Tag: insults

Insults Because of the Desire to be Left Alone

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date March 30, 2014
3 Comments on Insults Because of the Desire to be Left Alone

In the above For Better or For Worse comic, we can see that a little interference with what Mom wants to be doing might not upset her to any great extent, but there may come a point when enough is enough and suddenly there is a kind of explosion. Even a little before the point of the explosion, some acts that normally wouldn’t be much of an annoyance may begin to feel terribly obnoxious. And she might, therefore, end up suddenly acting in a very disrespectful manner and throw insults at someone. In such a case, the insults that she provides will occur not because she has a desire to encourage someone to do something better or to engage in playful teasing, but because she has fallen into a crabby mood.

When people get hot, are around a lot of noise, or have met up with one too many hassles, they oftentimes become irritable. At such times they are more likely to say insulting things, to start shouting, or to put on a nasty-looking face.

In the millions of years that people have evolved, what survival value might crabby responses have? It seems to me that when people begin to get overwhelmed by environmental or social conditions, there may be value in their sending out a signal that says, “Leave me alone! I need some quiet time!”

Now suppose you come upon Jon in a crabby mood, but you haven’t observed the various annoying events that led up to his mood. Perhaps the heat is getting to him, but you are one of those people who finds heat quite pleasant. If you find that Jon begins to insult you for no apparent reason or for something so trivial that it is hard to believe he is so worked up about it, you might feel puzzled. You might feel that you’ve been mistreated and begin to insult him back. If he’s already in a crabby mood, do you think returning insults will be helpful?

If someone starts to insult you in a manner that doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense, one useful thing to say to yourself is, “Maybe the insults don’t have much to do with me. Maybe the insulter desires to be alone.”

To test your theory it may be helpful to softly ask, “Is everything all right?” Some listening in a caring way, followed by encouraging those close by to keep it down for a while, may be the wisest course of action.

Now I understand that it is no fun when someone is speaking to you in an insulting, disrespectful manner. You may, therefore, be very tempted to try to respond in a very different manner than how I just described. Perhaps you might decide to look firmly into the the insulter’s eyes and assertively say, “It seems to me that it is best to leave you alone for awhile. After you have some time to calm down, I’ll be wanting to talk to you about how you just spoke to me in a very disrespectful manner.”

I have tried out this approach. Most of the time it seemed to work fine. But on occasion things escalated to a point that led to some very ugly comments, and it became far more difficult to fix things up even after a reasonable period of time had passed. And so I recommend that you consider carefully whether it is wiser to avoid any mention of the disrespectful actions until after the insulter has had ample time to calm down.

If you find that you are becoming irritable and desire some quiet time, it’s important to recognize that insulting people may not be the best way to achieve what you want. Insulting may create the very conditions that will lead to the opposite of what you desire. People who are insulted often insult back, and their anger can create very noisy, even violent, interactions.

Instead of insulting the person encroaching on your time, consider saying, “Please, I want to be left alone for a while.” Seek to use a tone of voice that is as calm as you can muster. As you speak, look squarely into the eyes of the person you are speaking to. Attempt to communicate with your eyes that your request is urgent. Then smile and say, “I hope you don’t mind.”

Well, those are some ideas I wanted to share with you this week. May you soon find Mother Nature beginning to do some wonderful things with her paintbrush after this long, hard winter.

——————————-

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 anger, Bad Mood, conflict management, crabby mood, criticism, disrespectful manner, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, insults, wisdom

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

RESOLVING RECURRING CONFLICTS

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date February 16, 2014
1 Comment on RESOLVING RECURRING CONFLICTS

One day Beetle Bailey and Sarge have a conflict:

As you can see, eventually the conflict is resolved.

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

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

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

Using the DIG Conflict Model to Help with Challenging Conflicts

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

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

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

Three Digging Tools Especially Helpful for Resolving Recurring Conflicts

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

1. What desire might be motivating the conflict?

2. What other desires might be motivating the conflict?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“You’re telling me!!!”

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

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

“You’re right about that!”

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

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

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

——————————-

Tags Beetle Bailey, conflict, conflict management, conflict resolution, desire, dig for the conflict, dispute management, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, insults, negative criticism, recurring conflict

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

THE IMMATURITY OF POLITICIANS

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date February 9, 2014
1 Comment on THE IMMATURITY OF POLITICIANS

Regular readers of this blog well know that I have been advocating that there are some ways of responding to interpersonal situations that are more mature than others. For example, in one post I describe four levels of maturity for responding to criticism. In another, I describe five levels of maturity for providing negative criticism. In those posts, I contend that when dealing with criticism the use of insults and threats tend to lower your level of maturity. Moreover, people who are less mature tend to be less liked and respected, and in the long run, less effective in achieving their goals. Shortly after I began to write these posts, I began to hear from some people who wondered if my levels of maturity don’t apply in the realm of politics. One reflection of this sentiment came from E. Mark Stern who wrote: My wife is in local politics. And though she decided to run for office knowing that there would be political opponents, she had not bargained for the name calling and personal attacks on her being….One may think of such bullying as much in the American tradition – a to be expected risk that elected officials need to grin and bear. But when attacks get personal, and one’s being is fair target, then it gets intolerable and the people one serves suffer for it. After reading these types of comments, I began to think of the many attack ads that we all are exposed to during political campaigns. And then I thought about what I had heard from several TV political analysts over the year–attack ads are used because they work. There is obviously a great deal of money to be made from producing and running these ads for the very same people who hire TV political analysts, so I decided to look deeper into this claim.

