Tag: insults

Insults Amongst Friends

A few months ago I was going to be a guest on the “Anger 911” radio show. The host of the show, Janet Pfeiffer, is an expert on anger and a TV personality, appearing on such networks as “Fox News,” “CNN,” “ABC News,” “CBS News,” “Lifetime,” and “The 700 Club.”

Since my interview was coming up, I began to think about what I might say. As it happened, I was able to get some fresh material on dealing with insults because that was the week that my male friends and I went on our annual baseball trip. We have been doing this for over twenty years, and it involves going to some professional baseball games over an extended weekend. Amongst ourselves, we throw quite a few insults at each other. It’s all in good fun, for the most part.

For this year’s trip, six of us left Friday afternoon, traveling about three hours south to Reading, Pennsylvania, to see its minor league team in the evening. The next day we drove back up north about an hour to catch the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Railriders play.

The first set of insults that caught my attention was at our breakfast at a Reading diner. The waitress began to take our orders, and the first few were the usual breakfast fare of eggs, toast, and some meat, either sausage or ham. Then it was my turn. As soon as the waitress looked at me, pencil in hand, my friends started to perk up and, one said to her, “Oh no, brace yourself, here comes the nutcase.” Another said to the waitress, “You’re not going to believe this!”

I ordered my usual oatmeal, wholewheat toast, and orange juice, which, to my friends, was hardly proper manly food. One friend cried out, “Did you bring your flax seed oil with you, for crying out loud!” Eyes were rolling, and the laughter, catching. Before long our whole table got a belly load of chuckles out of this line of insults.

A little later, we were walking along the main avenue of Reading, looking at the shops, and one of my friends came over to me. “Jeff,” he said, “I have to say that I love having you join us on our trips because it takes a lot of pressure off of me when it comes to the guys throwing insults around. Before you came with us, I was the main target of insults, and now, I still get plenty, but at least at times the guys are so focussed on insulting you that at least I get a break. It’s amazing that it doesn’t seem to bother you. When it happens with me, it starts to get to me after awhile. How do you manage to always keep so cool about it?”

I replied that, “To me, it’s like water off a duck’s back, and it’s all in good fun.”

But as we continued to walk, I did recall that there was one set of insults that the guys like to throw at me from time to time that does sting a bit. It involves an incident that occurred about 25 years ago. I had taken my infant child, Jack, for a walk in his stroller. He had fallen soundly asleep, and as I passed the local jewelry store, I decided to stop in because it was getting pretty close to my wife’s birthday. After looking at a few items, I decided to give it some thought before making a purchase. My mind was caught up comparing two items in my mind as I began to leave the store, and I completely forgot that my son, who was sleeping silently in the stroller off in the corner of the store, was with me. And so, as I began to leave, someone I knew who happened to also be in the store, noticed I was leaving without my son. “Aren’t you going to take your son with you?” he enquired with a huge smile on his face. Embarrassed, I quickly thanked him and retrieved Jack.

Well, this story got around to all of my friends, and it began to get incredibly exaggerated, so that in one form of the story, I was half a block away from the store without Jack until someone finally ran me down to come and get him. And in yet another form of the story, I was blocks away from the store before someone finally caught up with me.

There is no question that I indeed get caught up in my thoughts and therefore forget what the heck I’m doing somewhat more than average, and so I accept a little teasing about this. But if the truth was told, the story of forgetting my son in the store is something I experience with a little thud in my heart. And so, as I thought about this, I found an increased ability to sympathize with my friend who had, just moments before, shared with me the difficulty he had with some insults, even among his friends.

Later on the trip, I was sitting with another friend in the back of a car, while two other friends were in the the front seats. The driver accidentally went past the left turn he was supposed to have taken, and the guy sitting next to him in the front seat began to throw insults, in a friendly way, at the driver. “Don’t you know how to drive, you putz!”

If it was me getting this line of insults, I would have just replied with something like, “Oops,” and then just laughed along, but the driver, instead, recalled a time when the insulter had made even a bigger mistake driving. “Oh yeah,” he cried, “how about the time we were on the fishing trip and you said you knew the way, and then, after a half hour going in the wrong direction, you finally admitted you had no idea where the hell we were?!!”

The bickering over who had made more driving mistakes over the years continued in the two front seats of the car for quite some time until the guy I was sitting with in the back cried out in exasperation, “You two sound like an old married couple.” With that, the two in the front seat banded together to insult the guy who made the old married couple remark. Although it appeared that it was all in good fun, I wondered if there was some underlying discomfort going on.

The next day, as we were heading home, there was some more insults being thrown around, which seemed to be pleasant enough, but at one point, one guy said, “Let’s cut out the insults for awhile, it’s starting to feel like it’s getting a little old.” The guy who had just before thrown an insult at the guy making the request couldn’t help making one more insulting comment, something like, “What’s the matter, baby, you can’t take a little kidding.” The others present, smiled, and then, for the remainder of the trip, we all switched over to a more supportive mode of treating one another.

Upon reflection, I liked what the guy who asked for a break in the insults had said. He noticed that the insults were beginning to get to him, and he spoke up in a manner that struck me as a respectful tone. And it was great to see my buddies were willing to back off when it became known how at least one of us was beginning to feel.

———————————
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 friends, insults, teasing

Bob Dylan conflict resolution fools insults Listening skills Name calling

Bob Dylan On Fools

Bob Dylan begins his Theme Time Radio Hour show about fools, with a beautiful instrumental version of “Why Do Fools Fall In Love.” After a few bars of this tune, it continues in the background as Bob begins to speak:

James Thurber

James Thurber once said, “You can fool too many of the people too much of the time,” and for the next hour we’re going to try to do just that. Welcome back to Theme Time Radio Hour. Today we’re going to talk about patsies, stooges, marks, jesters, jokers, buffoons, clowns, tricksters, harlequins, and the village idiots, because in honor of April first, it’s our fools’ program. Everybody plays the fool sometimes, and for the next hour we’re going to play the greatest records about our favorite halfwits, the fools.

Recently, I provided a post on this blog titled, “Bob Dylan on Madness,” as an entertaining way to practice some of the basic principles I regularly discuss. That post was so popular that I thought, Why not do a similar post utilizing Bob’s show on fools? After all, in addition to people at times seeking to insult themselves and others by saying such things as “You’re mad” or “You’re crazy,” they do likewise by saying such things as “You’re a fool” or “You’re a buffoon.” Are there more respectful, helpful ways to deal with situations that give rise to such name calling? I think so. Let’s see if we can have some fun thinking about this issue as we review Bob’s show on fools.

Chain of Fools

After Bob’s brief introduction, he dives right into Aretha Franklin’s emotionally charged song, “Chain of Fools.”

For five long years
I thought you were my man
But I found out
I’m just a link in your chain

You got me where you want me
I ain’t nothin’ but your fool
Ya treated me mean
Oh you treated me cruel

Chain, chain, chain
(Chain, chain, chain)
Chain of fools

Every chain, has got a weak link
I might be weak yeah
But I’ll give you strength

Oh, hey
Chain, chain, chain
(Chain, chain, chain)
Chain of fools

Here we find a woman calling herself a fool because she sees herself attached to a man who treats her cruel. I wonder how I would react to a woman telling me a similar story. I guess I would not rush into giving her any advice, but rather, give her some time to be with her emotional experience while I listened in a caring, empathic manner.

As we discussed in an earlier post titled “To Listen, Or To Criticize,” we often jump too quickly into providing advice. If you would like your listening skills to be respected, it helps to summarize, every few minutes, what is being said in a caring manner, thus reassuring the person talking to you that you are indeed listening and accurately hearing what is going on.

