Tag: Disrespect

Respect and Tolerance

Welcome to From Insults to Respect.

As the title of this blog indicates, here we are interested in respect. The topic of respect is quite broad, and for a fairly complete coverage of its different definitions I recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s article on respect that can be retrieved for free HERE. The article covers not only the different meanings of the respect concept, it also delves into various relevant philosophical issues. However, for people who want to take practical steps to improve the respect others have for them, and their own self-respect, they will be disappointed. This blog’s posts aim to fill this gap.

Improving one’s level of respect others have for us and one’s own self-respect matters intensely, for it shapes and structures our lives. And when individuals find they are unable to stomach themselves it profoundly diminishes the quality of their lives, and even for some, their desire to continue living.

There is a type of respect that is not the focus of this blog, the type one gets for being a doctor, a major leaguer, a Pulitzer Prize winner. People who actually get to personally know such individuals find that they display interpersonal actions that lead to either a deeper more longer lasting level of respect or disrespect. Similarly, they have intrapersonal skills that lead them to enhance their self-respect or end up tearing themselves apart. This blog is a seedbed for anyone seeking to grow their interpersonal and intrapersonal skills that enhance respect.

The posts you find here, along with my free novel, A Hero Grows In Brooklyn, about a boy growing up in Brooklyn struggling with issues related to respect, focus on suggestions that don’t cost even a penny. As someone who originally came from a family with meager financial resources, who, in my early life, lived with five family members in a tiny apartment above a hardware store with the elevated train roaring past our windows every few minutes along Brighton Beach Avenue, I feel a deep connection with those who can’t afford expensive private counseling or mindful self-compassion workshops, as helpful as these can be. Now that I’m retired I feel a great sense of satisfaction to be able to “give away” these ideas to folks regardless of financial circumstances.

As an example, in one of the early posts I discuss the value of learning to tolerate criticism, and upon hearing it, to respond respectfully. There, I describe the following four levels of responding to negative criticism:

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

- - Weeps or sobs with tears or pouts without also using level 4 responses
  - Physically attacks the criticizer
  - Damages property

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

- - Insults the criticizer (either with words, hand gestures, the sticking out of a tongue, the rolling of the eyes, or smirks)
  - Glares at the criticizer
  - Threatens the criticizer
  - Punches, kicks, or throws an object without physically hurting someone or damaging anything
  - Criticizes the criticizer without first fully addressing the original criticism.

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.

4. Level 4 individuals 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.

I then explain that in my research, individuals upon viewing video recordings depicting people responding to criticism with each of the four levels, rated those who displayed the highest level as more likable, respected, and mature then those responding to criticism at lower levels. In subsequent posts, I explain that to really improve one’s skill level in a manner that overcomes old entrenched habits most people must go through several practice lessons. These practice lessons also are cost-free and are described. Additional posts from time to time reinforce this set of skills. All of this training is available by going to the first post, and working through to each subsequent post.

Today’s Topic

While thinking about what to write for today’s post, I happened to come upon an article in the American Psychologist by Bernd Simon about respect and tolerance. The article begins:

Mutual tolerance among all members of a society is vital for its functioning as a fair and stable system of cooperation (Rawls, 20005). This is true especially for plural societies, where people differ from each other in many ways and regularly disapprove of each other’s beliefs, practices, or ways of life.

Upon reading this, it occurred to me that individuals who lack sufficient tolerance in their community are likely to stir up a great deal of anger, conflict, and disrespect toward a whole bunch of people. If you are okay about doing this, have at it. However, for those who would find that their lack of tolerance has been creating situations that fails to be fruitful, and therefore want to consider making some changes, the article led me to offer some suggestions.

Practice over one month by taking two minutes daily to consider the value of respecting others who differ from yourself in many ways as understood as deserving equal rights, equal freedom, and equal concern. Respect for others as equals has the potential of restraining people’s disapproval of other’s beliefs, practices, or ways of life, without removing such disapproval, and thus make tolerance possible.

Now, for some, because of their minds flashing on many horrendous acts, they fling the whole tolerance concept right out the window. “Why should I consider being tolerant when such awful things as murder, rape, terrorism, and other illegal acts appear daily in our media! Am I supposed to be tolerant with all of this going on?!!!” But, the vast majority of our neighbors are reasonably law abiding. Consider what the cost would be to you if people who disapprove of your lifestyle were to be intolerant of you, and therefore, treated you disrespectfully. Might we be wise to treat others as we would have them treat us? Isn’t it better for us to treat law abiding citizens with respect, and they treat you equally respectfully?

