Welcome to From Insults to Respect.
Regular readers know that I have been presenting the theory that a powerful way to increase the respect that others have for you, and the respect you have for yourself, is to become a master at responding to criticism. 
To that end, I have presented a model that describes five levels of maturity for responding to criticism (see HERE and HERE). In this model, level 1 is viewed as the least mature, level 2 is viewed as more mature, and so on up to level 5. In addition to describing each of these levels, I presented the case that this model makes sense (see HERE and HERE), and I have, from time to time, provided examples of people using the most mature level in order to help individuals who choose to perfect this skill (see HERE, HERE, and HERE). Today, we will once again look over all five levels, and then, after a quick look at a level 5 example we discussed in an earlier post, we’ll then take an in depth look at a fresh new example.
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 also using level 4 response- 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.
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.
An Old Example and A New Example of a Level 5 Response
Old Example: Here’s a quick example of my responding to criticism at level 5 that I discussed in an earlier post. My wife, Andrea, and I were getting dressed to go to a party. 
When Andrea saw what shirt I put on, she criticized my choice, saying, “That’s not quite right for this occasion.”
Although I disagreed with her, before I began to tell her I disagreed, I silently asked myself, “Can I steer in the direction of Andrea’s criticism?”
I quickly realized that I have two other shirts that I would enjoy wearing to this party as much as the one I initially picked out. And so, I pulled them out of my closet and said, “Well, since you don’t like the one I picked out for this evening, how about either of these two?”
“Oh,” she says, “the one on the left would be perfect. Thanks, dear.”
Notice that despite disagreeing with Andrea’s criticism, I found a way to reach an agreement with which both of us were satisfied. Andrea felt that I listened to her concern and was appreciative that I would make an adjustment to please her.
New Example: 
Today’s new example comes from a beautifully written book I happened to be reading, The Known World, by Edward P. Jones. The story takes place in Virginia mostly before the Civil War. In this part of the story, a conflict has sprung up in the county involving Harvey and Clarence.
Harvey has sold to Clarence for $15 a scrawny cow with practically no meat on its bones. Prior to the deal, Harvey had lied to Clarence, claiming that the cow was a good milker, though in fact more milk fell from the sky than from the cow. After the sale, when Clarence found this out, he was getting pretty frustrated, but then one day, all of a sudden, the cow turned into an excellent milker, and continued to be so. When Harvey found out about this, he wanted the cow back because a cow flowing with milk was not what he had taken $15 for.
When Clarence refused, a feud began, with threats and guns being fired, some of the bullets landing pretty near the children. So, Clarence’s wife, Beth Ann, went to Sheriff John Skiffington. “We will kill him or he will kill us,” she cried.
When Sheriff Skiffington gets Clarence, Beth, and Harvey together to try to settle the conflict…
“You sell Clarence and Beth Ann that cow?” Skiffington asked Harvey.
“Yes, I did, John.”
“Well, that should be the end of it, Harvey,” Skiffington said. “The law is on Clarence’s side. Square bargain. Clean deal.”
It is at this point Harvey begins to criticize Sheriff John Skiffington’s position.
“Now wait here a minute, John,” Harvey said. “Maybe I shoulda got to you first and pled my case, steada bein second to testify like I am.”
“John, you can see what we had to wrestle with out here,” Beth Ann said. “This kinda talk and bullets to keep em company.”
“The only bullets were from your side.” Harvey looked at Skiffington. “Or are you to believe all her side on that too? Maybe if Clarence would stiffen up a—”
“I take no side but the right one,” Skiffington said to Harvey, and if you don’t believe that then you can turn around and go home.” He waited. “I ain’t got time to waste on this cow business, Harvey.” He and Harvey were now facing each other. Beth Ann knew enough about life to know when things were dancing their way so she was quiet. Skiffington stepped to Harvey so that they were but two feet apart. You tell me this, Harvey, if that cow had died a day after you sold it to him, a day after now. No, not a day, not even a day. One hour after you sold it to him, just long enough for Clarence to lead the thing from your place, over the rise to his place so all them hooves are standing on his land and he owned it free and clear and then it up and drop dead on him, would you give him his money back? Would you think you sold him a dead cow and give him his money back? Now would you?”
