rest of the curriculum’s lesson, and then, after the class has ended, she would report the insubordination to the principal.

I have timed how long this would take–approximately two minutes if the student or students don’t have any questions, and maybe another two or three minutes to answer a few questions. Compare that to the time that is now being spent by local officials because of this event.

Example 2: In the event that the student is acting in a way that is disturbing the curriculum lesson, the teacher would first use the above approach. If the student decides to continue to disturb the class lesson, the teacher would sit by the student and say in a caring, concerned manner, “You are taking learning time away from your fellow students, Shakara. You now have an insubordination charge to deal with. You are making choices that are not fair to the other students in the class who want to be prepared to pass tests at the end of the year. Is everything ok? Why are you acting like this?” The teacher would listen to the student. If she continues to remain uncooperative, the teacher would then say in a calm tone of voice, “I am now going to call an administrator to come to the class to help us out with this.”

When the administrator comes, he or she would say, “Let’s not take any more learning time away from your classmates, Shakara. I want you to come with me to the office, and we’ll try to work this out.”

If the student refuses to go with the administrator, the administrator would then call the school’s resource officer, and when he or she arrives, the administrator would tell the teacher to take the rest of the class to the library and to continue the lesson there. Shakara would be told to stay in the class until the rest of the class is gone.

If she was to try to leave with her class, the administrator and officer would gently block her from leaving, without putting any hands on her, just moving their bodies in between her and the door. Hopefully both would have had some training to do this. While doing this, Shakara would be informed that if she attempts to lay any hands on either the administrator or the officer while trying to leave, she will be risking an assault charge that can lead to her being arrested.

If she does indeed choose to physically attack either school official, another set of officers would be called, and she would then be arrested. From my experience as someone who worked for thirty years in schools, at a juvenile correctional facility, and a child psychiatric center, in the presence of an administrator, the school officer, and two other police back-up officers, it is extremely unlikely that Shakara would have resisted arrest under this set of circumstances. If she does resist, she would be subjected to a physical arrest that follows standard police practice.

In the event that Shakara does not begin to physically attack those who are blocking her path to leave, once the other students have left the class, the administrator would sit beside her and ask softly, and in a concerned, caring manner, “Are you ok?” He or she would listen, using reflective listening skills aimed at de-escalating the conflict. When the student has calmed down and shared her side of what happened, the administrator would say, “The rules of the school now require that we go to my office, and I’m to call your parents. Take your time. When you are ready to go with me to my office, we’ll do so.”

I have found that once the student’s peers are no longer present, face saving variables are dramatically reduced. The student quickly settles down and readily agrees to go to the office.

Conclusion

I am not trying to take the position that the approaches that I described as helpful alternatives are the only reasonable courses of action, or the best alternative. I encourage readers of this blog to make other suggestions. My larger point is that the details of my proposals well match the higher levels of mature criticism, in that they provide enough details so that those who are criticized can, in a practical manner, utilize the criticism if they choose to do so.

With that, I invite you to join us again real soon here at From Insults to Respect. Have a great week!

———————————-

Tags conflict management, conflict resolution, dispute management, negative criticism, school discipline, student insubordination

conflict resolution criticism Disagreements incivility at work insults Levels of Maturity Stephen Colbert Supreme Cort Justices Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer

Supreme Court Justices Dealing with Their Disagreements

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date October 23, 2015
No Comments on Supreme Court Justices Dealing with Their Disagreements

On this blog, we have been discussing the question, “Is it possible that there are immature and mature ways to handle our disagreements?” To help answer this question, I have, very tentatively, proposed five levels of maturity for providing criticism (see here) and five levels of maturity for responding to criticism (see here and here).

In defending these levels of maturity, I have pointed out that I have made videotapes of individuals acting out scenarios in which they portray characters who are dealing with disagreements. In some, the actors use a style that match the more immature levels, and in others, they use a style that match the more mature levels. I have found that independent viewers of these videotapes tend to rate the actors as more likable and respected when they displayed a style that match the descriptions of the higher levels of maturity.

I have used some other arguments, as well. For example, I asked people to consider the golden rule, and then ask themselves, “When I criticize someone, how would I like the other party to ideally respond?” Most people clearly prefer that the other party would respond in a manner that is very consistent with the higher levels of maturity that I have outlined on this blog.

As I continue to write about these issues, I’m always on the lookout for other ways to bring home the idea that there are indeed mature and immature ways to provide and respond to criticism.

Supreme Court Justice Breyer Interview with Stephen Colbert

Well, with this in mind, recently I happened to be watching the Late Show with Stephen Colbert and he had as a guest, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The two got to discussing how the justices deal with their own disagreements, and as it turned out, it seems to me that it is relevant to the maturity discussion. After all, supreme court justices are selected from among the most highly regarded judges in our land, and they surely get plenty of practice dealing with disagreements. So, for your consideration, here’s the transcript of the Late Show discussion (For those who would like to see the entire exchange themselves, it can be viewed on Youtube here).

The Late Show Discussion Between Colbert and Supreme Court Justice Breyer

Colbert: Let’s talk about disagreeing. You go to work everyday, and manage to get your job done with a group of nine people, half of whom disagree with you vehemently on a host of different issues. How do you guys manage to keep doing your job while the rest of the government can’t?

Justice Breyer: When we are sitting around that table, well, I don’t know about, let’s leave the rest of the government out of it, but I’ll say that when the rest of us are sitting around that table discussing, the nine of us discussing, I’ve been there over 20 years, 21, I have never heard a voice raised in anger, I have never heard one member of our court say something insulting about another, not even as a joke. Of course we disagree. We disagree about half the time; we’re unanimous about half the time; and we’re 5 to 4, and it’s not always the same 4, maybe 20 percent or so, and we feel it possibly quite strongly, but the discussion is professional, it is serious, but it is not personal, and we are good friends despite the fact that we agree some of the time and we disagree others of the time.

How Does Supreme Court Justice Breyer’s Description of How the Members of the Court Handle Their Disagreements Match this Blog’s Description of Mature Ways to Deal with Disagreements?

On this blog, one of the most mature ways to provide criticism is described as follows:

The criticizer states the criticism without bodily attacks, damaging property, glares, insults, threats, or shouts, and with enough details so that the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance. If the person receiving the criticism becomes defensive or angry, the criticizer empathizes without returning, glares, insults, threats, or shouts.