In Simon’s American Psychologist article, research is reviewed indicating that those who are tolerant of out-groups are more likely to be willing to engage in intergroup cooperation and have higher levels of well-being. Additionally, when people in the out-group are treated with respect, they are more likely to reciprocate and respond in kind. This expression of respect for others is thus reflected back leading to an increase in the tolerant person’s own self-respect.

So, there you have it, some thoughts about respect and tolerance, along with a little technique to enhance the reader’s tolerance. I hope you give this some thought because I’m thinking living in a world where more people are tolerant and respectful would be good for us all.

My Best,
Jeff

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

Tags conflict resolution, Disrespect, respect, Tolerance

Trump and Respect

Welcome to From Insults to Respect.

As I write this post, Election Day, with all of its turbulence, has now passed us by. Perhaps now is a good time for us to take some deep calming breaths and reflect on all that transpired.

Along this line, I’m thinking it would be a useful exercise at this point if we attempted to integrate what we have learned from this blog about the nature of respect with what we know about President Trump’s style of conducting himself. After all, the president is someone we all got to know pretty well. Couple this with the swirling controversy around the man, which can be readily seen in a recent article by the Herald News titled, “Trump continues to show a lack of respect for America.” The first paragraph reads,

We knew beyond doubt that our president was an inveterate liar, a business cheat, and a bully, but the debate last week proved that he refuses to adhere to any rules, even those upon which he has himself agreed. Those who counted say he interrupted 71 times in 90 minutes. That should not come as a surprise, since he does not appear to respect any of the laws that everyone else is expected to obey, including our Constitution. Talk about a lack of law and order.

Such statements clearly arouse powerful emotions for many, and it just so happens that learning exercises tend to be particularly memorable when strong emotions are aroused. Exercises that skillfully utilize this arousal tend to be processed at a much deeper level than those utilizing ho hum examples. So, if you will, let’s see where such an exercise might lead.

We’ll begin with a look at how Trump’s statements that run counter to principles of science might influence how much respect others have for him. Then we’ll rate how much respect he earns from the way he responds to criticism and provides criticism. Finally, we’ll rate his level of respect for displaying several other behavior styles. Although, admittedly, there is a degree of subjectivity to this exercise, going through it will help to clarify for all readers their own understanding of the nature of respect.

Respect and Trump’s Statements Related to Science

Whenever I write a new post, I come up with a tentative title, and then, not wanting to use it if others had, I put it in the Google search engine to find out. When I did this for this post’s title, “Trump and Respect,” I was pleased to see nothing came up with that title. At the same time, as expected, my search found articles and books that are somewhat related to this topic. The first two were articles that expressed serious concerns about Trump not respecting science. The argument that was put forth for this proposition has to do with Trump’s statements regarding the environment and handling the pandemic.

Trump on the Environment

With regard to the environment issue, Trump has repeatedly claimed scientists are perpetuating a hoax when they tell us that urgent action is needed to transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar. My guess is that rather than really believing this is a hoax, Trump promoted it because of how crucial he viewed winning Pennsylvania was for his chances to be elected.

The Keystone State obtains huge economic benefits from its fracking industry, which is a technique that draws the fossil fuel of natural gas from deep below the Earth’s surface. To move forward on a transition plan threatens the livelihood of many state citizens, and consequently, anyone supporting such a plan risks losing a significant number of votes.

I will explain my reasons for this guess shortly, but let’s just pretend, for the benefit of this exercise, that it is true that Trump does respect science but his desire to hold onto the presidency is of greater importance to him. If you were convinced that Trump chose holding on to the presidency over protecting the health and safety of human beings by avoiding further damage to the environment, would that influence how much respect you have for him? How much would it influence you?

Trump on the Pandemic

In the articles that I came upon in my search, much of the argument that claims Trump does not respect science comes from his statements that contradicted or undermined the pandemic recommendations from science experts within and outside his own administration. Also, in complete contradiction to scientific evidence, he has repeatedly told the American people that the end of the virus’s spread was just around the corner, and continued to do so even as it was increasingly plain to all that the virus was spreading at alarming rates. Nevertheless, as I indicated in the previous section, I doubt that these public statements of Trump are really indicative of his true feelings. Here’s why.