How Effective Are Attack Ads?

According to an August 8, 2013 article in Scientific American: “A comprehensive literature analysis published in 2007 in the Journal of Politics examined the effects of political ads. The authors reported that negative ads tended to be more memorable than positive ones but that they did not affect voter choice. People were no less likely to turn out to the polls or to decide against voting for a candidate who was attacked in an ad.” The Scientific American article goes on to say that the reviewed studies all had some drawbacks and therefore evidence on the effectiveness of negative political ads is best viewed as inconclusive. After looking at the scientific evidence for the insulting actions that politicians regularly engage in, I wrote two posts that tried to throw some light on this topic–one back on October 13, 2012 about two presidential debates, and a more recent one on January 13, 2014 about New Jersey’s Governor Chris Christie’s use of insults. Since I wrote those posts, a couple of particularly vivid examples came to my attention. The first again involves Governor Christie; the other involves US Congressman Michael Grimm.

The Governor Christie Example

This example I first learned about it on the Feb. 6, 2014, edition of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show. According to Rachel’s report, on Nov. 17, 1996, Chris Cristie, who had recently been elected to be a Morris County Freeholder, made a public apology and retraction to two people who ran against him in the Republican primaries. He had claimed in attack ads that they were under investigation for their part in some corruption scandal. Here is his apology: Dear Cissy and Ed, I am writing to express my sincere apology to both of you and your families concerning two political advertisements which ran on my behalf during the Freeholders Primary Election Campaign in May and June, 1994. The commercials ran over 400 times on cable TV. He goes on to state that “the ads were not appropriate. They should not have been part of my campaign when I ran against you. I fully intend, in any future campaigns in which I am involved, to be more sensitive to the impact of such tactics. I hope you will accept this heartfelt apology in which it is made.”

Rachel reported that the “spirit in which that apology was made is that it was legally required of Chris Christie after he was sued over those ads.” Although the ads were declared false after the election was over, Rachel expressed her belief that they worked for Christie who won that race. I’m not really sure I agree with Rachel that the ads worked. We really don’t know for a fact that Christie wouldn’t have won the election anyway. In addition to the apology, as part of settling the law suit, Christie had to pay money to the people that he ran the ads against. After the voters heard what he had done, they failed to reelect him when he ran again for the same seat. Moreover, he tried to get elected during that same period to another office, and again he lost. Christie was only able to get back into politics after that incident after raising a great deal of money for George W. Bush during Bush’s run for president, who then rewarded Christie by naming him top federal prosecutor of NJ even though he was never a prosecutor before at any level. The years went on, and finally Christie again ran for office–this time for Governor of New Jersey–and won.

The Rep. Michael Grimm Example

About a year or so ago, Rep. Grimm was being interviewed by Michael Scotto, a NY1 reporter, about President Obama’s State of The Union speech. When Scotto tried to turn the conversation to the subject of a two-year federal investigation into allegations of a campaign finance violations investigation, Grimm told him, “I’m not speaking about anything that’s off topic. This is only about the President,” and then he walked away. But as Scotto was talking to viewers back in New York, the Congressman stormed back into the shot and threatened and insulted him. “Let me be clear to you, you ever do that to me again I’ll throw you off this f—–g balcony,” Grimm said. “Why, why, I just wanted to ask you …?” Scotto responded. “If you ever do that to me again …,” the Representative shot back. “It’s a valid question,” Scotto said in his defense, but Grimm replied: “No, no, you’re not man enough, you’re not man enough. I’ll break you in half. Like a boy,” according to the NY1 transcript. The next day, Grimm issued a public apology: “I was wrong. I shouldn’t have allowed my emotions to get the better of me and lose my cool. I have apologized to Michael Scotto, which he graciously accepted, and will be scheduling a lunch soon. In the weeks and months ahead I’ll be working hard for my constituents on issues like flood insurance that is so desperately needed in my district post-Sandy.”

Discussion

I began this post by contending that: 1. there are some ways of responding to interpersonal situations that are more mature than others 2. when dealing with criticism the use of insults and threats tend to lower your level of maturity 3. people who are less mature tend to be less liked and respected, and in the long run, less effective in achieving their goals. If I am correct, why then do so many politicians regularly display behaviors that I characterize as immature?

One reason that we looked at was that many people have a financial interest in selling the idea that smear tactics do work. In actuality, the best scientific evidence currently available suggests that this claim is false. Since this evidence is not perfect, the best that we can say for the claim is that there is no convincing evidence to support it despite years of research that has focused on addressing this issue.

After discussing this research, I then presented two examples of politicians using immature ways to criticize others. Chris Christie used a smear campaign against his opponents in a Republican primary. Although he won the election, he had to issue a public apology, pay a financial settlement and he became unelectable for several years afterwards. Rep. Grimm desired to not have to publicize the fact that there has been an investigation into allegations regarding his campaign. When he criticized a reporter for bringing the topic up in front of a TV camera, he included in his criticism, threats and insults. Like Christie, he too had to issue a public apology. Moreover, because of his immature actions, the press publicized the story to a far greater audience leading to far more people learning about the investigation.