One of the most mature ways to respond to criticism, as described on this blog is:

People at this level listen to the criticizer in a supportive, warm, friendly style, and then make it clear that they fully understand what was said. Moreover, they put the criticizer at ease by making statements that indicate that the wise learn from criticism. Some time is spent on showing that they are thinking about the criticism. If, after thinking about the criticism the criticism is deemed to be correct, they make a statement frankly indicating, “I can see your ideas have merit and I intend to use them in the future.” If they are not sure if they agree, they make a statement indicating that they are very interested in what was said, plan to think a little more about this over the next few days and then they will be ready to discuss this further. If, after thinking about the criticism, the criticism is deemed to be incorrect, a statement is made designed to disagree without being disagreeable. More specifically, a sense of humor, some listening in a caring way and a few smiles help to traverse rough terrain. As the episode winds down, the criticizer is encouraged to feel comfortable communicating suggestions in the future.

Obviously Justice Breyer’s comment about his court’s style of dealing with disagreements was brief. When you are on a show like The Late Show, it is understandable that replies to questions must be fairly brief, and in a conversational manner. So, we can’t say with certainty that his response is a perfect match with this blog’s description of a mature style. But note that in over 20 years, despite regularly disagreeing with one another, he never heard a voice raised in anger, or heard one member of our court say something insulting about another, not even as a joke. And he mentioned, as well, that they are all good friends. This seems an excellent match with the phrase in this blog’s description of a mature response to criticism that states, “People at this level listen to the criticizer in a supportive, warm, friendly style.”

In my view, the way Justice Breyer describes the style used by the Supreme Court Justices to discuss their disagreements is well worth thinking about as we think about our own style for discussing disagreements.

Well, those are some thoughts for today. May all of my readers have a wonderful week, and here’s to hoping you’ll join us again real soon on “From Insults to Respect.”

Jeff

———————————-

Tags criticism, Disagreements, dispute management, psychological maturity, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, Supreme Court Justices

anger conflict management conflict resolution criticism insults interpersonal conflicts negative criticism respect Responding to Criticism Uninvited criticism Unsolicited criticism

A Conversation About Unsolicited Criticism

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date March 30, 2015
6 Comments on A Conversation About Unsolicited Criticism

A while back, I published on this blog a post titled, “Unsolicited Criticism: Good or Bad?” Regular readers may recall that it begins as follows:

Illustration by Aviva Maltin

“Judy, it’s so nice to see you,” I say as she comes into my office and sits down on my couch.

“I’ve been reading your blog again, Dr Rubin. It’s filled with a bunch of hogwash.”

“Hmmm, it sounds like there are some ideas in it that you don’t care for.”

“I read last night two of your blog posts–Is Criticism Bad and Criticism and Wisdom. What a bunch of nonsense!”

“I’m very interested in your point of view, Judy. Please tell me more specifically about what you disagree with in those posts.”

John Stewart Mill

“Well, you talk about this John Stuart Mill. According to him, if people criticize us, even for holding an opinion we are very sure of, we should thank them for it, open our minds to listen to them, and rejoice. That’s ridiculous! If you don’t have something nice to say to somebody you should keep your stupid mouth shut! And, as far as I’m concerned, unless I give someone permission to criticize me, that person has no right to inflict it upon me!”

The rest of that post provides my response to Judy. As brilliant as that response is, it is my considered opinion that my readers and I benefit from hearing a variety of views on these types of issues. And so, with that in mind, I went about seeking these views by introducing the post to the Facebook groups that I belong to. Thus, I wrote for each group the following:

Some say that unless you are invited to provide criticism, you should keep your mouth shut. How wise is that?

Then I provided the link to my post. It led to quite a few excellent insightful discussions. My favorite happened to appear on the wonderful group, The Brain Cafe. To our good fortune, several of its participants graciously granted permission to use their comments for the current post. These permissions do not mean they are providing a blanket endorsement of this blog or its writers. And, with that, let’s take a look at the discussion that had taken place.

The Brain Cafe Discussion

Brad Esau, prior to reading my blog post wrote: Uninvited “advice” makes me go thermo nuclear. Uninvited criticism is courting death. Perhaps I should read this.

I, Jeffrey Rubin, replied: Please do read it, Brad Esau, and then let me know what you think.

Barry Kort: I suppose the context matters. As a retired academic, I hang out in Internet venues where my fellow academics schmooze with each other and with interested lay people who are arm-chair aficionados of the subjects on the table. In academia, we have a scholarly culture such that we routinely peer-review each other’s work in a collegial and congenial manner. I view this culture as being characterized by an informal tacit social contract that defines a scholarly culture.

There is, on the other hand, the unscientific (or non-scientific) political culture which has its own inscrutable ground rules which admit of some rather dicey and sleazy practices.

What is the lay person to do in these Social Networks? Clearly we find a mix of behavior that spans the spectrum.

I don’t mind conscientious scholarly criticism of the sort one would expect in academia. I’m not fond of the kind of snarky or mean-spirited dismissals that one finds in our ofttimes toxic political culture….

Brad Esau: This seems to be a cultural thing. I’ve noticed Americans (I’m Canadian) seem to have this notion that they have the “right” to speak out about anything at any time. This is much different than most cultures.

I happen to believe a) I – or anyone – absolutely has the right to deny anyone’s “right” to offer “criticism” or “input” and b) through much, much, much hard won experience, I learned that most people’s “criticism” was largely invalid and of poor construct. In other words, they had no idea what they were talking about.

I am very, very open to critique – if it’s from someone whose expertise or experience I trust and they’ve *earned* my trust. Otherwise, I have no time to waste on most people’s hot air.

So while I think your approach is valid for within American culture, it should be limited to that.

E. C.: Well said Brad! (also a “fellow” Canadian). Love your courage for taking this on Jeffrey. And Brad, you make me THINK

Brad Esau: Thanks, E. C. After growing up in polite Canada and spending a decade and a half around Asians (Japanese, Taiwanese and Chinese) where this kind of “right” to openly criticize is unthinkable, I still find this jarring. Most of my online exchanges are with our friends south of the 49th. Just could never get used to their unrestrained forwardness.

And thank you for the compliment.

Barry Kort: What stood out for me in that vignette was that Judy was enacting a practice that she abhorred when the roles were reversed. About the only scenario where that’s kosher is in scripted psychodrama as a theatrical performance.

Brad Esau: Thinking on this further, I think unsolicited criticism is warranted in cases where intervention is needed. Somebody is clearly going about things in ways that will harm their future or… their chances at their goals, and then I think it’s quite correct to voice some well founded constructive criticism….

The thing with most people, they’re not nearly as “smart” or “wise” or “expert” as they believe themselves to be and most of their “criticism” or “advice” is nothing more than egotistical bluster and hot air.

After some time had passed, Brad added: I now just sort of have this iron clad rule for when anyone – and I mean anyone – offers “advice” or “criticism” I ask for or dig into their credentials and poke into what their motivation might be. 98% of people don’t pass those simple tests.

Of course the trick then is to learn to check one’s own premises and to see if whatever criticism or feedback they might have had to offer was warranted.

There are so many variables at work here!