First of all, on Bob Woodward’s tape recordings, Trump repeatedly admitted, based on the information he received from his expert scientists, just how deadly and contagious the virus is. Thus, on February 7 he told Woodward the disease is “deadly stuff.” In an April 5 interview with Woodward, Trump explained, “It moves rapidly, Bob. It moves rapidly and viciously. If you’re the wrong person and if it gets you, your life is pretty much over if you’re in the wrong group.” During his April 13 interview with Woodward, Trump told the journalist that the virus is “so easily transmissible, you wouldn’t even believe it.”

Couple these statements that had relied on his scientific experts, with two more sets of facts. Trump threw his full support behind developing a vaccine, which relies on scientists using the principles of science. When he came down with the virus, he checked into a hospital that provided him with the most scientifically supported treatments.

So, despite his public posture of a cavalier attitude that played down the risk, there is ample evidence that Trump well respects the scientific evidence. The two most plausible reasons for his public posture are, that he was trying to protect his own financial interest, and he assessed the attitudes about the pandemic from his most ardent supporters whom he could not afford to lose in his bid for reelection.

With regard to his financial interests, it is well known that Trump is heavily invested in hotels around the world. When Trump heard about the pandemic from his advisors, when he asked about what needed to be done to contain it, he was told that the public has to stay home and only leave their homes for absolutely essential reasons. This is not at all good news for someone in Trump’s financial situation. And keep in mind, he has repeatedly faced bankruptcy, a pretty awful experience, especially for someone who hates the image of a loser.

Although Trump claims he has been playing down the seriousness of the virus because he doesn’t want to cause a panic, this is implausible. If he was in a reasonable state of mind, he would have known the general public would hear from plenty of experts an accurate account of the risks that are involved.

Rather than fear of causing a panic, a far more plausible theory is that he panicked upon hearing about the need to have people severely restrict their travel plans. Note, as well, that he had no problem trying to create a sense of panic with regard to those who would vote for Biden, claiming their cities and suburbs will end up in flames by looters and violent demonstrators if Biden is elected.

Even though by now, Trump must know that most of the general public are well aware of the serious risks of this pandemic, he continues to play down the risk.

The most plausible reason to me is because many of his base supporters delight in claiming the news is fake. We see them at his rallies throwing up their arms in jubilation each time he mentions the “awful lying fake media.” Many of them, just like him, are in denial about the dangers of the pandemic because a full shut down of nonessential businesses has terrible consequences for their own businesses, and the thought of not partying at bars is, to them, completely unacceptable.

Okay, now that I provided some background about Trump’s statements about science, for the purpose of this exercise, let’s just say, whether you believe it or not, that Trump indeed respects science, but he puts his personal finances and his desire to be reelected over the safety of the American people. Would that influence how much respect you have for him?

Respect and Trump’s Style of Responding to Criticism

For this part of today’s exercise, I’d like you to rate Trump’s style of responding to criticism. To help guide you in coming up with your rating, below is one model that describes five different responding to criticism styles. I put them in order from the least respected to the most respected. Each higher level is viewed as more mature, likable, and respected by a wide group of individuals who watched video recordings depicting different people displaying the five different styles.

In coming up with your own rating, you need not rely on these five descriptors, but in considering them, it will help to clarify in your own mind what you respect when it comes to responding to criticism. Let’s take a look at these five levels.

Five Levels of Responding to Criticism

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

Weeps or sobs with tears or pouts without using any of the higher level skills
Physically attacks the criticizer
Damages property

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

Insults the criticizer (either with words, hand gestures, the sticking out of a tongue, the rolling of the eyes, or smirks)
Glares at the criticizer
Threatens the criticizer
Punches, kicks, or throws an object without physically hurting someone or damaging anything
Criticizes the criticizer without first fully addressing the original criticism.

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.

5. In addition to actions consistent with level 4, people responding to criticism in a manner consistent with level 5 seek ways to use, whenever they disagree with the criticism, a technique known as steering in the direction the criticizer would prefer to go. That is, rather than just disagreeing without being disagreeable, the criticized person seeks to find a new choice of action that creatively utilizes some aspect suggested from the criticism. Steering cannot be incorporated into all situations, but it is an additional goal of the most mature individuals.

Now that you looked these five levels over, what level do you think best matches Trump’s style?