The levels of maturity for responding or providing negative criticism are most relevant to your interpersonal relationships. The relationship between politicians and their voters is best viewed as an intergroup relationship, rather than an interpersonal one. This intergroup relationship involves the group of people who might potentially vote for him, the group of people who have a vested interest in getting the politician elected, and the groups of people who are working to get someone else elected.

Although I contend that the levels of maturity are relevant in intergroup relationships, other issues often become more important. When people decide on who to vote for, they consider many issues, not just whether or not the candidate insults anyone. If some voters recognize that Governor Christie insults others a bit more than other candidates, they may feel that his stand on keeping taxes low is a far more important issue for them. Politicians, moreover, are not seeking to develop a sound interpersonal relationship with you. Instead, they are seeking your vote. They know very well that not everyone is going to vote for them. If they anger 49 percent of voters, but 51 percent end up voting for them, they achieved their goal, at least in the short run. When it comes to interpersonal relationships, if you act in a manner that leads to 49 percent of the people you personally know not liking you, those who don’t like you can begin to say things behind your back to people who actually personally interact with you. Some of what they say can be untrue and very unfair. You may find that when people that you like have parties, you no longer get invited. When you used to be invited to go bowling, now someone else is getting invited instead. These types of consequences have far more direct effects on your personal life than anything that is likely to happen as a result of a typical election. And so, for these reasons, I hope that you don’t come to believe that because many politicians act in insulting ways throughout their careers that this means that the notion of maturity is irrelevant to your own interpersonal relationships.

———————

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

Tags anger, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, Governor Chris Christie, Governor Christie, insults, interpersonal relationships, maturity levels, Michael Scotto, negative criticism, politicians, Rachel Maddow, Rachel Maddow Show, Rep. Michael Grimm

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

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

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date January 26, 2014
2 Comments on LEARNING TO HANDLE CRITICISM MATURELY: A PRACTICE SESSION UTILIZING COMIC STRIP EXAMPLES

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

Exercises with Comics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This level requires displaying one or both of the following:

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

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

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

———————————-

Tags Calvin and Hobbes, Charlie Brown, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, insults, maturity, negative criticism, types of criticism

anger Bullied bullying conflict management conflict resolution criticism free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts MATURITY Name calling negative criticism playful teasing psychological maturity respect social intelligence taunting teasing types of criticism wisdom

PUTTING DOWN NON-GROUP MEMBERS

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date January 20, 2014
4 Comments on PUTTING DOWN NON-GROUP MEMBERS

On this blog, I have often discussed various reasons why someone might throw insults at you, and, depending on the reason, how to maturely deal with these challenging experiences (see for example, “Insults: A Comic Strip Guide“). If John is throwing an insult at you because he is in a bad mood, just asking in a concern manner, “Is everything OK, John, you sound like something is bothering you?” might be a useful way to begin to respectfully deal with this type of situation. You might want to respond differently, however, if you see that John is insulting you because he hopes it will encourage you to make a change he thinks you need to make. In this type of situation, beginning your response by initially ignoring the insult and instead summarizing his concern could be more helpful than asking if everything is OK or making a big thing about the insult.

In earlier posts, we have discussed eight different reasons why people throw insults at others, and mature responses to deal with each of these situations. Today let’s focus on some ways to deal with situations in which you might find yourself being insulted by those in a group because they view you as a non-group member.

Putting Down Non-group Members

Many people have a desire to join together in a common cause. This can dramatically increase their own personal power. And it is one of the big reasons why playing a game like baseball can be so much fun. Hit a homer or even a ground ball that brings in the winning run, and your group is patting you on the back and cheering.

When immature people join together, however, because of their lack of empathy, they often join together to put down and humiliate non-group members–particularly if the non-group members are a minority or viewed as too powerless to defend themselves.

Sometimes we see this sort of behavior occur when a new girl starts a new school.

When someone faces these types of difficult situations, what is a respectable way to respond? No single blog post can fully answer this question, but I would like to throw out some ideas for your consideration. Let’s begin with a parable.

The Parable of Jason and Ron

As you look at the four pictures of this parable, let me add some details. When Jason says, “I’m sorry you feel that way, Ron,” he looks squarely into Ron’s eyes. Then he gives Ron a slight nod of his head and goes on his way. Throughout the interaction between Jason and Ron, Jason remains friendly, while at the same time, self-assured.

When I was in school, one day I noticed a boy handle a similar situation like Jason. The other students seemed to respect how the boy handled the teasing. So I began to rehearse this style in front of a mirror over the course of a few days. The next time one of the older students teased me, I gave it a try. It ended up working just fine.

The “Give The Teasers What They Want” Approach

Now I understand that the approach described in “The Jason and Ron Parable” might not work perfectly in every situation. Acting self-assured might actually increase the desire by group members to prove that they are powerful and the person being insulted is nothing but a pile of trash. To try to prove this, they might insult you even worse than if you said nothing, or they might even physically attack you. Because of this risk, many people faced with insults from a larger, more powerful group choose to give the teasers what they want–to feel they are more powerful than others. People using this approach, when faced by these teasers, keep their eyes down toward the ground, and try to walk away as quickly as they can without saying anything. In this way, they don’t challenge the teasers sense of power in any way.