After perhaps fifteen minutes or so of listening and summarizing, I would continue to listen, but I might begin to start asking, as gently as possible, a few clarifying questions. I often use the DIG Conflict Model to come up with my questions. The letters of the word “DIG” would remind me to ask about what she “desires” in this situation, what is “interfering” with her desire, and if she feels she is “guilty” of doing something wrong. I would gently encourage her to be as specific as she could be. A statement like, I’m guilty of being a fool” is way too vague to be helpful in coming up with any practical plan. “I’m guilty of not going out to social events on Friday evenings so I can find a loving relationship with a man who would treat me with respect,” fits better with my image of being specific.

Aretha Franklin’s song continues with these words:

One of these mornings
The chain is gonna break
But up until the day
I’m gonna take all I can take, oh hey

Chain, chain, chain
(Chain, chain, chain)
Chain of fools

We see a glimmer of hope in these words. That weak link in the chain is not completely unbreakable. I think that at some point in my relationship with a woman dealing with this type of concern, I might ask what she thinks she might do if the chain would indeed break. My overall goal at this point in the relationship would be to focus not so much on what is wrong with what is happening in her life, but what she could specifically do to improve her situation.

Further On In the Show

A little later in Bob’s show, he introduces another song:

Hank Snow

Everyone plays the fool sometime. Hank Snow knew that. We talk about Hank an awful lot [on my show], and he was one of the biggest voices in country music from 1951 and 1955. He had a remarkable number of top ten hits. This is from the tail end of that streak, in 1955–“Now And Then There Is A Fool Such As I.”

Here are some of the lyrics:

Pardon me, if I’m sentimental
When we say goodbye.
Don’t be angry with me should I cry.
When you’re gone, yet I’ll dream
A little dream as years go by.

Now and then there’s a fool such as I.

…

And now you say that we are through.
I’m a fool, but I’ll love you dear
Until the day I die.
Now and then there’s a fool such as I.

Like the Aretha Franklin song, this Hank Snow song is about someone in love who is feeling like a fool. As it turns out, almost all of the songs Bob plays over the course of his hour show is about love and someone feeling like a fool. But they differ nevertheless. In the first two songs we find out about two people who are calling themselves fools, but the first one is about a woman who feels she’s a fool for staying connected with a man even though he treats her bad. The second song is about a man who feels foolish for continuing to love a woman even after she said they are through.

In other songs that Dylan plays during his show, a singer is trying to convince her parents that she’s no fool for loving a man that they think is less than ideal. Then there’s one about a man who is trying to convince a woman that she’s a fool for not loving him despite all that he has to offer.

One of the highlights of Bob’s show is a little audio clip of Humphrey Bogart, as Sam Spade, confronting Mary Astor as the femme fatale, Brigid, in the classic film noir, The Maltese Falcon.

Brigid, desperately: You’ve been playing with me, just pretending to trap me like this. You didn’t care at all. You don’t love me.

Spade: I won’t play the sap for you.

Brigid: You know it’s not like that! You can’t say that!

Spade: You haven’t played straight with me for half hour at a stretch since I’ve known you.

Brigid: You know down deep in your heart that in spite of everything I’ve done, I love you.

Spade: I don’t care who loves who, I won’t play the sap for you. You killed Miles and you’re going over for it.

As you can see, even when used in the context of love difficulties, the word, “fool,” or its related terms, are used to refer to quite a variety of different circumstances.

As we leave the love arena, we see that the term is used in even a wider set of circumstances. Thus, Bob tells us about the enormously talented singer, Frankie Lymon, who died way too early with a heroin syringe by his side. As another example, he tells us about a couple of football games:

Every field has its fools, and the biggest mistakes are made on the football field. For example, Roy Unsway Regales played for the University of California, and in the 1929 Rose Bowl Game, he got turned around and ran 65 yards in the wrong direction.

Jim, upon realizing his mistake.

That’s nothing compared to Jim Marshal who played for the Minnesota Vikings. On October 25, 1964 the Vikings were playing against the San Francisco 49ers. Marshal recovered a fumble and ran 66 yards in the wrong direction into his own end zone. He was so excited he threw down the ball in celebration. The ball landed out of bounds, resulting in a safety for the 49ers. Fortunately for him, the Vikings won the game anyway, 27 to 22, and I was there that day. Strange but true.

We All Sometimes Play the Fool

Throughout the show, Bob reminds us repeatedly that everyone plays the fool sometime. He does it in a variety of ways. Thus, before playing the song, “Three Times a Fool,” Bob tells us “It wouldn’t be bad if you were just a fool once a year, but all of us are fools on more than one occasion.”

A little later, he says:

We’re talking about fools of all stripes here on Theme Time Radio Hour. As Jean Brown once said, “Foolproof systems don’t take into account the ingenuity of fools.”

And still a little later, Bob gives us some quotes from Shakespeare and Twain on the subject of fools.

Shakespeare looking a little foolish in his outfit.

Shakespeare spoke quite often about fools. For example, in A Midsummers Night Dream he said, Lord, what fools these mortals be? Twelfth Night gave us the following line, Foolery, Sir, does walk about the orb like the sun. It shines everywhere. And From As You Like it, The more pity that fools may not speak wisely what wise men do foolishly.

Shakespeare, hell of a cat.

…

As Mark Twain says,”The first of April is the day we remember who we are the other 364 days of the year.

And so when people call us a fool, perhaps we may find that the sting of the comment is lessened if we keep in mind that no doubt these name callers have had their share of playing the fool on plenty of occasions. And when, out of old habits, we find ourselves calling either ourselves, or someone else a fool, perhaps a little sympathy with the human condition is in order.

———————
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, criticism, fools, insults, name calling, negative criticism, respect, types of criticism

Bob Dylan conflict resolution crazy criticism DSM insults madness meditation mental disorders Mental Illness Name calling negative criticism psychiatry psychopathology The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

Bob Dylan on Madness

As some of you may know, Bob Dylan has a show called “Theme Time Radio Hour.” As the title suggests, each episode is centered on a theme. He begins his episode on madness as follows:

“Let me ask you a few questions, friends. Are you disinterested in work or family life? Do you suffer from sleep disruption? Have you had significant changes in appetite? Have you had paranoid thoughts? Thoughts of grandeur or invincibility? Any feelings of persistent anxiety or perhaps panic attacks? Are you hearing voices or seeing people who are not there? Do you have thoughts of dying? Do you exhibit strong or violent anger? Do you have the inability to pursue a normal life, normal activities or normal relationships? Well, I’m no doctor, but perhaps you’re mad as a hatter; crazy as a loon. Have you lost your morals? Are your bats in the belfry? Maybe you’re nutty as a fruitcake? Crazy as a coot? Taxed in the head? Bunkers? Bananas? Deranged? Are you crackers or daffy? Unhinged or loco? Not all there or all around the bend? Maybe you’re cuckoo or buggy or simply non compos mentis? Do you talk to yourself? Do you ever binge out on food? Do you swing suddenly from one mood to another? Do vague acquaintances treat you as though they know you far better than you would expect?

Allan Ginsberg

“Allan Ginsberg once said that he had seen the best minds of his generation destroyed by madness. Now for the next hour we’ll be providing the sound track. We’re going to look at madness, insanity, and craziness.”

Introducing his theme in this way may seem like quite a mouthful for Bob, but he manages to carry it off rather well. There is deep, dungeon-like music in the background, and he varies his voice in a manner that is full of concern and dramatic interest. Besides, if you think Bob’s description of his theme is lengthy, take a gander at the latest American Psychiatric Association’s description of a related topic. In its book titled Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, over 900 pages are consumed describing various “mental disorders.”