Respect and Trump’s Style of Providing Criticism

For this part of today’s exercise, I’d like you to rate Trump’s style of providing criticism. As I did when I asked you to rate his style of responding to criticism, to help guide you in coming up with your rating, below is one model that describes five different styles placed in order from the least respected to the most respected.

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.

Rating Trump on Several Other Attributes Related to Respect

All that is left to do to finish this exercise is to look over the following list of attribute descriptions, and for each one, rate Trump on a scale of 1 to 5 on how well that description fits him.

Being a Good Role Model

Present yourself well

Set an example for others

Make your own decisions

Don’t be overly materialistic

Be a cultured person

Keep your language clean and respectable

Exude confidence

Be optimistic

Stick to your word

Excel at something

Admit to your mistakes

Avoid getting overly intoxicated in public

Stick up for yourself when you need to

Respecting Others

Greet people in a proper and friendly manner

Never bully others or take advantage of their weaknesses

Give everyone a chance

Be prepared to see other people’s side of the story

Don’t act like a know-it-all

Be discreet

Conclusion

Well, there you have it, an exercise designed to deepen your idea about the nature of respect. As I mentioned above, you are of course free to create your own conceptualization of respect according to your own lights. Nothing that I’ve said throughout this exercise is designed to be presented in a dogmatic fashion.

As I leave you today, I can’t help noting that the lead headline of my newspaper states, “Explosive Growth of Virus Is Recorded Across the U.S.” With that in mind, please do take all precautions for your own safety, and for the safety of others.

Tags Disrespect, Donald Trump, providing criticism, respect, Responding to criticism

conflict resolution Senator McSally

Senator McSally Insulting Reporter: Wise Strategy?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date January 19, 2020
No Comments on Senator McSally Insulting Reporter: Wise Strategy?

Welcome to From Insults To Respect. Today’s post takes a close look at an exchange that Senator Martha McSally of Arizona had with CNN Reporter Manu Raju while he attempted to ask her a question in a Capitol Hill hallway.

The exchange went like this:

RAJU: Senator McSally, should the Senate consider new evidence as part of the impeachment trial?

McSALLY: You’re a liberal hack. I’m not talking to you.

RAJU: You’re not going to comment, Senator?

McSALLY: You’re a liberal hack, buddy.

You can view the exchange on YouTube HERE. There you can readily see that Mr. Raju asked Senator McSally the question in a professional manner, and she clearly responded with disgust in her voice.

A little background on the Senator might be helpful. She was not elected to her position. She lost to Kyrsten Sinema and was then appointed to fill the seat vacated by Senator Jon Kyl. Currently she is in a very competitive race against Mark Kelly, hoping to be elected as Senator this coming November.

According to a Washington Post article,

There’s been talk that McSally staged the episode to excite the Republican base. And indeed, Republicans are already using it to raise money for her reelection campaign, in which McSally is very vulnerable.”

Supporting this notion that the incident was staged is that McSally quickly posted the video. Fox News host Sean Hannity instantly began to praise her conduct, and she got additional publicity by appearing on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show. Meanwhile, President Trump’s 2020 campaign tweeted out “THREE CHEERS” for the senator while directing followers to donate to her campaign. To me, this appears to be a bit too choreographed to have come out of an unplanned emotional outburst.

That said, I hasten to say, I did not choose this incident in order to attack a Republican candidate. Instead, I chose it because just as I was about to write today’s post the McSally incident happened to go viral. The incident, therefore, is particularly fresh in the minds of readers and of high interest, so that it serves as a useful jumping off point to address issues relevant to this blog. Before going on, in an effort to be fair, I point out that I personally have seen both Democrats and Republicans throw insults at news outlets that tend to be biased toward their opposing political party.

Why Did The Incident Go Viral?

Although it is not unusual for both Democrats and Republicans to insult news outlets when it publishes a specific negative story about their representatives, this McSally incident is nevertheless unusual for the following reason. We don’t typically see a senator, upon being asked a reasonable question by a reporter, responding disrespectfully, quickly post it on line, and then have the president cheer the insulter.

Senator McNally received a great deal of free press coverage, so should this become the new norm? Is this really how Americans want to see their elected officials respond to reporters? And do we really want our kids learning to insult everyone they disagree with by observing our national leaders acting this way? I suggest that the anxiety provoked by these questions are at the heart of why the McSally incident went viral.