I’ve seen people use the “Give the Teasers What They Want” approach and it sometimes works to a certain degree. The immature group members, with their lack of empathy toward others, after saying a few mean things, let the teased person walk by, and there is no more of these incidences. The group members feel that they had a little fun and the teased person gets away without any physical harm. His or her feelings might feel hurt, but this passes before too long.

I must admit that I used this approach a few times when I was young. It bothered me that I didn’t stand up for myself in a more “manly” manner, but at the same time I was glad that I got home safe.

The “Physical Attack” Approach

Now in contrast to the approach used in the “Jason and Ron Parable” and the “Give The Teasers What They Want” approach, some people have made the case that if anyone insults you, the only proper way to deal with this is to start swinging with everything you got. It doesn’t matter if you end up getting ganged up, beaten severely, or evenbeing killed, you must physically attack to maintain your dignity. Consider Mike’s story.

Mike’s Story

One day, I received a comment on my blog by a young man who recalled an incident that he had had when he was a new kid at school. “On the school bus,” he wrote, “I began to get picked on. I was not the kind of mature kid who ignored the situation and so I ended up getting into fights as a result. I’d like to preface my next statement with the following–I am not condoning fighting and do not recommend fighting as a solution to any type of verbal altercation. That being said, after showing the bullies that I’d stand up for myself, not only did the bullying come to an abrupt end, but I ended up becoming friends with several of them and seemed to garner the respect of many of the other kids on the bus. Again I’m not condoning fighting but am suggesting that in some cases a show of strength can be an effective way to resolve conflict.”

Here’s how I responded to Mike:

Hi Mike,

You are absolutely right. In some situations a kid who starts to get picked on will physically go at those doing the tormenting. The tormentors end up backing down, others end up respecting the kid who shut the tormentors up, and the kid even ends up making friends with the tormentors. This is a real possibility. Now, let’s consider other possibilities of a kid physically going at his tormentors so all of us can make an informed decision about how best to handle these types of situations.

In one case that I’m familiar with, a boy that we will call Cal, went to his dad and complained in a choked up voice of a bully picking on him on the bus. The dad, having had a very similar experience when he was young that you had, Mike, began to holler at his son. “If someone picks on you, you go at him with everything you have and that will shut him up. That’s how I handled that type of situation and it worked every time. I can’t believe you didn’t do that. Here you are crying over it. I’m ashamed of you!”

What the dad didn’t know at the time was that Cal had already witnessed another kid on the bus who was bigger and stronger than him try to do just what his dad had said to do. The bully quickly grabbed the arm of this kid, twisted it behind his back until it was excruciatingly painful. After the kid tried his best to get free, the twisted arm was twisted tighter and the kid let out a scream. The bus driver yelled to quiet down. The bully then loosened his grip on the kid, slapped him on the side of his face, and said, “If you ever start in with me again, I’ll catch you after school and you’ll really be sorry.”

Cal, seeing this happen to someone he knew was stronger than he is, became increasing depressed and when he began to talk about killing himself, he ended up in my office. Before long he blurted out all that he was going through.

Now, here’s another possible outcome of a kid going physically at bullies. The kid ends up winning the fight, or at least does enough harm to the bullies, that they settle down for the remainder of the trip. But the bullies belong to a gang, and having embarrassed the bullies on the bus, the gang decides to get revenge. The kid gets attacked and ends up with serious injuries, or even dead.

Or the bullies, seeing that they can’t get the kid to kowtow to them, end up working up their fury until they begin to get revenge by doing some things behind the kid’s back. The kid discovers his backpack has been slashed and in the crowd that is looking on, he sees the bullies smirking. Then the kid’s bike is stolen. Again the bullies have smirks on their faces. The kid tries to get even, the conflict escalates, and before long someone gets knifed or a gun explodes.

These are just some of the other outcomes that have occurred when someone has decided to physically attack bullies. Each person has to consider the situation and decide what is right.

Since writing the above reply to Mike, I read Malcolm Gladwell’s bestselling book, Outliers. In one of his chapters, I learned that communities that have a higher than average percentage of people who hold the attitude that the only way to deal with people being disrespectful to you is to physically attack them tend to have higher than average murder rates. Is that the type of community you wish to live in. Some of the bullets that fly by in those communities end up striking people who are not even involved in the anger arousing situation, including children. And so, I think people should think seriously about this issue.

Making a choice between which type of approach to use in any given situation requires some deep thought. I hope this post gives you some useful material as you go about deciding for yourself what makes the best sense.

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

Tags anger, bullied, bullies, bully, bullying, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, dispute management, disrespectful, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, insults, maturity, non-group members, out groups, psychological maturity, types of criticism, wisdom

bullying Chris Christie conflict management conflict resolution criticism emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults Name calling respect social intelligence wisdom

GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE’S USE OF INSULTS

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date January 13, 2014
1 Comment on GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE’S USE OF INSULTS

In earlier posts on this blog I have advocated that it can be helpful to become familiar with five levels of maturity for responding to negative criticism and five levels of maturity for providing negative criticism (see for example Providing Negative Criticism: Five Levels of Maturity). In those posts, I have contended that when responding or providing negative criticism the use of insults tends to lower your level of maturity. Moreover, people who are less mature tend to be less liked and respected.