The theme of “madness” is relevant to this blog’s theme because when people seek to insult others, we commonly hear words like, “You’re mad,” “You’re crazy,” “You have a mental disorder,” and “You’re mentally ill.” Negative consequences often flow from such name calling. Individuals flinging these efforts to insult often become less respected by those who are their targets. Those who are their targets sometimes end up having less respect for themselves. From here, conflicts can escalate, leading to losing friends, problems at work, and even violence.

Dylan’s First Madness Song

Bob introduces the first song for his show on madness as follows:

“If craziness was a country, this would be the national anthem. Here’s Patsy Cline in a little number written by Willie Nelson–“Crazy.”

Patsy’s beautiful voice, accompanied by gentle piano riffs, drifts into its melancholy words–“I’m crazy, I’m crazy, for being so lonely. I’m crazy, I’m crazy for being so blue.”

The song goes on from here to weave the sad story of a woman calling herself crazy for loving a man whom she knows will soon be leaving her. She feels she’s crazy for worrying when he’ll leave, and crazy for trying, and crazy for crying, and crazy for loving this man.

Here we learn of just one type of experience that falls under the enormous umbrella of madness.

Connecting Madness With Genius

As the song phases out, Bob begins to tell us that according to Aristotle, “No excellent mind is without a tincture of madness,” a position with which Bob heartily agrees. He declares that “There is a thin line between genius and madness.” Defending this, he introduces us to several individuals who had been declared mad by some, and yet achieved at impressive levels in many valued fields. Thus, he tells us about the brilliant writer, Ernest Hemingway:

Earnest Hemingway

“Ernest Hemingway, for example, was convinced that people were out to assassinate him. His wife, Mary, tricked him into a mental hospital by telling him it was to treat his high blood pressure. He got shock therapy and maybe a dozen other treatments. It didn’t help. It left him more paranoid, delusional and depressed. He was afraid that his wife would put him away again, which many people believe is what led him to take his own life with a shotgun in July of ’61.”

Bob then tells us about the great jazz musician, Charlie Mingus:

Charlie Mingus

“Charlie Mingus spent some time away, although he later claimed he only had gone in to get papers declaring he was incompetent to get out of a contract with the gangster, Joey Gallo. Whatever the reason, he spent some time in Bellevue and was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic.”

After this, Bob tells us the story of two more jazz greats–Bud Powell and Charlie Parker. Both at times were troubled by demons.

Then there was a comic writer:

One man that was no stranger to madness was Bill Gates. He was the editor of E. C. Comics. He had a series of horror comics in the ’50s, but then he was targeted by the government who said that his comics were ruining the morals of America’s young people. He was supposed to water down all of his books. He had one humor comic he called “Mad.” He changed it to a magazine so it wouldn’t be subjected to the comics’ code of authority. It became a huge hit and generations of kids got their first lessons on comedy from the usual gang of idiots that he assembled. He never sold advertising in the magazine while he was alive and there were no sacred cows. Bill Gates, madman of free speech.”

Bob soon moves on to the story of a hell of a fine baseball player:

“One guy that was accused of cracking up was Jimmy Piersall. He became a professional baseball player at 18, signing with the Boston Red Sox in ’48. On May 24, 1952, just before the game against the New York Yankees, he got into a fist fight with Yankee infielder, Billy Martin. After that, he scuffled with his teammate, Mickey McDermott. The final straw came when Jimmy Piersall spanked the four-year old son of his teammate, Burnt Stevens during a game in the Red Sox clubhouse. The four-year old had tried to tweek his nose and poured lemonade down his shirt. You can see Jimmy’s position–Boy, you need a spanking. There were a number of incidences like this and he was sent down to the minor leagues. He got into a lot of trouble down in the minor leagues, and spent some time in the West Borough State Hospital. He was diagnosed with manic depression, but he still returned to baseball by the opening of the ’53 season. And get this, he finished ninth in the voting for the MVP award, and the next year he was the Sox’s regular center fielder.”

Feeling That We Are Crazy Is A Common Experience

In addition to describing these individuals who were thought to be mad by some and yet achieved greatness in various valued arenas, Bob provides diverse examples of regular Joes and Jills who displayed behaviors that were viewed as crazy by either themselves or others. These examples touch a chord in the listener because they illustrate experiences that are pretty close to what we have all experienced at different points in our lives.

Thus, the show’s take away lesson, as I see it, is that if you catch yourself calling yourself names such as “crazy” note that many of the most talented people have had similar experiences. Note, as well, that such criticism is too vague to be helpful. Learn to become more aware of these thoughts, to stand back and simply observe them passing through your mind–“Oh, there I go again calling myself mad.’ In time, you will come to a point at which you will formulate some more specific approach to make improvements in your life. The practice of meditation can help you to learn this skill.

If you are tempted to call someone else these types of names, remember that such names are way too vague, encompassing thousands of unusual and usual experiences. For criticism to be truly helpful, it is usually best to craft a statement that avoids name calling and statements about what someone did wrong, and instead provides specific suggestions for what the target of the criticism can do to improve. If you can not come up with such a statement right away, perhaps it would be best to delay the criticism until you have some time for your creative impulses to come up with something better than “You’re a crazy, mentally ill fool!”

Although these are my take away lessons for today’s post, let’s end with how the more poetic Bob Dylan ends his madness show:

“Time flies when you’re talking crazy, and we gotta get out of here. But before we do I want to leave you with the words of the man who is the voice of the barroom, poet of the gutter, and Shakespeare of the alleyway. Here’s a poem by Charles Bukowski called “Some People.”

some people never go crazy.
me, sometimes I’ll lie down behind the couch
for 3 or 4 days.
they’ll find me there.
it’s Cherub, they’ll say, and
they pour wine down my throat
rub my chest
sprinkle me with oils.
then, I’ll rise with a roar,
rant, rage –
curse them and the universe
as I send them scattering over the
lawn.
I’ll feel much better,
sit down to toast and eggs,
hum a little tune,
suddenly become as lovable as a
pink
overfed whale.
some people never go crazy.
what truly horrible lives
they must lead.”

——————————-

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 Bob Dylan, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, insults, intrapersonal conflicts, madness, mental disorders, name calling, respect

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 DSM Emotional pain empathy insults mental disorders Mental Illness Name calling psychiatrists psychiatry psychopathology The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders William James

From Psychiatric Name Calling to Plain, Humane English

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date March 14, 2015
4 Comments on From Psychiatric Name Calling to Plain, Humane English

Many mental health service providers well know that there are serious problems with the jargon that is used in their profession. In a recent post titled “Psychiatric Name Calling: Is It Time To Put A Stop To It?” I outline some of the most glaring ones. In a subsequent post titled “Psychiatric Name Calling: Is There An Alternative?” I describe a plan for professionals who have an interest in eliminating the problems inherent in the current psychiatric pathologizing approach. This plan would allow professionals to replace the old model with one that would be practical, more consistent with principles of science, and far less stigmatizing.

As I have been seeking ways to promote these ideas, it has become more and more apparent that the gears of the mental health service provider professional organizations grind slowly. Until the necessary changes occur, what can the average English speaking person do when faced with terms like mental illness, major depressive disorder, psychosis, schizophrenia, etc.?

Three Principles That Can Be Used When Psychiatric Pathology Terms Are Employed by Others So That The Negative Effects Associated With Their Usage Can Be Reduced

Even people who are not mental health service providers will regularly use psychiatric jargon. Thus, a French writer once wrote:

My sadness was without limit, and having got possession of me, it filled my life from the most indifferent external acts to the most secret thoughts, and corrupted at their source my feelings, my judgment, and my happiness. It was then that I saw that to expect to put a stop to this disorder by my reason and by my will, which were themselves diseased, would be to act like a blind man who should pretend to correct one of his eyes by the aid of the other equally blind one.