I could fill a city with people crippled by the criticism they received all their lives from their mothers. Hell, maybe a whole continent. I’d have to say raising motherly criticism is invalid.

Judges are different – you purposely go there to be judged. The topic here is *unsolicited* criticism and how to deal with it.

E. C.: No one wants or needs to hear “bad things” about themselves. That is not constructive criticism. What is helpful is solicited advice on how I can improve on something. That is entirely different, and it requires the “advice giver” to have to actively listen to what it is I am asking and what information I am giving as far as what I need advice or help with.

Lyra Alves: I agree that it is highly determined by our cultural background, but we surely can work our way out of having it as “taboo” and adapt to it. I find criticism, from whatever source it comes, from people who know me or not, who have something interesting to say or not, an incredible gift for my personal growth. I trust much more people who are straight forward than those who are over-polite. I also tend to feel that often those who resist to criticism or those who only accept it if it comes from certain “certified” sources may have self-confidence issues, some hidden insecurities to be sorted out. Every chance we receive some criticism is a chance we have to review various concepts we have about ourselves, about what is the best or not. I think it is always a valuable chance to expand our view on the world and increase our ability to empathize.

Susan Clemens: I have a Facebook rule: Your wall; your opinion.
Other than that, constructive criticism can be offered if you have a relationship with the person, if the person is otherwise at risk of injury, or if you are approaching a business from the customer perspective.
“Pat them-poke them-pat them” works best. I have a few friends who welcome criticism and others who can’t stand it. I try to respect them and vice versa.

Brad Esau <irony>

I’ve recently posted a piece critical of America and Americans along with my own well founded views.

Going by the universal angry responses and denial I’ve gotten so far, it seems like the people who enjoy criticizing the most and defend their “right” to do so, are most uncomfortable with criticism of themselves.

</irony>

Jeffrey Rubin: Brad Esau, I’ve noticed the same thing–that many people who hate to be criticized are among the quickest to criticize, and often are the ones who are the nastiest criticizers as well.

E. C.: I wonder, am I the only one who kind of “bristles” at the word “Criticism?” I am all for constructive feedback but for some reason framing it as “criticism” feels far less helpful and like others have said does become more about the person giving it than about the person needing it. Jeffrey Rubin – do you see a difference? If so, why or why not?

Jeffrey Rubin: Hi E. C. I see the difference that you are trying to make, and it is an important and worthwhile distinction to make. I don’t see that that difference has to be made by using the word “feedback” for one and “criticism” for the other. However, if I am in a conversation just with you, I wouldn’t object to an understanding that we would use the words to mean whatever you would like.

That said, people have a variety of conceptions of these two words (criticism and feedback) and therefore typically it is a good idea to use more than just those words to explain what we mean. Defining our terms beforehand is a good strategy.

For future reference, to me and Daniel Webster, criticism is an evaluation. If you have evaluated something, then you have formulated a criticism of it; and if you tell someone your evaluation, you are providing the person criticism or a critique of something. It can be done in a way so that it is designed to be helpful to someone. Sometimes it is expressed in a manner that is designed to punish someone, or to just hurt someone for a variety of reasons, e.g., because of jealousy or because the person is stressed and irritable.

Concluding Comment

Well, I hope you enjoyed this discussion as much as I did. I hate to end it here, for there is so much more to say, but rest assured that there will be more on this emotionally packed conversation in coming weeks. Until then, here’s hoping that kindness accompanies all of the criticisms that come our way.

——————————-

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

Tags conflict management, dispute management, disrespectful, insults, uninvited criticism, unsolictied criticism

conflict resolution Listening skills silent treatment

To Listen, Or To Criticize?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date January 21, 2015
2 Comments on To Listen, Or To Criticize?

In the above Sally Forth comic strip, we learn from Ted that Sally had a fight with her sister. By the third panel, Ted begins to criticize Sally, saying she is coming off like a robot, and then he expresses his view that she had been kind of dismissive of her sister’s news about becoming engaged. In the last panel, I get the feeling that Sally really isn’t in a state to listen to Ted’s criticism. And yet, Ted tries to push Sally to address his criticism.

The next day’s comic strip moves the story further along.

Here we see that Ted has come to understand that he would have been better off skipping the criticism that he had provided to Sally. Listening, he believes, would have been a better thing to do.

Now we see Sally confiding to a friend about how she feels about Ted’s criticism. We also learn that since Ted criticized her, she has not been talking to him.

Using this series of Sally Forth comics, today we will work on three key tasks:

1. Consider when it makes more sense for Ted to listen, rather than to criticize.

2. Examine what Sally could have done that might have been better than giving Ted the silent treatment.

3. Examine some essential listening skills for those times when we believe it is better to listen, rather than to criticize.

Before we move on to these key tasks, let’s move the Sally Forth story a few days further along.

Here we learn that Ted had begun to criticize Sally immediately after Sally’s fight with her sister. That’s a crucial point that will soon be woven into our various discussions.

Three Assessment Strategies to Decide Whether to Critique or to Listen

Here, I’d like to suggest three assessment strategies to help with the decision to critique or to listen.

1. Assess when the quarrel occurred. If the quarrel has occurred very recently, it’s usually best to go with listening. Trying to present a reasoned critique shortly after a heated quarrel makes little sense because it is extra hard for people to reason carefully when they are very frustrated and angry. By listening in a caring way you can play a huge part in helping the person to return to a state in which reasoning abilities are at their peek.

2. Assess whether it is crucial to share your critique immediately. I think you will find that in most situations your critique can wait a day, two days, or even a week. However, in some cases a conflict may require some immediate action and you may believe your critique is so crucial for making a wise choice, that pushing your critique to the fore makes sense.

3. Even if Ted had waited a reasonable period of time and had been making himself available to listen to Sally, before diving into his critique, it would still be a good idea for him to ask the following types of questions. “Sally, I have some time now, do you want to talk more about what’s been happening between you and your sister?” If Sally says yes, Ted would say something like, “So far, Sally, I’ve been mainly listening as you talked about what happened. I’m wondering if you think you’re ready to hear some ideas that I’ve been thinking about that might be helpful, or would you prefer me to stay in a listening mode?” After asking this question, Ted would assess how Sally replies. Even if she says she wants to hear his ideas, if her voice appears tense, or there is a tense expression on her face, he might be wise to tread lightly on anything that Sally might find too sensitive. Additionally, he might reasonably switch back into a listening mode if she appears to turn angry at something that he says.

Now, so far, I have been discussing what Ted could have done better to address Sally’s concerns. Now let’s take a couple of minutes to discuss what Sally could have done better.

The Silent Treatment Versus Assertiveness

In the Sally Forth story, Sally, turning angry at Ted, decides to give him the silent treatment. I’m wondering if there might be a better way for her to have handled this type of situation.