If the arguments that I have made in those earlier posts are accurate, how then can I explain the successful career that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has had? Here is a man who is well known to use insults when he is criticized and when he is criticizing others. Here is a man who likes to characterize his use of insults as his way of being “blunt and direct” even though a person can surely be blunt and direct without seeking to insult people. Here is a man who has managed to get himself elected as a county legislator in New Jersey’s Morris County, appointed as United States Attorney for New Jersey, elected Governor of New Jersey twice, and viewed as one of the front runners for the next U.S. presidential election. Here is a man that many people have come to admire.

By addressing this apparent paradox between my proposed levels of maturity and the success of Gov. Christie, readers will have an opportunity to come to a more refined, precise understanding of how to utilize the levels of maturity as a guide for dealing with interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships.

Explaining the Paradox

First of all, as I have explained in earlier posts, the five levels of maturity for responding or providing negative criticism are most relevant to your interpersonal relationships and your intrapersonal relationships. As I define these terms, your interpersonal relationships are your interactions with people with whom you have direct, face to face interactions on an ongoing basis; your intrapersonal relationships involve interactions that you have with yourself.

The relationship that Gov. Christie has with his voters is best viewed as an intergroup relationship, rather than either an interpersonal or intrapersonal relationship. This intergroup relationship involves the group of people who might potentially vote for him, the group of people who have a vested interest in getting the governor elected, and the groups of people who are working to get someone else elected. Although the five levels of maturity are relevant in intergroup relationships, other issues often become more important.

In an interpersonal relationship, if you attempt to insult the person whom you are interacting with, that person might insult you back and the interaction can escalate into violence. When we see Gov. Christie seeking to insult someone, he almost always has a group of supporters standing behind him and a team of armed security personnel well trained to intervene if an insulted party makes any moves at all that can be viewed as violent. Under this set of circumstances, it is far safer to play the part of a tough guy who doesn’t take any crap from anyone than if you, personally, seek to insult someone with whom you have an interpersonal relationship.

Here’s another difference between what typically happens during your interpersonal relationships and the intergroup interactions that involve the governor. When someone directly seeks to insult you, unless you are well trained in handling this in a peaceful manner, you are likely to take the insult personally. The emotions that arise in this situation are more likely to be stronger than if you see on TV, or in a large arena, the governor throwing insults at someone you are not likely to personally know.

The governor, moreover, is not seeking to develop a sound interpersonal relationship with you. He is, instead, seeking your vote. He knows very well that not everyone is going to vote for him. If he angers 49 percent of voters, but 51 percent end up voting for him, he’s achieved his goal. In the last election, the governor managed to get 60% of the vote and not only did this mean that he was reelected, but the media repeatedly described his win as a landslide victory. This victory meant that 40% of the voters voted for someone else. Now, when it comes to interpersonal relationships, if you act in a manner that leads to 4 people out of 10 not liking you, this can lead to far more direct problems for you then if 4 out of 10 people don’t vote for you in a statewide election. Those who don’t like you can begin to say things behind your back to people who actually personally interact with you. Some of what get says can be untrue and very unfair. You may find that when people that you like have parties, you no longer get invited. When you used to be invited to go bowling, now someone else is getting invited. These types of consequences have far more direct effects on your personal life than anything that is likely to happen as a result of a New Jersey election.

When people decide on who to vote for, they consider many issues, not just whether or not the candidate insults anyone. When Gov. Christie insults someone, many voters are apt to say to themselves, he isn’t doing anything different than all the other politicians. They therefore decide to choose a candidate based on other issues. If some voters recognize that Governor Christie insults others a bit more than other candidates, they may feel that his stand on keeping taxes low is a far more important issue for them.

Gov. Christie’s popularity, in my opinion, is largely based on his positions on the issues and, indeed, on some of his personal characteristics. Although the media plays up, and repeatedly show instances in which he insults people, if you really follow his career, you find that the vast majority of the time he conducts himself in a manner very consistent with the highest levels of maturity. When someone criticizes him, most often he listens without getting defensive, clearly shows that he understands the criticism, and when he agrees with the criticism, he says so. When he disagrees, in a warm and friendly style he very articulately explains why he disagrees. People who have not made up their minds on a particular issue have an opportunity to see his take on the issue and a significant amount of undecided voters end up becoming convinced that the governor’s position is correct.

Gov. Christie has demonstrated that he knows how, when he is criticized or when he criticizes others, to act in the most mature manner. When he does choose to throw an insult at someone, in the vast majority of cases he is very careful to do so when it is unlikely to harm him politically. You can be sure that when he was the United States Attorney for New Jersey, any time he disagreed with one of the judges involved in a case he was working on he never chose to directly insult the judge. If he had, his career would have taken a tailspin.

The governor knows full well that there are voters in New Jersey who will never vote for him no matter what he says. And so, when he chooses to insult someone, it is almost always directed at that group of people or the positions that they tend to believe in. By doing so, his supporters come to see him as a leader who will be a strong defender of the positions they hold dear.

In recent events involving some lane closings on the George Washington Bridge into New York City that created gridlock traffic in Fort Lee, New Jersey, Gov. Christie began to use his style of insults in a very different manner than I had become accustomed to, and it has landed him in a heap of trouble. The lane closings appeared to some reporters as a “get back” strategy designed to punish someone who didn’t support Gov. Christie in his latest run for reelection. When questioned about this, the governor became sarcastic, and he sought to insult the questioners, saying they were “obsessing” over a minor issue, and claiming that the questioners must “having nothing else to do.”