In this quote, the French writer, to describe some concerns he had about his sad mood and how it was affecting his feelings, judgments, and happiness, uses the words “disorder” and “disease.” This is the type of language most mental health service providers throw around. What is the writer attempting to convey by their use?

Sometimes when these words will be employed, their context will make it clear what meaning the author intends. In this example, the author does provide some context. He clearly indicates he was much sadder than he wished to be, and he believed he was unable to do anything about it. He also expressed a concern about his feelings, judgments, and happiness, but he was less clear about what he meant by this.

When someone begins to use pathologizing language and we simply don’t know what is intended, we might end up with misleading, simplistic associations. And so, here are three principles that can be used when psychiatric pathology terms are employed so that we can avoid unnecessary confusion.

Each Time Someone Uses A Psychopathologizing Term, Ask The User Of The Term For A More Specific Description Of What Is Meant By It

In the example that I provided above, there was some lack of clarity about what the French writer meant about his judgments. We know that he felt that it was disordered and diseased. That really tells us nothing more than he was dissatisfied with his judgments. To clarify, we could ask for some specific examples of when his judgment proved to him unsatisfactory.

As another example, suppose you hear Alice saying that John Doe is “mentally ill.” If you want to use this first principle, you would ask Alice what, specifically, does “mentally ill” mean to her and what has John done specifically that led to her calling John this name. These questions typically lead to further constructive discussions and ends up clarifying the nature of many fascinating experiences.

When Psychopathologizing Terms Are Employed, Express A Concern That This Terminology Simplistically Devalues An Experience

Terms like “mental disorders,” “mental illness” and “psychosis,” even when used by professionals, implies that there is something wrong with the person being described. However, as I described in my post “Are Mental Illnesses Really Potentially Helpful Tools?” there are numerous examples of the types of experiences that tend to be labelled mental disorders that end up being enormously helpful. Moreover, in cultures that recognize this possibility the outcomes for those people undergoing these challenging experiences are distinctly better.

And so, as you begin to use the first principle, asking for the user of pathologizing terminology for more specifics, if he or she seems to be suggesting that the experience is bad, you might wish to point out this well documented observation. At such times, I often say, “Many people with artistic temperaments have these types of experiences. Such people have given the world some of its most valued achievements.”

Instead Of Using The Concept of “Disease” And “Illness” To Encourage Humane Responding Toward Individuals Undergoing Challenging Experiences, Emphasize Rights, Kindness, And Practical Reasons

In seeking to encourage people who are using pathologizing terminology to be more specific, it is not uncommon to find that one reason they use these terms is that they hope it will encourage people to be more humane toward those who have certain challenging experiences. They usually mean well by this, but this approach has been used for centuries and history documents that despite such efforts, people who are being given these labels have often ended up in some of the most horrible, degrading treatment facilities.

Instead of using the concept of “disease” to encourage humane responding toward individuals undergoing the experiences that get labelled with pathological terms, an alternative is to emphasize human rights, kindness, and practical reasons.

Note that when people in a town are hit with a hurricane, we don’t have to resort to calling them ill to encourage some help. Instead, we have set up laws that entitle people to certain rights from the government when emergencies occur. Moreover, as word gets out about what is occurring to those who are suffering, out of kindness, people make donations or join their hands to provide direct assistance in a variety of ways. And lest we forget, there are practical reasons to lend a hand. By doing so, we model for people just what kindness is all about.

Any of us can find ourselves in an emergency situation. The more we promote acts of kindness, the more likely we may find that others will treat us with kindness if we are ever to find ourselves in a very unfortunate set of circumstances.

Using the Three Principles

William James, in his grand book, The Varieties of Religious Experience, tells us of some people who have mystical experiences that tend to be called “mental disorders.” James begins to use the three principles when he seeks out descriptions of the various mystical experiences that go well beyond the simplistic psychopathological descriptions. He then states that these mystical states have the right to be absolutely authoritative over the individuals to whom they come.

It is vain for rationalism to grumble about this. If the mystical truth that comes to a man proves to be a force that he can live by, what mandate have we of the majority to order him to live in another way? We can throw him into a prison or a madhouse, but we cannot change his mind-we commonly attach it only the more stubbornly to its beliefs.

It mocks our utmost efforts, as a matter of fact, and in point of logic it absolutely escapes our jurisdiction. Our own more “rational” beliefs are based on evidence exactly similar in nature to that which mystics quote for theirs. Our senses, namely, have assured us of certain states of fact; but mystical experiences are as direct perceptions of fact for those who have them as any sensations ever were for us…. The mystic is, in short, invulnerable, and must be left, whether we relish it or not, in undisturbed enjoyment of his creed.

In this quote, we find no plea from James that we should treat mystics humanely because they have a mental disease. Instead, James puts forth “rights” and “pragmatic” considerations. He argues that just like we in the majority would not like to be ordered to live in a particular way, these mystics have the right to live their way. And pragmatically, if we do use heavy-handed approaches to try to change them, such as throwing them in a madhouse, they will become more stubborn in their beliefs.

James proceeds from here to state that mystics have no right to claim that “we ought to accept the deliverance of their peculiar experiences, if we are ourselves outsiders, and feel no private call thereto.” His theme is tolerance for both the majority toward the minority and vice versa.

Returning to pragmatic arguments, James tells us in his chapter on mysticism that some have found that their mystical experiences have led to wonderful fruits that they highly valued. Some, for example, suffered for a great period of time and after their mystical experience felt wondrously free from their pain and found in its place increased energy and happiness.

James well realizes that the fruits from mystical experiences are not always positive, but he asks us, at the very least, to realize that they have the potential to “be indispensable stages in our approach to the final fullness of the truth.” Thus, we see that “rights” and “pragmatic arguments” can be used instead of a disease concept to promote humane, kind responses toward those who have the types of experiences that tend to be called mental disorders.

——————————-

Tags insults, mental disorders, mental health concerns, mental illness, name calling, William James

conflict resolution DSM Mental Illness psychiatry psychopathology The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders William James

Are “Mental Illnesses” Really Potentially Helpful Tools?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date February 17, 2015
6 Comments on Are “Mental Illnesses” Really Potentially Helpful Tools?

If your behavior, thoughts, or feelings become a concern, for a fee, many psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers are eager to translate your experiences into a language of symptoms, diagnoses, psychopathology, and mental illness. In an earlier post I provided negative criticism about this type of name-calling (see here). Today, we focus in on an additional problem with the pathologizing approach.

Psychiatric Name-Calling Simplistically Devalues What William James Referred to as “Exceptional Experiences”

Tools can be used for good or evil. A hammer can be used to drive in nails in the construction of a life-preserving shelter or to bludgeon an innocent person to death. A car can be used to rush a child to an emergency room so that life-preserving treatment can be administered, or it can be used to tragically end a prom night. Are experiences that are oftentimes referred to as pathological really tools, and is it up to each one of us to use them either for good or evil?

The first time I came across this question occurred while reading about William James’s 1896 series of lectures on “Exceptional Mental States.” Harvard psychologist, Eugene Taylor, had reconstructed these lectures from James’s original handwritten lecture notes, newspaper reports, letters, and a variety of other sources.

At the very beginning of the lectures, James argues that experiences that are commonly viewed as unhealthy or morbid are really “an essential part of every character,” and give life “a truer sense of values.” To support his contention, James first provides three examples of famous individuals who suffered from melancholy, a term that corresponds closely with what modern pathologizers call “major depressive disorder.” St. Paul, the religious figure of the New Testament, Cesare Lombrosa, a late 19th-century Italian criminologist, and Immanual Kant, the 18th-century German philosopher, became, according to their histories, better as a result of their troubling experiences.