“I’d feel it was the right thing maybe, seeing as how…I mean after all, the cow didn’t live long anough…”
Skiffington was disappointed in the answer but he knew he should not have been. He took Harvey’s shoulder and they walked away from everyone. “You sold him the cow, Harvey, and there ain’t a thing I can do. There ain’t even nothing President Fillmore can do.
You know that if I thought there was something wrong, that if Beth Ann and Clarence was wrong in any way, I would stand up for you. I would move heaven and earth to make it right for you Harvey. Do you understand me?”
“Yes, John, I do.”
“I’m sorry. I don’t want any more bad things between you two men, not a one. Do you understand me, Harvey?”
“Yes, John, I do.”
“I’ll say this to you: Twice a week you send two of your chaps over here with whatever they can carry to take back some milk . But only two of them chaps, Harvey, and just twice a week. No return trips for that day. One trip and that’s all. And never you or your wife are to come.”
Harvey wiped his mouth with his hand, then wiped his brow with his sleeved arm. His eyes teared because he had gotten the worst of it after setting out with a plan five weeks before that should have left him on top with $15. He nodded.
“Stand here,” Skiffington said and went back to Clarence and Beth Ann, who agreed to what he had told Harvey.“John, am I gonna have any more trouble outa him, shooting trouble?” Beth Ann asked.
“Will this end it, John?” Clarence asked.
“There won’t be no more. No more of this.”
“By whose word then, John?” Beth Ann said. “His word or your word.”
“First his word, then backed up by my word,” Skiffington said.” Good,” and she shook Skiffington’s hand and then he shook her husband’s hand.
Skiffington went back to Harvey. “If things stay peaceful, then there might be more days with milk for you, Harvey, but that has to come from Clarence and Beth. They can give you more days ’cause it’s their property.” Harvey nodded. He turned to leave. “And, Harvey, if someone shoots at Clarence again, I will come out to get you, and it will be a different world for you, your wife and your chaps.”
Discussion
In the above scenario, Harvey has a conflict with Clarence and Beth. When Sheriff John Skiffington is asked to help resolve the conflict, the sheriff expresses his opinion that the law is on Clarence and Beth’s side and therefore the sale of the cow is final and that should be the end of the conflict. It is at this point that Harvey criticizes the sheriff, saying in essence, that the sheriff has offered his opinion by just hearing Clarence and Beth’s side of the story, and not hearing his side. Now, to be fair to the sheriff, he had already asked what he felt was the pertinent question directly to Harvey, and Harvey replied by admitting he did indeed sell the cow to Clarence and Beth. Nevertheless, Harvey indicates he has more to say on the matter and should be listened to before the sheriff draws any conclusion.
Now, at first the sheriff is rather abrupt when he says, “I take no side but the right one, and if you don’t believe that then you can turn around and go home.” After a pause, the sheriff goes on to say, “I ain’t got time to waste on this cow business.” To be fair to the sheriff, behind this scene’s plot of the novel the sheriff is under enormous pressure to be attending to some other very serious law enforcement issues. Nevertheless, upon reflection, the sheriff decides to take some more time to address Harvey’s criticism.
First, he tries to reason with him, by simply asking him what he would have done if the cow had suddenly died immediately after he had completed the sale with Clarence and Beth. Harvey replies that maybe he would have returned the money.
Because of incidences earlier in the novel, the sheriff has learned enough about Harvey’s personality to conclude he is lying. Nevertheless, Sheriff Skiffington does not call Harvey a liar, nor does he call him any other name, or seek to insult him in any other manner. Instead, he guides Harvey away from the others involved in the conflict to see if he could better resolve the conflict. The sheriff’s approach involves letting Harvey know that if he was right in this matter, he would take his side and even move heaven and earth to help him if he could, but the law is completely on the side of Clarence and Beth. And then, even though the sheriff believes he is right on this point, he nevertheless seeks to steer in the direction Harvey would like, by offering to get some milk from the cow each week in a manner that would not be much of a hardship for Clarence and Beth. This isn’t an ideal solution in Harvey’s mind, but the simple fact that the sheriff made some effort to do a little something on behalf of him, does lead to the conflict becoming resolved. As the novel continues, there is no more trouble between these antagonists.