A Paradox

On the one hand, there is a considerable amount of evidence that people who are very insulting tend to be less liked and respected. On the other hand, many politicians can be very insulting toward people with whom they disagree, and despite this, they win elections and many people idolize them.

Explaining the Paradox

First of all, the negative effects of being insulting is strongest in interpersonal 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.

The relationship that politicians have with voters is best viewed as an intergroup relationship. The intergroup relationship I’m discussing today regarding McSally involves the group of people who might potentially vote for her, the groups of people who have a vested interest in getting her elected, and the groups of people who are working to get someone else elected. Although insulting people is relevant to intergroup relationships, other issues often become more important.

In an interpersonal relationship, if you attempt to insult the person with whom you are personally interacting, that person might insult you back and the interaction can escalate into violence. In fact, the most common reason people turn to violence is because they felt someone treated them disrespectfully.

When we see politicians seeking to insult someone, they are modeling for others this type of violence producing behavior. But what makes this type of behavior very different for politicians is that they almost always have a group of supporters standing by them 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 person who doesn’t take any crap. Meanwhile, as politicians model this behavior for people without the protections afforded to politicians, it can potentially increase levels of violence for non-politicians.

interpersonal conflict comic Here’s another difference between what typically happens during your interpersonal relationships and the intergroup interactions that involve politicians. 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 typically experienced when groups of people see on TV or in a large arena a politician throwing insults at someone they don’t personally know.

Politicians, moreover, are not seeking to develop a sound interpersonal relationship with you. They are, instead, seeking your vote. They know very well that not everyone is going to vote for them. If they anger the voters who aren’t likely to vote for them anyway, and end up getting 51 percent of the vote, this, to them, is success.

Now, when it comes to interpersonal relationships, if you act in a manner that leads to even a minority not liking you, this can lead to far more direct problems for you than if a minority of people don’t vote for some politician. If those who personally know you don’t like you, they can begin to say things behind your back to people who actually personally interact with you. Some of what gets said can be untrue and very unfair, but you may never hear about this. This behind your back treatment may result in people that you like no longer inviting you to parties. When you used to be invited to go bowling, now someone else is getting invited. In a work setting, you may be passed up for promotion. These types of consequences can have direct effects on your personal life. For politicians, the personal effects that may occur if they anger a minority of people who would have been unlikely to vote for them, would be far less important to them than getting elected.

Also, note that when people decide on who to vote for, they consider many issues, not just whether or not the candidate insults anyone. When politicians insult someone, many voters are apt to say to themselves, they aren’t doing anything much different than all the other politicians. These voters then choose a candidate based on other issues. If some voters recognize that a particular politician insults others more than other candidates, they may feel that his or her stand on immigration is a far more important issue.

Others will actually like the insulting because the insults are aimed not at them, but at people whom they have come to dislike. If you have become angry because you like to use the “N-word” and people have criticized you about it, you may have become angry about what strikes you as political correctness.

Other voters are very angry at the lack of progress being made by current career politicians on solving immigration, economic, and other problems. Many of these voters’ own personal style for dealing with this anger is to throw insults at these politicians. When politicians do the same thing, these voters see them as one of them. These same individuals are apparently unable to see that if these politicians were throwing the same types of insults at them, they would not like this. To them, it’s perfectly okay to insult people they have come to dislike. If they are personally insulted, however, then they would view it as wrong. It seems to me that because it is wrong for people to insult them when someone disagrees with them, it is equally wrong for them to insult others when they disagree with others.

Many like to characterize politicians that use insults as their way of being a tough no-nonsense kind of person. But in my view a person can surely be a tough no-nonsense kind of person without seeking to insult people.

When politicians are asked why they use insults, they at times say that those whom they insult, insulted them first. But those who insulted them often say they did it because others insulted either them, or someone they personally know. And so many who are either leaders of our nation, or hope to be so, are choosing to engage in this “You Started it First” name-calling game.

It is simply not true that if someone throws an insult at you the only intelligent way to respond is to seek to insult them back. In my view, within the political arena, one way to respond in a manner that I would respect is to state firmly, “I’m not here to get into this name-calling game. I’m here to let the public know what my positions are on the problems of this nation, and how I, if elected, plan to go about fixing them.”

I hope this post will help you to think twice if you have begun to think that the type of insulting behavior that appears to be helping to get attention from politicians would be just as effective in your own interpersonal relationships.

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

Tags Disrespect, insults, intergroup conflicts, interpersonal conflicts, Senator McSally