Not only is melancholy far more normal and potentially beneficial than the pathologizers would like us to believe, so too, James argues, are delusions and hallucinations. James tells us that the belief in the possession by demons, which is often viewed as a delusion by pathologizers, is remarkably common. “[It] is the one most articulately expressed doctrine of both Testaments, and . . . reined for seventeen hundred years, hardly challenged in churches.”

James then goes on to tell his audience about Buddhist sects in Japan that have priests who believe they can put themselves into a trance so that a god can speak through them. These people seek to cultivate these experiences, apparently believing that they provide some benefits to their sect.

Although hallucinations can be construed as a symptom of mental illness to some, James presents the case of Socrates who “once stood motionless for many hours in the cold and spoke of having a guiding demon.” Attempting to counter the association between pathologies and hallucinations, James states,

Even if this demon [of Socrates] were really meant hallucinations of hearing, we know now that one in eight or ten of the population has had such an experience and that for insanity we must resort to other tests than these.

Like melancholy, delusions, and hallucinations, the “symptoms” of obsessions and manias are treated in James’s lectures as experiences that are normal and potentially beneficial. Thus, James states that there is no end to the possible types of obsessions that we see all around us. And what about “the anti-slavery mania?” Is this to be viewed as pathological? What benefit can such experiences have? James tells his audience about Henry Borg, founder of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; Charles Henry Parkhurst, a Presbyterian clergyman and reformer who launched a furious attack on organized crime in state government that led to an official investigation; Dorothea Dix, a mid-19th-century humanitarian who visited the insane asylums and successfully advocated for legislation to improve the care for those now labeled mentally ill; General Booth, founder of the Salvation Army; Frances Willard, a suffragette; and others. “These persons,” said James, “are not insane, not maniacs, not melancholics, not deluded.”

Later, he states, “Individuals are types of themselves and enslavement to conventional names and their associations is only too apt to blind the student to the facts before him.”

As Taylor (1984) closes his reconstruction of the lecture series, he quotes James as follows:

There is a strong tendency among these pathological writers I have cited… to represent the line of mental health as a very narrow crack, which one must tread with bated breath, between foul friends on the one side and gulfs of despair on the other. Now health is a term of subjective appreciation, not of objective description….There is no purely objective standard of sound health. Any peculiarity that is of use to a man is a point of soundness in him, and what makes a man sound for one function may make him unsound for another…. The trouble is that such writers . . . use the descriptive names of symptoms merely as an artifice for giving objective authority to their personal dislikes. The medical terms become mere appreciative clubs to knock a man down with. . . . The only sort of being, in fact, who can remain as the typical normal man, after all the individuals with degenerative symptoms have been rejected, must be a perfect nullity . . . Who shall absolutely say that the morbid has no revelations about the meaning of life? That the healthy minded view so-called is all?

The Review of the Evidence

It may seem a fanciful theory that the experiences now referred to as mental illnesses can be potentially helpful. However, in 2010, Robert Whitaker published a book titled Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness. To write the book, he pored through the scientific literature for the past 50 years and found a dramatic increase in the number of people who are pathologized, which led to an astonishing increase in psychiatric drug consumption. And more people then ever before became disabled for longer and longer periods of time.

Here is just one of many such studies that Whitaker describes.

In the 1980s, Martin Harrow, a psychologist at the University of Illinois, began a long-term study of 64 newly diagnosed schizophrenia patients. Every few years, he assessed how they were doing. Were they symptomatic? In recovery? Employed? Were they taking antipsychotic medications? The collective fate of the off-med and medicated patients began to diverge after two years, and by the end of 4.5 years, it was the off-medication group that was doing much better. Nearly 40% of the off-med group were “in recovery” and more than 60% were working, whereas only 6% of the medicated patients were “in recovery” and few were working. This divergence in outcomes remained throughout the next ten years, such that at the 15-year follow-up, 40% of those off drugs were in recovery, versus 5% of the medicated group.

Whitaker also found studies that compared cultures, like our own, that employed the pathologizing model with cultures that framed exceptional experiences as potentially beneficial. Countries infected with the pathologizing approach had outcomes significantly poorer.

These findings lead me to conclude that it is time to have a reasonable discussion about embracing other models of care.

——————————-

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 Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness, hallucinations, insults, Leo Tolstoy, melancholy, mental disorders, mental illness, name calling, pathologizing, psychiatric disorders, psychiatric drug treatment, Psychiatric Drugs, psychiatric medication treatment, Robert Whitaker, William James

conflict resolution insults teasing

The Art and Abuse of Insults

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date February 9, 2015
No Comments on The Art and Abuse of Insults

Many of my posts leave some feeling like I insulted them. In one post, for example, I took the position that when it comes to responding to criticism there are four levels of maturity (see HERE). Some people who respond to criticism in a way that matches the description of the immature levels let me know that they felt I had insulted them. In another post (see HERE), I took the position that psychiatrists do not really diagnose people with mental disorders; instead, they merely convert the expressed concerns of people into psychiatric jargon. Here again, I heard from people who complained that I had insulted them.

And so, when I published last week’s post titled “Insults By Jews As Works Of Art,” the negative reaction of some people had not surprised me. What was a surprise is that the discussion that came out of these reactions proved to clarify and deepen my own understanding of the nature of insults. In the hope that this may do the same for my readers, let’s take a look at what transpired. Names and a few minor details have been changed to protect privacy issues.

The Exchange

Matt said that my “Insults By Jews As Works Of Art” post is inappropriate, and he suggested to the person who moderates one of the groups that we belong to that I be removed immediately.

I replied:

“In my opinion, the topic of insults is very appropriate. Everywhere we look, whether at schools, the workplace, family gatherings or watching TV, insults occur, and sometimes this is just playful stuff, but too often it escalates a conflict, a fight breaks out, and occasionally someone needs medical attention. On other occasions, the insults cross the line into bullying, people become depressed and some become suicidal.

“With regards to Matt suggesting that I be removed from this group because of my recent post on insults, hmmm, maybe a curse would here be an appropriate response, something like:

“Matt, may you wake up tomorrow and find you’re stuck in a country where freedom to express opposing views is banned.

“I hope this is recognized as an attempt at a humorous quip. I have no ill will toward Matt, although I do disagree with him on this issue.

“Rather than suggesting that I be removed from the group, I think it would have been much more helpful if he, and others who disagreed with what I had written, rewrote the sentence that is viewed as most objectionable so that it would be at least a little less objectionable. Alternatively, or additionally, writing a brand new sentence that could be inserted into some specific place in the post would be far more helpful than a one-sentence criticism stating the post was not appropriate. It is not too late to do this, and I encourage group members to do so.”

One group member seeking to defend me, wrote:

“Your post was interesting as a sociological examination of a prominent ethnic group, its stereotypes, and its communal self-concept.”

Another wrote,

“This made my day Jeffrey, and made me laugh – thank you! Made me have a think about my roots as well!”

A couple of people disagreed with the idea that I should be removed from the group:

“What I like about it [your post] is that it is not vulgar. Just benign insults that are insults. It is like the Egyptian insult, “May you live in interesting times.” When these are translated to English, they kinda lose their meaning. Most of the Jewish insults feel like they were translated from Yiddish; they have that flow.

“It can show students and adults that insults can be sophisticated and not vulgar, and with any luck, aren’t even recognized as insults until later.”

A person that we will here call Nick wrote in part,

“I do believe you had good intentions behind your piece and would have not published it if you knew so many people would have taken it negatively. In other words, while I do not agree with you all the time I am not for banning you from this group. However, I do say all of this praying that you do understand why what you did is offensive and you are apologetic rather than trying to defend.”