My wife, Andrea, is very assertive when it comes to these types of situations. If I begin to express my views before she is ready to hear them, she just gives me a clear signal to back off, and I respect her wishes. Maybe Sally could have said to Ted when he began to provide his critique immediately after her argument with her sister, “I see you want to critique what happened, Ted, but I prefer that you just go into a listening mode for now.”

If Sally, when she has returned to a calmer state, agrees that this assertive approach makes more sense than ending up giving Ted the silent treatment, she can practice doing this in her mind at least three times. These practice sessions are simple and involve closing her eyes and imagining how she felt right after her fight with her sister, then recalling how Ted began to criticize her action, and then imagining herself being assertive to Ted. By practicing this a few times, especially if she does this over the course of a few days, there is an excellent chance she will have no difficulty using the assertive approach the next time a similar situation arises.

Now, let’s once again turn our attention to what Ted could do in this situation. Both he and Sally agree that it would have been better for him to have gone into the listening mode, rather than the critiquing mode. But doing good listening doesn’t mean simply keeping your mouth shut while the other party talks. There is a real art to listening. In the next section, I’m going to present the three most helpful things to do while listening.

Three Helpful Things to Do While Listening

When Ted goes into his listening mode, there are a few things that he can do to make his listening more effective. First, every minute or two, he could briefly summarize what she had just said. This would assure Sally that Ted is paying attention. You can learn more about how this is done by looking up the topic, reflective listening. Second, if Sally turns sad about something she is discussing, Ted could express sadness on his face as well, look into Sally’s eyes, and softly touch Sally’s shoulder. This is called empathic listening. Finally, Ted could learn how to validate Sally’s feelings. For example, Sally says to Ted, “Every time I hear my sister has made some awful mistake, I feel awful inside.” Ted can validate Sally’s feeling by saying something like, “I know what you mean, I feel like that when my brother makes an awful mistake.” When someone validates a person’s experience in this way, it helps to communicate a connection between the speaker and the listener.

Okay, so there are some ideas to think about when considering whether to listen or to criticize. I hope you find within this post some food for thought. My Best, Jeff

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

Tags anger, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, critique, dispute management, Listening skills, negative criticism, respect, Sally Forth, Sally Forth comics, silent treatment

Albert Einstein conflict resolution desire dig for the conflict happiness interpersonal conflicts psychiatry respect wisdom

The Desire for Happiness

Dealing with the frustration that goes along with challenging conflicts has some similarities to sailors dealing with stormy seas—it is best to utilize a well-rehearsed plan.

For dealing with conflicts, one such plan begins with thinking of the word “DIG.” With a little practice, we can use this word to remind us of a simple way to summarize the conflict even in the midst of swirling frustration.

The letters of the word “DIG” aids us to remember the words, “Desire,” “Interference,” and “Guilt.” Once we recall these words, we use them in a particular way.

First, we state what our desire is in the conflict, then, what is interfering, then, why we believe the other party in the conflict is guilty of doing something wrong. After doing this from our perspective, we then go through the same process from the perspective of the other party.

If we are thoroughly practiced in using this skill, the word “DIG“ not only helps us to create this concise description of the conflict even while in the midst of rising anger, it also helps us remember to dig a little to consider not just the most obvious desire that is involved in the conflict, but also what might be other desires that are involved.

Of course, in simple, low frustration conflicts none of this is necessary. There are times, however, that you will find that when all of those around you are beginning to get lost in a storm, your even-tempered, systematic guidance will calm the waters and lead to inviting harbors.

Conflicts in Which Happiness is the Desire

Now, sometimes when we describe a conflict it takes the following form:

“I desire to be happy, but the other party is interfering. The other party is guilty of making my life miserable.”

The desire to be happy has a special place in the life of many of us. Nevertheless, today I would like to advocate that you think twice whenever you, or the other party in a conflict, describes the desire part of the conflict as “to be happy.”

What’s wrong with Happiness as a Desire?

Describing a desire in a conflict as “to be happy” is too vague. With a little effort you can usually dig a little deeper and find a more specific description. Typically, it is better for a boss to say something like, “I desire that you come to work by 9 A.M. at least 95% of the time than, “I desire that you make me happy.”

Another reason to avoid happiness in your descriptions of your desire has to do with earning respect. If you are like so many of us, you probably want to avoid coming off as shallow or having superficial desires. To explain a little more of what I mean by this, I’m going to discuss a little of what Albert Einstein said on this topic and then present a little parable.

Albert Einstein on Happiness

In a book titled, Living Philosophies: A Series of Intimate Credos, the first chapter is by Albert Einstein. There he states:

The ideals which have always shone before me and filled me with the joy of living are goodness, beauty, and truth. To make a goal of comfort or happiness has never appealed to me; a system of ethics built on this basis would be sufficient for a herd of cattle. (p. 4)

When I read the rest of Einstein’s chapter, I came away with the following image. He kind of viewed happiness as one-half of an oscillation process, with sadness and happiness going back and forth, thrusting his ship forward, and where he chose to steer his ship was in the direction that led to goodness, beauty, and truth.

This is a deeper way to view the nature of happiness, and for those of us who want to be respected for being deep, in contrast to shallow, I think that there may be some value in meditating on this.

To further challenge you to think more deeply about the nature of happiness, please consider the following parable.

The Parable of Probliss

Once upon a green-blue planet, a scientist invented Probliss, a super powerful happiness pill. It made people as happy as anyone ever dreamed of. In fact Probliss was so effective in improving the happiness in people’s lives that a group of psychiatrists developed a plan that would have all of the people on the planet lie down on gurneys in sanitized rooms and then be hooked up intravenously so nourishment and Probliss could be directly delivered into the veins of everyone. If at any point people felt a little less than perfectly happy, all they had to do was press down with a fingertip and wonderful Probliss would soar into their lives creating pure, pure happiness.

Some didn’t like this plan. “What, no music, no love, no friends? Man, that sounds bleak!”

“True, none of that,” said the psychiatrists, “but far more happiness.”

And it came to pass that studies were done. The results proved indisputable–those on these gurneys who were attached to these machines that provided nourishment and Probliss developed far fewer diseases. They lived over ten years longer, and they were less of a danger to themselves or others when compared to those who lived their lives going out in the world without Probliss. Those who chose to live their lives in the old way, were much more likely to die in car crashes, accidental falls, and homicides. People on Probliss never died from these types of causes because all they did was lie on the gurney in a completely sterile, happy, and healthy state.

Once these results came in, the psychiatrists decided that everyone, from now on, would be tied down to gurneys, even if it was against their will. “It was for their own good,” the psychiatrists explained.

Now some men and women did manage to escape into a deep, green forest, experiencing anguish and tears, love and creativity, but not perfect happiness.