This incident does demonstrate that using the most mature levels of dealing with criticism can be important even in the political arena. If the governor, when he was being criticized for how he was handling the bridge lane closings incident, instead of responding with insults, replied in a manner consistent with a 4 or 5 level of maturity, his response would have looked something like this:

“I understand your concern. Those lane closings led to thousands of people being inconvenienced for several days. If it was one of my kids who ended up missing two hours of school for no apparent good reason, I would have been very upset, and as someone who cares about my fellow New Jersey citizens, I am very upset. Making this situation worse was that police and ambulances had difficulty getting to where they were needed. This is a very serious issue, and I am bound and determined to get to the bottom of what happened.”

Such a response would have shown the questioner and all that listened in that he shared their concerns and had empathy for those who were involved in the mess. Because of his more immature responses, a few days ago, after it became more and more apparent that his administration was indeed involved in a “get back” scheme, the governor had to apologize for his insulting actions. In his nearly two hours of addressing the criticism in a national televised press hearing, the governor did not even once attempt to insult those who were publicly criticizing him as they asked their questions. Instead, the governor modeled the most mature levels of responding to criticism. Will it be enough to overcome all that he created when he responded at the lowest levels? We’ll have to wait and see.

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

Tags anger, bully, bullying, Chris Christie, conflict management, criticism, disrespectful, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, insults, interpersonal relationships, maturity levels, respect, wisdom

anger challenge child discipline conflict management conflict resolution dig for the conflict emotional intelligence fairness free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults MATURITY Name calling parenting respect social intelligence threats wisdom

DEALING WITH SUBTLE FORMS OF CRITICISM

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date December 22, 2013
7 Comments on DEALING WITH SUBTLE FORMS OF CRITICISM

If you have been following this blog, you know that from time to time I have been discussing insults and criticism. In earlier posts, we looked at situations in which people end up feeling insulted because someone provided negative criticism.

I have argued that rather than to feel insulted, it is possible to learn to welcome criticism, as well as words that might come off as insulting. When we learn to respond skillfully to negative criticism and insults, we develop a confidence in these types of situations. This dramatically reduces our defensiveness.

An important step toward mastering this skill is to learn to clearly recognize when criticism is occurring. If you can’t identify when a red light is flashing, you won’t be able to know when to apply the brakes on the car, and you are likely to end up in a serious accident.

Illustration by Lois Hubertz

Similarly, if you can’t identify when criticism is occurring, you won’t be able to know when to begin to put in place the plans that effectively deal with criticism.

Although some forms of criticism are as easy to recognize as a red light, some forms of criticism are far more subtle and therefore often go unrecognized as criticism. I therefore have presented posts that discuss dealing with direct and implied forms of criticism. I’ve noted that when someone makes a suggestion, this usually implies some negative criticism.

I also explained how recommending that someone get some additional education also usually implies some negative criticism.

We also took a good hard look at certain forms of levity, in which negative criticism is designed to be charmingly provocative. It seeks to get people to think more deeply about an issue. As George Bernard Shaw put it in his provocative book, Back to Methuselah:

“When a thing is funny, search it carefully for a hidden truth.”

Shaw, to ward off defensive reactions to his quips, often created fictional plays and had the characters in the plays say them. Great examples are:

“No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.“

“The difference between a lady and a flower girl is not how she behaves, but how she’s treated.”

“Life isn’t about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself.”

Today we will spend a little more time practicing enhancing our skills for recognizing subtle forms of criticism. This will help to improve our ability to know when to start using our dealing-with-criticism skills.

More Examples of Subtle Forms of Negative Criticism

As we move forward, please keep in mind that for the purposes of this blog, if someone evaluates something as negative the evaluator has made a negative criticism.

FIRST EXAMPLE

In the above Calvin and Hobbes scenario, Miss Wormwood politely asks Calvin to put his tiger, Hobbes, in his locker. Calvin objects to this request by crying out—“In my locker?! He’ll suffocate!”

Calvin’s response to Miss Wormwood’s request is an example of indirect negative criticism. He doesn’t directly state he has evaluated her request and found that there is something wrong with it, or that it is bad, or something of that sort. Nevertheless, he indicates that if he did what she asked, his tiger would suffocate. To recognize this as a form of negative criticism, it helps to notice that in addition to Calvin’s statement there are other indications that he thinks there is something wrong with Miss Wormwood’s request. The exclamation marks after Calvin’s statement, the drawing of Calvin with his mouth being wide open as if he is shouting, and the fact that he is practically flying out of his seat while he is shouting, all add up to indicate that Calvin’s reply is rightfully classified as a form of negative criticism of Miss Wormwood’s request.

Although Miss Wormwood takes Calvin’s negative criticism in stride, other teachers might become defensive, and yell something like, “Don’t you talk back to me, young man!” This might silence students, but leave them seething with anger that is expressed by a rejection of the school enterprise; or it might lead to shouting back at the teacher, creating an escalation of conflict that takes valuable learning time away from the class.