I replied to Nick in part as follows:

“Just to clarify, I believe my intentions were good, and I certainly did not intend to offend anyone. However, I well knew that it would indeed offend some. Since it is Black History Month, I’ll point out that Martin Luther King, whenever he wrote his speeches, had good intentions, did not seek to offend, but well knew his speeches were going to offend. Mark Twain had his books banned, George Barnard Shaw was hated in many circles, and Salman Rushdie had people calling for his murder.

“There are two Yiddish sayings that might capture a little of what I’m trying to communicate. The first is, ‘If you want people to respect you for your wisdom, just agree with everything they tell you.’ The second states that ‘A Rabbi that has not been thrown out of a congregation because of offending them is no Rabbi.’

“If you write opinion pieces, some will agree with you, some will disagree but appreciate hearing a different view of an issue, and some become offended. That goes with the territory. Living up to a principle that one should never express an opinion that has any chance to offend means never expressing an opinion.

“Moreover, when in my last post I referred to some insults as works of art, what I meant to convey is this, true works of art are not just meant to be merely decorative. Rather, they are meant to stir up, prod, challenge the thinking, and deepen the thinking of society. I think great comedy is part of art, and I think Jews, Italians, Blacks, Methodists, and all other groups of people have some comedians who artfully express this form of art. I happen to be Jewish, therefore, I know far more about Jewish humor than that of other groups, so I used that as an example.”

Another person wrote:

“Keep in mind that ALL humor is aggressive and hurtful in some way. There is not one “belly-laugh” joke that does not attempt to hurt or belittle someone or something. No, puns don’t count – you don’t laugh, you groan. I do not intend to live in a world without laughter, and we laugh when someone or something hurts!!!”

To this, another group member wrote that he felt this statement overgeneralized. Among my friends, when we insult one another in a playful way, I think most of the time no one is getting hurt, and much laughter comes from this. But there is an edge to many comedians who are seeking something beyond pure laughter.

Jon wrote,

“The Jewish cultural DNA is at least one part philosopher, one part cynic and one part humorist, among much else, of course.”

Jon did find my title offensive, and proposed, as an alternative, “The Art and Abuse of Insults and Teasing – A Cultural and Historical Perspective.” He pointed out that “This would highlight the universality, celebrate the creativity in humor, and hit us square between the eyes with the destructive power as we slide along that slippery slope.”

Nice. Although I decided not to change the title, I do agree his was conceptually distinctly better than mine. I had already published the post under the original title and to change it a week later could be confusing. And I wondered if Jon’s title may come across as a bit too academic for the larger audience that the post seeks to interest and to do justice to the title would require a much longer piece that my post tended to be. I did take part of Jon’s suggested title for this post. Moreover, in order to demonstrate a little more of the universality of humor in the form of insults I now offer some non-Jewish examples.

Last week I mentioned that Rodney Dangerfield, a Jew, was a master at insulting himself. Here’s Abraham Lincoln, a non-Jew, offering humor in a similar manner.

Last week’s post pointed out that Don Rickles, a Jew, was a master at insulting people who were insulting him. Here’s Winston Churchill, a non-Jew, at the same game:

I, for one, don’t like this Churchill comeback. It strikes me as mean. Yet I know someone who brought it to my attention and he thought it was very funny. It is strange how two people can have such different reactions to such comments.

Here are a couple other insults demonstrating that the art is indeed universal:

Sally wrote:

“It [my post] conflates deliberate personal insults, deliberate wishes of harm to another, consensual teasing, and comedic performance, and ties it up with an anti-Semitic bow.”

I replied:

“Sally, I love your turn of phrase. At the same time, I disagree with you that I conflated deliberate wishes of harm to another from consensual teasing. I made in my last post a distinct point of separating that issue as we move toward the end of the post. Nevertheless, I will think about using in any future writings on this issue the part of your sentence that points to the need to avoiding conflating deliberate personal insults, deliberate wishes of harm to another, consensual teasing, and comedic performance. This is very well said, makes the point I had wished to make clearer, and I thank you for this feedback.

“I didn’t mean to write in a way that suggested anything that could be interpreted as anti-Semitic.”

Well, those are some thoughts from the feedback. I hope that we can keep the dialogue going, particularly because there is urgency in our communities to address in helpful ways the very issues that we have been discussing.

———————

Tags bullied, bullies, bullying, conflict management, George Barnard Shaw, insults, Mark Twain, Martin Luther King, playful teasing, Salman Rushdie, Winston Churchill, Works Of Art

conflict resolution insults Jerry Seinfeld Jewish Comedians

Insults By Jews As Works Of Art

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date February 1, 2015
2 Comments on Insults By Jews As Works Of Art

Recently I visited Philadelphia’s National Museum of American Jewish History. Some of the floors were devoted to a single theme. For example, there was a floor devoted to “Chasing Dreams,” which celebrated baseball and the many fans, players, and characters from minority groups who helped shape our American story. And there was a floor devoted to Jews as immigrants coming to America. Each exhibit was great, but the museum director has to be a putz for neglecting to devote a floor to classic insults by Jews.

To be fair, I, myself, didn’t come up with this idea until last night when I happened to be listening to Bob Dylan’s “Theme Time Radio” show. Bob happened to have Tom Waits as a guest and here’s what he had to say:

Hi, Bob. It’s Tom. Here’s a little morsel of information. The Jewish people have always had a penchant for colorful cursing. Here are some of the most famous Jewish curses:

May God call the tune and may your enemies play the music.

May you lose your faith and marry a pious woman.

May all your teeth fall out but one which should remain for a toothache.

May you grow like an onion with your head in the ground and your feet in the air.

May you have a good long sleep, dreaming only of your troubles.

May you be the proof that man can endure anything.

May your wife eat matzohs in bed and may you roll all night in the crumbs.

So there.

It was upon hearing this, that I first came up with this great idea for a separate floor at the museum.

A Separate Museum Floor Devoted to Classic Insults By Jews

For your consideration, here are some ideas for this museum addition. There could be several sections on the floor. Of course, one of them would have to be devoted to the great insults that spilled forth from the many comedians who performed during the heyday of the Borscht Belt.

For those not familiar with the term, “Borscht Belt,” it refers to the mostly defunct summer resorts of the Catskill Mountains that would cater to many of their guests who happened to be Jewish. The word, “borscht” refers to one of the traditional Jewish items found on their menus (sour cream and beets).

The long list of the Borscht Belt stars include Woody Allen, Jack Benny, Billy Crystal, Rodney Dangerfield, Henny Youngman, Jerry Lewis, Don Rickles, Joan Rivers and Jerry Stiller. Some of these stars specialized in insulting themselves.

Perhaps the greatest of all within this group was Rodney Dangerfield who continually complained about getting no respect:

“My doctor said I was in terrible shape. I told him, ‘I want a second opinion.’ He said, ‘All right, you’re ugly too!'”

Some specialized in insulting their spouses:

“My wife dresses to kill. She cooks the same way.” (Henny Youngman)

And, for some, their favorite schtick was insulting hecklers in the audience:

“Oh my God, look at you. Anyone else hurt in the accident?” (Don Rickles)

In addition to a section on Jewish Borscht Belt comedians, I think there could be one set aside for Seinfeld characters seeking to come up with the perfect insult to reply to an insult.

George Costanza character from the Seinfeld TV show

“Hey George, the ocean called and they’re running out of shrimp.”

“Oh yeah!” replies George, “Well, the jerk store called and they’re running out of you!”

Another section could be devoted to Chelm, a real Polish town that according to Jewish folklore is inhabited by Jewish fools whose antics kept Jews amused for generations.