The End

Conclusion

And so, whenever you think you want to seek happiness, consider the value that goes along with identifying a more specific desire. You’re still likely to experience some happiness while seeking this newly identified desire, and some sadness too as setbacks tend to occur. These alterations of happiness and sadness are part of the process that keeps our lives moving forward. Choose wisely in what direction you truly wish to head. And learn to appreciate that there are deeper values in life than happiness.

My Best,

Jeff

——————————-

Tags Albert Einstein, conflict management, conflict resolution, desire, DIG Conflict Model, dig for the conflict, dispute management, frustration, happiness, psychiatry, respect, wisdom

conflict management conflict resolution criticism emotional intelligence feedback free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum interpersonal conflicts providing criticism providing negative criticism psychological maturity

Providing Negative Criticism: The Newest Guidelines

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date October 13, 2014
No Comments on Providing Negative Criticism: The Newest Guidelines

Readers of this blog well know that I often discuss immature and mature ways to provide negative criticism. Originally, I presented a post titled PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM: FIVE LEVELS OF MATURITY. There, in addition to providing an outline of what I believed was a good starting point to think about this topic, I asked readers for suggestions on how the outline could be improved. Many readers were not at all shy. While this was going on, I continued my own reading, and from time to time, I shared what I had learned. And now, just this week on the internet, I came upon an article that provided a new set of guidelines. I kind of like them, and therefore, decided to see what kind of reaction they might lead to. But first let’s quickly review what we already covered.

THE ORIGINAL FIVE LEVELS OF MATURITY FOR PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM

Below you will find preliminary descriptions of how people at five developmental levels of maturity provide negative criticism, that is, criticism that points out what we don’t like about someone’s actions, beliefs, or appearance. Level one is the most immature and uses observations of babies as its starting point. Each successive level is more mature:

This level requires displaying one or more of the following:

Cries without stating what the crying is about
Physically attacks the person being criticized
Damages property

Although these three descriptors may not sound like providing criticism, in some situations we can see that it is the very beginning of the development of this skill. Let’s say Jill takes baby Bob’s crayon away believing he is done with it. Bob begins to cry and takes a swipe at Jill. She manages, by moving away, to avoid Bob’s swipe. Bob now looks even angrier and crumbles up a piece of paper and flings it on the floor. An observer to this may conclude that Bob, in a sense, is criticizing Jill for taking the crayon.

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

The criticizer does not explain what the offending behavior is, but instead expresses displeasure with glares, insults, shouting, silence, or threats that do not involve bodily harm. (For example, someone might be making too much noise and the criticizer might turn to the noise maker and glare, or cry out, “Jerk!”)
Threatens bodily harm regardless of what else is said.

3. The criticizer clearly states the criticism with enough detail so the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance, but couples it with glares, insults, shouts, or threats that are not about bodily harm.

4. The criticizer states the criticism without bodily attacks, damaging property, glares, insults, threats, or shouts, and with enough details so that the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance. If the person receiving the criticism becomes defensive or angry, the criticizer empathizes without returning glares, insults, threats, or shouts.

5. When the criticizer provides criticism, he or she does so in a manner very similar to a level four response, but beforehand, the criticizer considers the person who is the target of the criticism and the situation that he or she is in. As a result of such considerations, the criticizer may decide to alter the criticism.

IDEAS THAT FOLLOWED

After proposing the five levels of maturity, several additional ideas came my way. One person suggested:

Hey there. One thing that potentially could be even better than a level 5 way to provide criticism would be to ask the person permission to offer them a criticism. You could say like, “hey, would it be alright if I make an observation about the way you handled that situation” or “do you mind if I offer you a couple constructive criticisms about your song” or whatever. Then, if the person says yes, they won’t feel like they are being attacked because they’ve given consent. Or they’ll have the opportunity to say “you know what? I’m really sort of feeling on edge so maybe another time would be better for us to talk.” That way, instead of gauging for yourself whether or not the person is in a state to tolerate the criticism, you can let them decide for themselves. What do you think about this idea?

I responded:

I like your idea. It goes along with considering person variables. For me, personally, I’m almost always up to hearing criticism, even if it may sting. Therefore, always asking me for permission would eventually become tiresome. But until you know someone well, starting off the relationship as you suggest, makes sense. And if, in time, you learn the person is very sensitive about criticism, continuing asking for permission would be the wise course of action.

Others argued that unless you are invited to provide criticism, you should keep your mouth shut. And others argued that even if you are invited to provide criticism, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all. I address these issues in a post titled, UNSOLICITED CRITICISM: GOOD OR BAD? Very briefly, I agreed that these ideas were worthwhile to consider before providing criticism, but after this consideration there were times when providing uninvited criticism makes sense.

In a post titled “PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM: A LESSON FROM THOMAS JEFFERSON” I explained that recently I had been reading an excellent biography of Jefferson by Jon Meacham. There, I learned that early in a relationship Jefferson typically avoided mentioning any fault in his new companion. He felt that later, once the relationship was well developed, was a better time to discuss differences of opinion. As Meacham describes Jefferson’s style, “people often talk too much and listen too little, which can be self-defeating, for in many instances the surer route to winning a friend is not to convince them that you are right but that you care what they think. Everyone wants to believe that what they have to say is fascinating, illuminating, and possibly even epochal.” In that line of thinking, Jefferson advised a daughter: “Much better…if our companion views a thing in a light different from what we do, to leave him in quiet possession of his view. What is the use of rectifying him if the thing be unimportant; and if important let it pass for the present, and wait a softer moment and more conciliatory occasion of revising the subject together.” Now Jefferson clearly recognized there was exceptions to this general rule, but nevertheless it makes a great deal of sense that whenever we are tempted to provide negative criticism careful consideration of this idea makes sense.

Another set of comments came from a few parents who argued that although the five levels of maturity made sense when adults were interacting with other adults, when parents provided negative criticism to their children, yelling, and even hitting were perfectly permissible. I responded to this in a post titled, PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM: DEFENDING THE FIVE LEVELS. The issues this raises are simply too complicated to summarize here, so I’ll just refer interested readers to that post.

Finally, someone on Facebook presented the idea that it is helpful to use the sandwich approach to providing negative criticism. Here you begin with a slice of some positive comment, then you put on top of that the negative criticism, and then, on top of that, you provide another slice of positive criticism.

OK! So, basically, in a very abbreviated manner, those are some ideas we have already discussed. Now, to a new set of guidelines.

Philosopher Daniel Dennett’s Approach to Providing Negative Criticism

Recently on the internet I came upon a post by Maria Popova titled, “How to Criticize with Kindness: Philosopher Daniel Dennett on the Four Steps to Arguing Intelligently.” There I learned that Mr. Dennett has provided the following guidelines for composing a successful critical commentary:

You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

I kind of like this. Whereas it is not inconsistent with the original five levels of providing negative criticism, it provides some additional ideas to consider.