At the end of the scenario, the sheriff tells Harvey that if he shoots at Clarence again, he’ll come out to arrest him. This may seem to be a threat, and because threatening a criticizer is, according to the model presented above, a level 2 response, should you conclude the sheriff handled this situation in an immature manner? Here’s why I don’t think this is the correct way to interpret this situation.
In my opinion, the sheriff’s statement was neither a threat nor a response to Harvey’s criticism. Rather, it was part of his duty as a sheriff to inform Harvey of the consequences he would be obligated to carry out under the law.
So, overall, I’m leaning toward giving the sheriff a rating of 4.7. It wasn’t perfect, in my estimation, so I took a little off the 5, but I feel, overall, he did a pretty good job under the circumstances.
Some might wish to make some suggestions regarding how the sheriff could have handled his response to Harvey’s criticism even better than he did. I think discussing those suggestions would be worthwhile, and I hope to hear from readers about this. At the same time, I’m hoping this post might be of help in better understanding the nature of steering, and how it can be used to better respond to criticism.
——————–
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.
On this blog, I have been making the case that how we respond to criticism can have an enormous influence on how much respect others have for us. To support this position, from time to time I provide a tentative outline of five levels of maturity for responding to criticism, with level 1 being viewed as the most immature, I give specific examples of people using the different levels, and I discussed the consequences of responding at each level.
A very disturbing example of someone responding to criticism has now crashed upon the international stage. I am referring to the actions of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. According to the US CIA and many others who have reviewed the evidence, the Prince ordered the murder of the Washington Post reporter Jamal Khashoggi because the reporter criticized him. The details are gruesome, with those who carried out the deed actually using a bone saw to cut him into pieces.
1. This level requires displaying one or more of the following:
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.
The Saudi Kingdom, an absolute monarchy, has long imprisoned its own citizens who criticize the government. However, entities outside of the Kingdom, when criticizing the Saudis, found that it was typically handled quietly, with the Saudis usually ignoring them. Things began to change when the Prince gained power.
In August 2018, when Canada criticized the recent arrests of Saudi rights activists, the Prince threatened to break trade agreements with Canada and to break off trade with other Western countries if they, too, spoke out about political repression in the kingdom. An additional threat involved an unspecified, tit-for-tat response to further criticism, 
The Prince’s threats, it seems to me, clearly results in a rating of 2 because it matches the level 2 phrase, Threatens the criticizer. His other actions clearly results in a rating of 1 because actions such as breaking off trade and withdrawing thousands of students are costly, thus they are a fairly good match with the level 1 phrase, Damages Property. The murder is clearly a level 1 response because it matches the level 1 phrase, Physically attacks the criticizer. Overall, I think the Prince deserves a rating of 1.
Welcome to From Insults To Respect. As regular readers well know, from time to time I present discussions about the value of dealing with criticism in a manner that can enhance the respect people have for us. I began these discussions by describing how I made a lot of TV shows with a variety of actors displaying different styles of responding to criticism. 
Then I asked a wide range of people over several years to watch the shows and discuss their reactions.
To familiarize readers with the five levels, from time to time, I provide real life examples of people dealing with criticism and then ask readers to rate how the criticism had been handled. This week, while thinking about what my next example might be, a new real life example arose as I watched a tennis match between Serena Williams and Naomi Osaka. The two stars were playing at the U.S. Open to determine which would be the women’s national champion.
Before providing the five levels, I want to make sure that readers understand that they are not to be viewed as items written in stone. There may be some situations that might alter someone’s view of what is an ideal response. And individuals are of course entitled to make their own personal set of levels. Nevertheless, the levels are useful because they are generally viewed by a wide range of people in a variety of situations to match their own perceptions of what is a respected response to criticism. Thus, it provides us a way to debate its flaws and strengths, and in the end, we come away having deepened our thinking about important issues.
In the first set, Naomi looked impressive, beating the enormously talented Serena, 6-2.
Serena, upon hearing that a warning had been issued, approached chair umpire Ramos and, from her comments, it became apparent she believed Mr. Ramos had criticized her for cheating. Thus she said assertively, “You may have thought that was coaching, but I’m telling you it was not. I don’t cheat to win. I’d rather lose. I’m just letting you know.”
Throwing a racket is an automatic code violation, and because it was Serena’s second violation, Naomi gained a point for the next game. Ramos had clearly announced, “Code violation, racket abuse, point penalty, Mrs. Williams.”