The great sage of Chelm went out for a walk with his trusted young assistant, Shlermo, by his side. Suddenly it began to pour.
“Quick,” said Shlermo, “open your umbrella. You’re getting soaked.”
“Don’t be ridiculous,” exclaimed the great sage, “it wouldn’t do any good. My umbrella has more holes than a sieve.”
“Then why did you bring it?”
“I didn’t think it would rain!”

Well, there you have it, just a few ideas from off of the top of my head for a museum floor devoted to classic insults by Jews. It would be great!

Now, at this point, I’m imagining that some of my readers might be scratching their heads, wondering why I would want to support any idea that might encourage people to insult anyone. So let’s take a moment to look at this issue.

What Possible Value Could There Be To Having a Section In A Museum Devoted To Insults?

If done well, this section could delve into the more serious issues surrounding the nature of insults as used in our society. For example, as I pointed out in an earlier post titled THE ART OF PLAYFUL TEASING, insults are used in a playful game called teasing. You are judged in part on the quality of your insults and also how well you keep your cool on being insulted.

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

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

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

So, there you have it, my post for this week. I hope that in addition to a few laughs you found within it some food for thought.

Until next time, may you find some ways to bring a little peace into this cockeyed crazy world of ours.

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 bullying, disrespectful, Don Rickles, insults, Jewish Comedians, Jews, National Museum of American Jewish History, Phyllis Diller, Rodney Dangerfield, Tom Waits

conflict resolution Mental Illness psychiatrists psychiatry Thomas Szasz

Dr. Thomas Szasz and Psychiatric Name Calling

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date November 17, 2014
1 Comment on Dr. Thomas Szasz and Psychiatric Name Calling

On this blog, one of the main topics of discussion is name calling. And, from time to time, some people have asked me what I think of the types of names psychiatrists use to talk about their patients.

In response, I wrote a post titled Name Calling by Psychiatrists: Is it Time to Put a Stop to it? It stirred up a great deal of interest, and the various comments led me to write several follow-up posts. While all of this was going on, several people asked what I thought of the psychiatrist, Thomas Szasz. And so, today’s post at least begins my reply.

It was 45 years ago when I first heard of Dr. Szasz. I was about 19 years old, it was the late 1960s, and I was taking an Abnormal Psychology course as an undergraduate student at Brooklyn College. Professor Meyers presented a whole class on Dr. Szasz’s recent book, The Myth of Mental Illness. It was a time when many of us were raging against the Vietnam War. Questioning all authority went right along with that, and so Szasz’s position, for me, fell right into that general mindset.

Labeling a child as mentally ill is stigmatization, not diagnosis. Giving a child a psychiatric drug is poisoning, not treatment.--Dr. Thomas Szasz. — Labeling a child as mentally ill is stigmatization, not diagnosis. Giving a child a psychiatric drug is poisoning, not treatment.–Dr. Thomas Szasz.

After the course had ended, I really didn’t think much about Szasz’s ideas again until about 15 years later. I was working with youth in the Corning, New York area, when I began to notice a dramatic increase in the number of young children and teenagers being prescribed psychiatric drugs. At one point, five straight foster children that were brought to me for counseling not only were taking a psychiatric drug, but were taking several of them. Those students typically were unhappy about this, complained about serious side effects, and when I went to the library to check out the various risks associated with their use, I became very concerned.

To address my concern, I began to organize a debate on the use of these drugs, and the first person I thought to call was Dr. Szasz. He was very helpful, agreed to debate the topic, and the debate created so much interest that other people began to ask me to help organize similar debates in their communities. In the end, that single debate turned into a series of seven debates.

I learned a great deal from all of the participants, but it was Dr. Szasz who most challenged my thinking. Although I disagree with some of his ideas, I admire his guts for standing up for what he believed, his humor, and his extraordinary intelligence.

Thomas Szasz passed away a couple of years ago at the age of 92.

A great deal of Szasz’s writings and ideas are readily available on line (see for example the article on Wikipedia). Nevertheless, to give my readers a little sense of his ideas, I am providing below a little snippet of his opening remarks from one of the debates that I helped to organize. It is slightly edited because he was not the first speaker during the debate and some of his comments alluded to remarks that someone else had said earlier during the proceedings. Without having heard these other remarks, Szasz’s comments would be hard to follow, so I edited them out. This gives his comments a slight disconnected feel at times, so I ask that you not blame him for that.

And so, without any further ado, I give you, Dr. Thomas Szasz:

Portrait of Dr. Szasz that hangs in the medical library at the SUNY Upstate Medical University

Ladies and gentlemen…. I would like to take this time to present my views of psychiatry ….

I believe…ideas have consequences. Words only mean what we do about them. They do not have abstract meaning. So the question is what do we mean when we say something is a disease?

Now to me, psychiatry doesn’t have to do with diseases at all. Just like, to me, communism doesn’t have to do with ideas.

Communism was symbolized by a bunch of stones called the Berlin Wall. But what it actually meant is that if you lived in a communist country, you can come in, everything was fine and you were told everything was wonderful for you, but if you tried to leave you found that they shot you, that you couldn’t get out. This is what happens in a mental hospital. You can get in, but you can’t get out….

Psychiatry is a branch of the law, it has alway been, and always will be… To me, psychiatry is coercion. I have always said, I support psychiatry between consenting adults… I am only interested in involuntary aspects of psychiatry.

For the sake of the argument, I don’t believe this, but for the sake of the argument, to make my argument clear, let’s say schizophrenia is a brain disease, just like cirrhosis is a disease of the liver. If we accept this and treat it like other diseases, then psychiatry disappears. It would then be treated by a brain doctor. The insanity defense disappears. Involuntary psychiatry disappears. If somebody kills somebody they are tried like everyone else. There are no psychiatrists lining up to testify to say Prozac causes murder, or mental illness causes murder, or everything causes murder except free will.

Ok,… let me give you two English sentences. The statement Jones is bleeding, is a statement about his body. The statement that Jones is boasting is a statement about Jones. They sound like the same type of statement, but they are not. The question, what do we mean by schizophrenia. Do we mean that they are a type of lesion, or do we mean, behavior. How does someone first diagnose someone with schizophrenia—from his body, or his behavior?

Let’s assume the person has a disease. The person is still behaving, the person is still a moral agent. Patients, from a moral, legal point of view, are exactly like non-patients. If I have asthma, Parkinson, etc., I can still behave. When people have Parkinson and they shoot somebody, they are responsible, if they are nice to their wives, they get along, if they are not so nice they get a divorce and so on.

Now we come to some more issues. Supposing someone claims that someone has a disease. On whose authority do we take this? In my lifetime, great authorities have maintained homosexuality was a disease. When I was in the US Navy 30 years ago, that was one of the major ideas of the service was to single out homosexuals, who were then given diagnoses by psychiatrists. This was viewed as a serious disease. Now, on the cover of Time we find that they are entitled to civil rights. What happened to their disease?

Not only was homosexuality a disease, so was being black according to an early psychiatrist, Benjamin Rush. According to him, blacks were blacks because they had a form of leprosy. On whose authority did he claim this? On the authority that he is a doctor?

Now we are shown pictures of brains and told that they prove that schizophrenia is a disease. On whose authority? The fact is that no pathologists diagnose anyone as schizophrenic based on any pictures of someone’s brain, or any other medical test. Even on postmortem, when the patient said to be schizophrenic dies the pathologist says no disease was found. The same thing with depression…

The discussion of who has a mental illness is based on judgements of a person’s behavior. So this idea that you can have a brain disease, like schizophrenia, is a little strange. Let me just give you a few questions to stimulate you. What would asymptomatic depression look like. Now we know what asymptomatic hypertension is, or asymptomatic leukemia,… but what is asyptomatic depression? Better yet, what is asyptomatic schizophrenia? What would that be. Or asymptomatic Judaism, or Christianity. These are behaviors. If the behavior is not there it is not here….