Over the course of a week or two I’ll come up with some specific examples that demonstrate Dennett’s approach. Until then, my best wishes to you all,

Jeff

———————

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

Tags conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, Daniel Dennett, dispute management, feedback, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, negative criticism, providing criticism, psychological maturity, respect, Thomas Jefferson

conflict management conflict resolution DSM Name calling psychiatrists psychiatry The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

Psychiatric Name Calling: Is it Helpful?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date October 6, 2014
14 Comments on Psychiatric Name Calling: Is it Helpful?

Today I offer a follow-up to my earlier post titled “Name Calling by Psychiatrists: Is it Time to Put a Stop to it?” Among the points that I had tried to make is that psychiatrists falsely claim that the names they use to describe patients are “diagnoses.” In actuality, all that they do is convert someone’s expressed concerns into medical jargon.

I received a great deal of positive and negative comments about the post from readers, but my focus today is on the negative ones. Most of them argue that in contrast to my position, they had personally found their psychiatric diagnosis very helpful.

Those who Found the Psychiatric Pathologizing Helpful

I just finished an excellent book on this topic by Lucy Johnstone titled, A Straight Talking Introduction to Psychiatric Diagnosis. There we find several quotes from people who received a so-called diagnosis from psychiatrists and spoke of its positive personal impact. For example, some felt that it provided relief at knowing “what was wrong.”

I had something that I could firmly grasp, and, you know, I could find out more and try to resolve it…[I] felt relief that this whole jungle was going to be sorted out.

Another person wrote,

It gave me the comfort of explanation…. When I was told I was depressed it gave me a framework of understanding and a first grip on what was happening.

Some felt that it gave them hope for treatment and support.

Illness meant treatment and the possibility of cure.

Acceptance of my illness was a turning point…. By accepting treatment I could actively seek the right medication, access support, and turn my life around.

I think I prefer my illness having a name because it makes me feel less lonely, and I know that there are other people experiencing my kind of misery.

Then there were those who felt it provided them freedom from blame and guilt.

Diagnosis implied that this was an illness and not my fault—important for someone whose depression has always been riddled with guilt.

Commentary

Although there are many, many people who feel this way, Ms. Johnstone points out that the relief that these people experience is based on their assumption that the diagnosis itself is valid. If it isn’t, they are simply being offered a circular explanation—“Why are my moods so up and down?” “Because you have bipolar disorder.” “How do you know I have bipolar disorder?” “Because your moods are so up and down.”

Keep in mind, as well, that these people came to view their so-called diagnosis as helpful without ever having an opportunity to compare the pathologizing approach to any alternative approaches. For example, what would be the reactions of these same people whom I have just quoted if they were provided an option that avoided simplistic, misleading terminology, while professional mental health providers and peer support groups assisted the person to find their own stories and provided a choice of treatment options?

Moreover, finding freedom from blame and guilt by playing the blaming-the-brain game may not be anywhere as helpful as the pharmaceutical companies would have us believe. Many of us have learned that we all, from time to time, do things that violate our image of our ideal self and spend some time suffering the consequences. We come to realize that we not only violated the image of the ideal self in the past, but we’ll no doubt do so again and again in the future. The experience of suffering over these lapses is the spur that, after a period of difficult reflection, eventually gets us off our butts, learn new skills and seek out the type of support that moves us to make improvements. It can take time for this to happen. It can take more time than we in our modern pressure pot world may feel we have any right to take, and our loved ones may lose their patience. However, in the long run, drugging these feelings away have always produced more harm than good.

Those who Found the Psychiatric Pathologizing Unhelpful

In contrast to those who tell of some positive reactions to psychiatric name calling, there are other people who tell a dramatically different story.

For a number of years, I accepted the medical model as a framework of understanding…. But I gradually came to appreciate drawbacks to the framework. My reading suggested the model might not stand up scientifically…. By the time I was entering my second decade of service use, the medical model, which I had initially found reassuring, seemed increasingly unsatisfactory, without the capacity to encompass the complexity of my interior or exterior life and give it positive value. As a result, I began to actively explore frameworks that better met my needs.

I already knew something was wrong with me. Now I knew I was mad…. The diagnosis becomes a burden… you are an outcast in society…. It took me years to feel OK about myself again.

My diagnosis label promoted despair and threatened to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I have been diagnosed with dysthymic disorder since I was thirteen. One kind of harm I suffered from receiving a diagnosis, in and of itself, was that it seemed so final and despairing to receive as a teenager. For me, having a diagnosis seemed so final. Like it wasn’t just a tempory issue that I was having, adjustment or adolescence or something, but this disorder that I was going to have for the rest of my life no matter what I did.

But the worse part of this, which I have only been able to shake within the last year…is the defectiveness I felt. Just kind of in some core way. Like I’m totally different.

I was so offended. I was really offended. I thought well, ‘F*** you! You’re attacking my personality; you’re attacking me. You’re attacking the very soul of me, you know; who I am, and what I am, that’s a disorder.

I no longer identify with my previous role as a severely ill psychiatric patient but a human being that is experiencing and surviving life in my own unique way… just like every other human being on this planet.

Commentary

In her book, Ms. Johnstone summarizes what she has learned from these quotes:

It is understandable that service users, reaching desperately for an escape from anguish, confusion, guilt and blame, might see diagnosis (at least initially) as ‘salvation’. However, these benefits may be bought at the high price of taking on profoundly destructive messages of defect, dangerousness, damage and despair.

In my view, we can come up with a much better approach to the psychiatric pathologizing of people, an approach that doesn’t label anyone, but rather, classifies mental health concerns. For those who found the pathologizing approach helpful, this alternative approach would provide the professional and peer support that they value without misleading name calling. Psychiatric terms confuse questions of fact with questions of value, and superficially declare that a person’s experience is bad when it may have some pluses and minuses.

Undoubtedly, there are kind and decent folk who have a very different position than I on this subject. In no way do I mean to suggest that those who hold a different opinion are stupid, for I have met many who are as bright as a cloudless summer day. If they want to continue to use the DSM approach, it will continue to be available. All that I seek, all that I hope for, is that those who are uncomfortable with the DSM approach, can still assess mental health services using an alternative. All that I seek is that we all take some time to think more deeply about the nature of melancholy, sadness and tears.

———————

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

Tags A Straight Talking Guide to Psychiatric Diagnosis, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, dispute management, DSM, Lucy Johnstone, mental disorders, mental health, mental health concerns, mental illness

assertiveness conflict management conflict resolution criticism empathy fairness free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts negative criticism respect types of criticism Uncategorized

Women and Criticism

On this blog, I often discuss immature and mature ways to deal with criticism. The advice that I offer is designed to be helpful to males and females alike. But recently, in an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, Tara Mohr argues that when it comes to criticism, women can benefit from advice specifically targeted to the unique cultural situation that they find themselves in.