If Miss Wormwood would have become defensive and started to yell at Calvin in response to his negative criticism, this would, according the the DIG Conflict Model, be rated an immature level of responding (see Responding to Criticism: Four Levels of Maturity). Instead, she steers in the direction of Calvin’s criticism by offering the compromise of putting his “tiger” under his desk where it will be at least out of the way. This, according to the DIG Conflict Model, is one of the most mature responses (see Responding to Criticism: The Most Mature Level). We see, in this example, that Calvin quickly complies and his teacher can now go on with her lesson without any further delay.

SECOND EXAMPLE

Here’s a Sally Forth comic that illustrates that whenever there is a transaction involving a request or demand, we would be wise to anticipate negative criticism will be present as well.

In this comic, because Sally is visiting her mother for a few days, Ted is left on his own to deal with his nine-year-old daughter, Hil. When Ted tells Hil it’s time for bed, she begins to reject his demand. Is Hil’s rejection of the demand a form of criticism?

Well, consider her reply to her dad: “But Mom’s not here! We don’t need a bedtime!” Hil has negatively evaluated her dad’s demand by expressing her disagreement with it. If you tell someone you disagree with what he or she has done, you have negatively criticized the person’s act.

If Ted was skillful at first recognizing that Hil was providing him criticism, he would be in a better position to say to himself, “From what I’ve learned about the different levels of maturity, let me see if I can design a mature response.” What if he came up with something like this?

“Hil, I admire the way you seek to defend your freedom. I want to encourage that. And you know I’m crazy about you. At the same time, I also love your mom, as I know you do. It seems to me that we don’t want to break her rules behind her back. The bedtime schedule is designed for you to get enough rest so you will do well in school. Both of us have seen what happens to you when you don’t get enough rest. When your mom gets home, if you want to discuss the rules, we can do it with her, you and me all altogether. That would be the fair thing to do, wouldn’t it?”

These Examples are Designed to Encourage Deeper Thought

Above, I provided two examples of someone providing negative criticism. For each example, a response was described that I think is pretty mature. Please note, however, that I am NOT claiming that they are the ideal responses. Nor am I trying to make the case that the responses portrayed in the above examples are the only mature responses that can be made. There is a great deal of flexibility that we have for coming up with high level responses. I present the above examples in an effort to challenge you to think more deeply about what mature levels of responding look like according to your own lights.

Well, that’s my post for this week. To all of you who celebrate the beautiful Christmas season, I wish you good cheer, peace on Earth, and good will toward all of our fellow human beings!

With Warmest Regards,

Jeff

Tags anger, challenge, conflict, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, dispute management, disrespectful, emotional intelligence, emotions, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, frustration, insults, negative criticism, parenting, threats, types of criticism

anger cold shoulder conflict management conflict resolution criticism emotional intelligence fairness free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts MATURITY psychological maturity respect social intelligence wisdom

GIVING SOMEONE THE COLD SHOULDER: WISE OR FOOLISH?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date December 1, 2013
11 Comments on GIVING SOMEONE THE COLD SHOULDER: WISE OR FOOLISH?

Welcome to From Insults to Respect. Today we begin with a Blondie comic:

In the above scenario, as Dagwood gets into bed, rather than greet him with warm, open arms, Blondie has turned her back to him. Because she has become angry with him, all that Dagwood is going to get from Blondie on this night is Blondie’s cold shoulder.

What Does it Mean to Give Someone the Cold Shoulder?

When we are in a relationship, if someone does something that results in arousing our anger, we often seek to punish the person whom we believe to be the source of our anger. One way to do this is to act in a manner that is typically referred to as “giving him the cold shoulder.” Of course it is not just women who give guys the cold shoulder; guys do it to their spouse perhaps just as much as women.

Although when I think of someone giving the cold shoulder to someone, the image that typically comes to my mind is two people in a marriage relationship, but the fact is that a friend can do it to a friend as well.

According to Wikipedia, “the phrase “cold shoulder” has been used as a description of aloofness and disdain,^[1] a contemptuous look over one’s shoulder,^[4] and even in the context of a woman attempting to decline the advances of an aggressive man.^[6] Overall, it remains widely popular as a phrase for describing the act of ignoring someone or something, or giving an unfriendly response.^{[5] “}

Is the “Cold Shoulder” Technique Good or Bad?

I have had discussions with people who use this type of punishment and many of them are just fine with it. They report that whenever they use this approach, almost always, after awhile, the argument somehow gets worked out and their relationship, overall, has been wonderful. And they say that they know people who have had a valued relationship lasting a lifetime despite one or both parties in the relationship using the cold shoulder from time to time.

Although I agree that there are certainly worse ways to deal with disagreements than giving the person you are angry with the cold shoulder, nevertheless, I believe there is a much better alternative.

Notice that in the above comic when Dagwood becomes angry with Blondie, instead of giving her the cold shoulder, he lovingly says, “Please, Honey, I need a moment…”

Regular readers of this blog know that I have long advocated that when you see yourself becoming angry, it is wise to provide the other person in your relationship a time out signal that you have worked out when both of you were in a pleasant mood (see ANGER, STRESS AND THE SIGNALING TO BACK OFF TECHNIQUE). This postpones any deep problem solving until you give yourself some time to calm down.