My time is nearly up, so let me leave you with a couple of questions. Please listen carefully because this is a question and a joke. If somebody has a delusion of having cancer, then he has a mental illness, right, because he doesn’t have cancer? What would it mean if he has a delusion of being mentally ill?

Okay, now to the issue of saying someone has a mental illness which is due to some biological basis. This is nonsense because everything we do has a biological basis… The most ordinary things are biological bases, namely eating and sex, called hunger and lust. These are not diseases. And just because they have a biological basis that doesn’t mean that you have to act. Urination and defecation have a biological basis. These are powerful impulses that have a biological basis but that doesn’t mean we have to do it in the middle of the living room…. Life begins with responsibility and ends with responsibility…. Psychiatry is a discipline that undermines responsibility. Thank you.

———————

Tags free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, insults, mental disorders, mental illness, name calling, negative criticism, psychiatry, Thomas Szasz

anger challenge conflict resolution threats

Exaggerating the Benefits of Anger

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date October 29, 2014
7 Comments on Exaggerating the Benefits of Anger

“Are you going to vote for the new school facility plan, Marc?”

“No, Phil. It calls for combining the two high schools in our town so that there will be nearly 2,000 students in the combined school. I prefer small schools. I say, keep them small, keep them personal.”

Turning red and glaring into Marc’s eyes, Phil begins to holler, “What are you, stupid? We can’t afford two high schools in this town. You’re nuts!”

The next day. “Hi Marc, you still going to vote against the combining the two high school plan?”

“You know, Phil, I’m hesitant to discuss anything with you. You get angry and you begin to put me down and you start with the glares….”

“Oh, don’t be a baby, Marc. Don’t you know that anger is a good thing. Research shows it can make us push on towards our goals in the face of problems and barriers. And hiding anger in relationships can be detrimental. When you hide your anger, your partner doesn’t know they’ve done something wrong, so they keep doing it. That doesn’t do your relationship any good. There’s also some evidence that anger can be useful as a negotiation strategy. If people see that you are angry, studies show that the other party will make more concessions.”

Now, it is not hard to understand why Phil, and others, might make such statements about anger. After all, if you go on the internet and glance at some of the articles that come up in search engines when we insert in the search box the words, “benefits of anger,” people can get a similar impression as Phil. There is, for example, “The Upside of Anger: 6 Benefits of Getting Mad,” or “When Anger is a Plus,” etc. However, a careful reading of the actual research studies lead one to dramatically different conclusions.

The two biggest mistakes that people make when interpreting the research on this topic is, 1. not taking a good look at what the expression of anger is being compared with, and, 2. not noticing how broadly the term anger is defined. Let’s focus quickly on these two types of mistakes.

Not Taking a Good Look at What the Expression of Anger is Being Compared With

If people only told their partners in their relationship what they feel he or she did wrong when they become angry, then there probably are times when the expression of anger might do more good than never saying anything. In such studies, comparing the expression of anger with saying nothing is, in my opinion, potentially misleading. People can learn to provide negative criticism in a far more helpful way than what we typically call anger (see my post titled “Providing Negative Criticism: Five Levels of Maturity“).

For the negotiation studies that found that people who became angry did fairly well compared to some other subjects who did not become angry, again let’s look at what “becoming angry” was compared to. Those who didn’t become angry really didn’t care all that much about whether or not they obtained the reward. They did make some halfhearted effort to achieve it, but then quickly gave in. Those folks who were confronted with someone who was angry and ended up settling for something that was less than what they would have settled for if they were confronted by someone who was not angry, also had little of real value at stake. They were also given extremely few options to use in the negotiation. Under these types of situations, a person might prefer to give the other party, if he or she becomes angry, a little more than they might otherwise do rather than to put up any longer with what felt to them like abuse.

What would have happened if the study would have compared not only a group of people who portrayed anger during the negotiation process with a group who didn’t, but also looked at a group of individuals who were well trained to respond to negotiation situations with “challenge?”

Challenge allows you to accomplish all of what anger positively does without anger’s negative consequences.

In brief, challenge has us:

Working up a heightened sense of determination to achieve our desire
Meanwhile, we consider the twin beliefs that the stress we have been experiencing is normal and fulfillment is not found in easy comfort, security, and routine, but rather in the continual growth in wisdom through what is learned from negative and positive experiences of an active, changing life[1]
Then, we take a deep breath and resolve to get down to the task at hand—carrying out a two-step process.

Step 1. Consider if the most obvious resolution is sufficient.

In such cases in which you become convinced that the resolution that you came up with poses no serious risks, it makes sense to you, and you feel comfortable with it, the only job you have left is to carry out your plan with charm, courage, and determination. However, if the most obvious solution does pose a serious risk, or you just don’t feel comfortable with it for any reason, it’s time to go to Step 2.

Step 2. Carrying out a more complete decision process.

There are numerous benefits that occur when we learn how to transform anger into challenge. Just becoming angry is, of course, far easier in the short term, but excellent studies demonstrate that those who learn to respond to difficult situations with challenge, in the long run do far better than either just becoming angry or making halfhearted efforts.

Learning to respond to anger-arousing situations with challenge takes some practice, but it can be achieved with practice. You can find free practice sessions HERE, and HERE, and HERE.

Moreover, a great way to learn how to transform anger into challenge is to read the “Cool Steve” trilogy, a series of three novels that portrays a coming of age tale that takes psychological suspense to new heights and sophisticated humor to new lows. Struggling to find respect, our hero faces many of the same struggles we all faced while growing up, and a few not so typical ones as well. Mistakes are made, but in the end, the value of challenge is portrayed in a manner you will long remember.

And so, either to respond with anger or not to respond with anger are not really our only two choices. Not responding with anger actually involves many different choices and one of them, transforming anger to challenge, is one of them, and a distinctly better choice than giving free range to anger.

Not Noticing How Broadly the Term Anger is Defined

In seeking to understand studies that seem to suggest that anger can be beneficial, it helps to look at how anger is defined in those studies. In one study that seems to suggest anger is helpful, the authors make a distinction between constructive anger and destructive anger. They then explain that it is constructive anger that can be beneficial. What they call constructive anger is responding to frustration without name calling or shouting, but with determination to achieve a goal. This sound to me more like challenge than anger.

In another study that talks about the benefits of anger, it was actually mild frustration that was beneficial in increasing motivation to achieve a goal. Despite this, as the authors wrote up the study results they claimed that frustration was a lot like anger, and therefore the results may suggest that anger is beneficial. A quick glance at this study’s results can mislead people because some people who become frustrated don’t begin to yell at people around them, nor do they start to throw insults and threats at them. They may, instead, feel challenged to vigorously respond in a constructive, problem solving manner, and it is these people who may be the ones responding in a more beneficial way than those who act in a manner that is clearly anger. Calling anger, frustration, and challenge all forms of anger, can confuse people into thinking all expressions of anger are beneficial. It would be far better to use words that clearly distinguishes these experiences so that people would be less likely to end up exaggerating the benefits of anger.

OK, so those are some thoughts to ponder for this week. I hope you’ll join us again sometime next week for another presentation on dealing with anger, conflict and respect.

[1] The value of this attitude is discussed in: S. R. Maddi, D. M. Khoshaba, R. H. Harvey, M Fazel, & N Resurreccion, 2011, “The Personality Construct of Hardiness, V: Relationships with the Construction of Existential Meaning in Life,” Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 51(3), 369-388.

———————

Tags anger, challenge, conflict management, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, frustration, insults, negotiation, threats