The New York Times Article

Ms Mohr, in her thoughtful article titled “Learning to Love Criticism,” tells us:

Criticism stings for all of us, but women have been socialized to not rock the boat, to be, above all else, likable. By the time a girl reaches adolescence, she’ll most likely have watched hundreds of films, television shows and advertisements in which a woman’s destiny is determined not by her own choices but by how she is perceived by others. In those hundreds of stories, we get the message: What other people think and say about us matters, a lot.

In addition to these messages in the media, for centuries women have had less rights than men. Being likable, or at least acceptable to stronger, more powerful men, became a primary survival strategy. For many women around the world, this is still the reality.

Given this history, we might think that women have mastered the skills to insure that they are liked, but in the business world there is some evidence that problems exist.

A Recent Survey

In a recent survey that looked at 248 performance reviews from 28 different companies, both men and women gave more negative feedback to the women being reviewed. Here are a few examples:

“You can come across as abrasive sometimes. I know you don’t mean to, but you need to pay attention to your tone.”

“Your peers sometimes feel that you don’t leave them enough room. Sometimes you need to step back to let others shine.”

“The presentation ultimately went well. But along the way, we discovered many areas for improvement. You would have had an easier time if you had been less judgmental about R—‘s contributions from the beginning.”

This kind of negative criticism showed up twice in the 83 critical reviews received by men. It showed up in 71 of the 94 critical reviews received by women.

There are three possibilities that present themselves here:

1. The women received more negative criticism despite not acting in any distinctively different way than the men because of distinctively different expectations of how women “should” act;

2. The women who received more negative reviews actually acted distinctly different in certain ways than the men and it is these differences that led to the additional negative criticism;

3. It is a little of both.

An Informal Survey

Interestingly, from my perspective, are the results of an informal survey of someone I know who was intimately involved in evaluating and promoting personnel. Here, early criticism was about equal between men and women, but more women took the negative criticism they received to heart and made changes prior to their following evaluation. This ultimately led to their promotions. The majority of the men who got negative feedback seemed uninterested in making any changes and subsequently lost their opportunity for promotion.

From this, I think that it is not only possible, but perhaps even probable, that despite the pattern suggested in the more thorough survey, there is great variability across settings.

Some bosses may have an archtype that a great leader is a tough, no nonsense person who only projects a demanding sense of profits. Such an attitude will provoke a very different style of criticism around the office than one that supports the idea working for profits doesn’t have to mean that we must abandon basic principles of human dignity.

Let me just add that the person involved in providing and promoting personnel in the informal survey happened to be a master at providing very specific feedback. Consider the example provided above in which someone stated in a review:

“You can come across as abrasive sometimes. I know you don’t mean to, but you need to pay attention to your tone.”

Such a statement potentially can be helpful as one looks within and seeks to come up with a less abrasive way to respond in situations. However, the feedback would be far better if a supervisor, let’s call him Bill, invited a subordinate, let’s call her Mary, to a one-on-one meeting shortly after an abrasive incident occurred. At that meeting, Bill does several things. He gently explains that he is about to imitate how Mary had acted, using her tone of voice and what was said. Then, after imitating for her how she acted, he displays for her in a role-play how he would prefer she act when a similar incident arises. He then proceeds to ask Mary to imitate what he just acted out. Then he goes through this process with Mary until she can actually copy the less abrasive style to his satisfaction. If Bill provided this level of specific feedback, it would be potentially far more helpful then the two-sentence feedback that was actually provided.

Advice

I very much support the recommendations that Ms Mohr provides in her New York Times piece. For example, at one point she writes,

If a woman wants to do substantive work of any kind, she’s going to be criticized — with comments not just about her work but also about herself. She must develop a way of experiencing criticism that allows her to persevere in the face of it.

How can this be done? “A woman,” says Ms Mohr, “can identify another woman whose response to criticism she admires. In challenging situations, she can imagine how the admired woman might respond, and thereby see some new possible responses for herself.”

I won’t go into all of the recommendations of Ms Mohr, suffice it to say her article is well worth reading. But I do think it is essential to point out that a single article will not do the trick for most of us, women or men, who want to learn to become a master at dealing with criticism. It takes several months of regularly bringing before our minds examples of criticism, followed by a discussion of how to transform each specific example into something better. My blog provides one way to go about doing just this. Readers can begin with the introduction to this blog, and move forward at their own pace by clicking on the next newer entry post. Additionally, by reading the trilogy of novels that I’ve written, people become immersed for a few months in adventures that illustrate the struggle to seek respect even under the most trying circumstances.

Well, that’s this week’s edition of From Insults to Respect. Here’s to hoping you’ll join us again real soon.

Jeff

——————————-

Tags conflict, conflict management, criticism, dispute management, disrespectful, insults, negative criticism, negative feedback, New York Times Op Ed, psychological maturity, respect, Tara Mohr, types of criticism, women and criticism

Abraham and Isaac Bible change conflict resolution free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum negative criticism psychological maturity wisdom

Conflict Resolution and The Wisdom of Abraham

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date August 21, 2014
2 Comments on Conflict Resolution and The Wisdom of Abraham

Sometimes we observe people doing things that seem terribly wrong. We may then find, welling up from within, an urgent desire to provide negative criticism.

In earlier posts, in an effort to provide some guidance on how to avoid expressing our concerns in a form that can potentially make a bad situation far worse, I provided a description of 5 levels of maturity for providing negative criticism (see HERE). In many situations, by simply attempting to create a communication that is consistent with the level 5 description, we end up dramatically improving our chance to make a valuable difference. But there are certain subtle situations that require special considerations.

Sometimes the actions you hope to change are intertwined with certain entrenched worldviews. In these types of situations, to expect to encourage people all at once to make what might seem to them to be some enormous change, might be way too much to expect. How better to deal with these situations? In today’s post, I’m going to present a parable that I hope you will find helpful when dealing with these types of situations.

This little parable is based on a story that appears in the bible about Abraham. I’ve taken some creative license in its telling, and based on this altered narrative, I’ve come up with a dramatically different literary interpretation of its meaning than the typical religious interpretation of the actual biblical story. For those who have a deep sense of religion, I don’t mean any disrespect. I do realize that by using a biblical story in this way I may grate upon tender associations, but I simply am unable at this point to derive any alternative that contains this story’s emotional impact. In no way am I attempting to claim that it has some sort of religious authority that some of you may feel for the actual biblical story.

With that said, I now present the story of “The Wisdom of Abraham.”

The Wisdom of Abraham

A few thousand years ago a man named Abraham lived in a village whose inhabitants followed the religion of Ba’al. The village was bound to the economy of the land that depended on the regularity and adequacy of the rains. Anxiety about the rainfall was a continuing concern of the inhabitants and this gave rise to rites to ensure the coming of the rains.