When Ramos explained that Serena had a point penalty for smashing her racket, she calmly said, “Yeah, that’s a warning.” Then chair umpire Ramos explained that she already had a warning for the coaching violation, and here Serena raised her voice, and looking exasperated, cried out, “I didn’t get coaching! I didn’t get coaching! I didn’t get coaching! You need to make an announcement that I didn’t get coaching. I don’t cheat. I didn’t get coaching!”
Finally, returning to play, Serena loses the next game, and the game after that, handing the lead over to Naomi, 4-3.
Ramos said something I couldn’t make out, and then Serena yelled, “You will never, ever, be on the same court as me as long as you live!” She then called Ramos a liar as he is looking squarely at her, and leaning his body to her, clearly listening to what she had to say.
Ramos can then be seen in video recordings complying with this request, turning his body and eyes to face a direction away from Serena.
She didn’t seem to understand this, so Ramos called both players over to his chair and clearly explained what the situation is. Serena responded by laughing, and asked, “Are you kidding me?”
Serena now began to make her case to the highest official at the U.S. Open, during which she began to cry. “You know my character,” she said, “and this is not right. This has happened too many times, this is not fair. To lose a game for saying that, this is not fair. Do you know how many men do much worse than that, this is not fair. Because I’m a woman, you are going to take this away from me. You know it, and I know you can’t admit it, but I know you know it.”
When Serena returned to play, it was Naomi’s turn to serve. Naomi easily won that game, and, consequently, the match and the U.S. Open Championship.
After the final point, Serena, graciously walked over to Naomi and gave her a hug.
Moments later, the master of ceremony announced it was time to present the trophies, and another round of boos were heard. Naomi once again began to cry. Serena put her arms around Naomi, smiled, and said she was proud of her and that she should know that the crowd wasn’t booing at her. Naomi returned a genuine smile.
When it was Serena’s turn to say something during the awards ceremony, she graciously said, while choking back tears, “She played well, and this is her first grand slam, and I know that you guys were rooting, and I was rooting too, but let’s make this the best moment that we can. We’ll get through this, but, let’s give everyone the credit where credit is due, and let’s not boo anymore, we’re going to get through this and let’s be positive. Congratulations Naomi. No more booing. Thank you to my team, you guys are amazing.” Serena, begins to wipe away her tears, which were streaming from her eyes. She manages to continue, saying, “Thank you to the crowd, you guys are the best in the world. Thank you so much, and I really hope to go again to continue to play here again. We’ll see. It was a tough year for me, but thank you so much.”
Mr. Ramos listened attentively, and nodded his head. Serena then went back to the game.
If there was less pressure to proceed with the game, I would have liked her to have said to Ramos something like, “I think that the coaching code violation means you are accusing me of being a cheater. Is that right?” I say this, because the phrase in the level 4 description which states, “make it clear that they fully understand what was said,” means that the person criticized would first restate the criticism, as he or she understands it, and then ask if this restatement is correct. If Serena had done so, I think Ramos would have said something like, “I’m not accusing you of cheating. I’m saying your coach has violated, in my opinion, the code that says there is to be no coaching during a U.S. Open match. It was entirely on this basis that I issued you a warning.”
The next such act occurred when Serena hit a backhand into the net for an unforced error, allowing Naomi to win her second game of the second set. At this point, Serena was still in the lead, 3-2. Nevertheless, her response to losing that game was to fling her racket into the ground, breaking it. Thus, it seems to me, that she had criticized herself for her unforced error, and responded by destroying her property. This is clearly a level one response. Ramos penalized Serena one point for the next game.
This example of dealing with criticism provides us a fine example in which people, when criticized, are not just upset because of the criticism, but also the consequences of receiving the criticism. Oftentimes the consequences are not as obvious as in this case. Here we plainly see that Serena received a warning, which was, at the time, reasonably assumed to be of little consequence. However, when she broke her racket, because she already had a warning, she now had lost a point. When she called Ramos a thief, the clear consequence was losing an entire game, and, consequently dramatically increased the chances of losing the entire match. She was also subsequently docked by the tournament referee’s office $17,000 ($10,000 for “verbal abuse” of chair umpire Carlos Ramos, $4,000 for being warned for coaching, and $3,000 for breaking her racket).