Many of the elders of the community remembered a drought that was so severe that over half the village died of starvation. After that terrible year, some of the Ba’al leadership prayed and reported that their god had spoken to them and commanded that to avoid another similar severe drought the people of the village must sacrifice a couple’s first born child. The people reluctantly obeyed, and from that point on there had never been another drought quite as bad.

Now, in this community, it came to pass that Abraham had a wife, Sara, who, after many, many frustrating years of trying, she, at long last, became pregnant. When the community members heard about this, they all gathered in the village square.

The leader of the community, Hareesh, took out a knife with a golden handle encrusted with sparkling jewels. “Abraham,” Hareesh cried out so all could hear, “after all of your difficulties in getting Sara pregnant you have finally succeeded. God will indeed appreciate your great sacrifice when your child is born. All in the village are so fortunate, for because of your great sacrifice we will surely have a wonderful rainy season and our crops will be bountiful. Let us all thank god.”

“Well, um,” Abraham began to stutter, “um, well I know that in the past it was our tradition to sacrifice our first born child, but, um…”

“Abraham!” cried Hareesh in a booming voice, “there will be no buts about this matter. You will follow the will of god!”

Abraham saw the look on the face of this leader, and he glanced quickly over the faces of the others in the village and it was plain that if he was to object any more he and his wife would be put to the fire, and so he held his tongue.

On the day that Sara gave birth, all again gathered in the village square. And there stood Hareesh with the golden handled, jewel-encrusted knife. “Abraham,” he cried out, “do you want me to do the deed, or do you wish to do the deed yourself?”

“Last night,” Abraham replied, “I prayed and prayed, and then, just as I heard the first cry of my new born son, god oh mighty spoke to me and he did command me to do as other village fathers have done before me. God commanded that I indeed must sacrifice my son. Because of all that Sara and I went through to have this son, god has ordered that this sacrifice must occur in a special holy place up in the mountain in the region known as Mariah. I’m to take my best ram with me for it is a two-day journey to the special holy place and he will help to carry my supplies. I will also take two of my most capable servants. Give me the sacrificial knife and I will follow god’s commandment.”

“Abraham,” cried Hareesh as he fingered the gold handled jewel encrusted knife,” you must do the deed just as god has commanded. But bring back the dead body of your son so we can give him the respected burial he well deserves.” And then Hareesh handed the knife over to Abraham.

And so, Abraham took his son, along with his ram, and two servants up to the mountain. A few days later he returned with his son very much alive. Following beside him was Abraham’s two servants carrying the ram, which was dead, and it had the sacrificial knife stuck in him.

As soon as Abraham had been spotted descending from the mountain, the people of the village began to gather.

“Abraham, your son is still alive!” boomed Hareesh. “What is the meaning of this?!”

“Well,” said Abraham, “I did as god had commanded. On the third day of my journey, I looked up and saw the holy place in the distance. I said to my servants, “Stay here while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then I will come back to you, having sacrificed my son, Isaac.”

“I placed my son on the holy site, and just as I reached back with the knife in my hand, the Lord called out to me from heaven, ‘Abraham! Abraham!’

“‘Here I am,’ I replied.

“And the lord said to me, ‘Do not lay a hand on the boy. Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you are my loyal servant, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son. And I can see within you, Abraham, how hard it is to bring yourself to do this deed. I am a merciful god, and therefore, from now on no one in your village shall ever sacrifice their first born as a sacrifice for me. Instead, you must sacrifice one of your finest rams.”

“And so, I followed the lord’s commandment and, as you can plainly see, I killed the ram with the sacrificial knife.”

And as Abraham finished his story, his servants laid the dead lamb at the feet of the crowd standing before him. And suddenly a great cry rose up from one segment of the crowd, and Abraham saw that it was from all of the women who were currently pregnant. They were crying that the lord was merciful, and tears were running down their faces. They fell to their knees, yelling, Thank you oh merciful lord, thank you.” And the husbands, realizing they would not have to kill their first born, also began to cry out, “Thank you oh merciful lord, thank you!” And there followed quickly another wave of cries. This time it was from all of the young men and women who had recently married and knew that if this new change had not occurred, they too would have had to sacrifice their first born, and they were greatly pleased. And then, even the men who had sacrificed their own first born, seeing how thrilled their own young sons and daughters were at Abraham’s story, also began to thank god for being so merciful.

Now, Hareesh, and some of his followers, were somewhat skeptical of what Abraham had said, but seeing the great passionate joyful response from almost everyone in the crowd, he held his tongue. Later the leader said, “We will see how the rains come, and if there is a drought, we will know the truth.”

When the rainy season did come, there were at times some ups and downs. But, in the end, overall, there was great agreement that there had been an excellent harvest, and the people were pleased.

The following year, one day, Abraham, who had now become greatly respected in the village, announced to the people that while he was praying, the lord once again spoke to him, saying that he saw that many of the good people of the village who dutifully sacrificed their finest ram each year, were deeply grieved upon doing so. And therefore, the lord, being merciful, has now commanded me to tell you that no longer will we have to sacrifice a ram once a year, instead we must make a sacrifice by fasting once a year for a whole day, from sundown to the next sundown.

Now, most of the people liked this new change, but there were a growing number of villagers who felt that Abraham was beginning to take them too far away from the old ways. And this feeling grew. And in those days, people felt that the only way to settle this was to set up a war council meeting, plan a date to violently fight it out, and those who survived got their way.

But, on the day of the war council meeting, Abraham had many of his biggest warriors standing beside him. And he announced that while he was praying that morning, the lord again had spoken to him and he said, “Among those who want to follow the old ways I see that there are many with beautiful souls, and are good god fearing people. And among those who want to follow you, Abraham, there are also many with beautiful souls, and are good god fearing people. Both groups must live side by side in peace. And so I command that those who want to follow the old ways are to be free to do so, and those who want to follow my instructions to you, Abraham, are to be free to do so. Let both groups live together in peace.”

Many of the villagers were perplexed by this and said, “Hmmm, we can do that? You mean we don’t have to kill each other to decide this. Those who want to live the old way can live as they wish, and others can follow god’s instructions to Abraham?”

“Yes,” said Abraham. “Now let us all go in peace.”

The villagers who had been unhappy with Abraham, looked over at the big guys that Abraham had standing beside him, they looked over at Abraham and thought he was a pretty decent guy, and they started to warm up to this idea. And as the days passed, peace was found throughout the land.

Well, that’s my post for this week.

My Best,

Jeff

——————————-

Tags Abraham, Abraham and Isaac, conflict management, conflict resolution, dispute management, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, maturity, maturity levels, parable, The Bible, types of criticism, violence, wisdom