In the Blondie comic that we just looked at, Dagwood’s signal is “Please, Honey, I need a moment…” Notice that he includes in his signal a sweet nickname for her. This can be very helpful. By learning to express your signal in a loving way, it decreases the likelihood that the problem will turn into a more heated problem that will be harder to solve in the future.

Also notice that Dagwood, in this example, says he needs a moment. Sometimes we need more than a moment. There is nothing wrong with taking even a week to calm down and to figure out how to best handle the problem you are experiencing. However, if you do think that it will take you more than 24 hours, I agree with the position that Thich Nhat Hanh takes in his beautiful book, Anger: Wisdom for Cooling the Flames. Before the 24 hours are up, do your best to tell the other person why you think you are angry in a loving manner if it is a family member, or a friendly manner with others. Hanh writes, “Try your best to say it peacefully. There may be some sadness in your voice, that’s fine. Just don’t say something to punish or to blame.”

At the beginning of this post I presented a comic in which Blondie makes it clear to Dagwood that she has no intention of telling him why she is angry. I think that keeping it a secret about why you are angry is simply not fair. And when you do something that strikes the other party as unfair, you now have created an extra reason to fuel the anger in the relationship.

If you agree with me that within 24 hours it is only fair to share in a loving or friendly way a little description of what you are experiencing, at the point that you provide your description there is no need to try to solve the problem. But Hanh and I both agree that you owe it to the person who is in a relationship with you to at least give him or her some explanation for what is going on within you. If you find that you don’t think you can say the words of this communication using a loving or friendly tone, at least try to write a brief note indicating a little of what you have been experiencing.

To help you to make the best use of the time that you are seeking to calm down and to problem solve, I hope you will read the two of the posts in which I discuss this process–Being a Wise Friend to Your Angry Self, Part 1 and Being a Wise Friend to Your Angry Self, Part 2.

Hanh aptly summarizes this process when he wrote:

When we are angry, we have to go back to ourselves and take good care of our anger. We cannot say, “Go away anger, you have to go away. I don’t want you.” When you have a stomachache, you don’t say, “I don’t want you, stomach, go away.” No, you take care of it. In the same way, we have to embrace and take good care of our anger. We recognize it as it is, embrace it, and smile…

Our practice is based on the insight of non-duality. Both our negative feelings and positive feelings are organic and belong to the same reality. So there is no need to fight; we only need to embrace and take care…. You may think that you have to combat evil and chase it out of your heart and mind. But this is wrong. The practice is to transform yourself. If you don’t have garbage, you have nothing to use in order to make compost. And if you don’t have compost, you have nothing to nourish the flower in you. You need the suffering, the affliction in you. Since they are organic, you know that you can transform them and make good use of them.

Well, that’s my post for today. I hope you find within it some food for thought. And please feel free to provide comments or ask questions by typing in the Leave a Reply box at the very bottom of this page.

Have a wonderful week!

Jeff

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

Tags anger, arguments, Blondie, cold shoulder, conflict, conflict management, conflict resolution, disagreement, dispute management, disrespectful, emotional intelligence, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, insults, negative criticism, psychological maturity, respect, silent treatment, wisdom

anger bullying conflict management conflict resolution free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts Mike Tomlin N.F.L. pranks respect Richard Incognito Ryan Tannehill teasing threats Troy Polamalu

The NFL and Bullying: How to Change the Culture

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date November 10, 2013
No Comments on The NFL and Bullying: How to Change the Culture

This is my third “NFL Bullying” post since the topic splashed all over the national media this past Monday. The first (“The N.F.L. Culture and Bullying“) presents the theory that one reason why bullying is sometimes viewed as acceptable is the belief that it can increase motivation to reach a level of excellence not achievable without bullying.

Whereas there may indeed be legitimate examples of some people achieving more in some valued area than they would have because of some insult, there are many arguments that insults are far more likely to be harmful rather than helpful. From my own observations, insults most often just lead to a nasty exchange and wasted energy. Moreover, some talented people who might have made an excellent contribution to a team may end up quitting altogether rather than putting up with what they feel is abuse.

Off the football field, recent research has found that harsh verbal discipline by parents led to increases in teenage depression and more behavior problems, including fighting with peers, trouble in school and lying to parents (see Longitudinal Links Between Fathers’ and Mothers’ Harsh Verbal Discipline and Adolescents’ Conduct Problems and Depressive Symptoms).

I am therefore not convinced that people, to be fully motivated, need to be insulted. In the NFL, players know that if they do well their records will show this. Millions of dollars help to motivate. Lack of effort will lead to being cut from the team. When players do well they are cheered by millions and receive more financially rewarding sponsor deals. The players want to do well not only for themselves but for their teammates and to be respected as a skillful player by their fellow professional football players. The coaching team is hired to demonstrate passion for excellence, and they convey this attitude through modeling. With these types of motivators, hazing, with its likelihood of causing more harm then good, makes little sense.

My second post on this topic (N.F.L. Bullying: The Real Reason For It) argued that whereas part of the reason for the hazing of rookies in the NFL is the belief that it can challenge players to perform better, the larger reason has to do, in my opinion, with a completely different dynamic. I expressed this dynamic as follows:

“Veterans recognize that the rookies are after their jobs. When Joe Quarterback sees a fresh new quarterback on the team, he says to himself, After all my hard work and effort and all of the damaging blows that I’ve taken for the team, now this young son-of-a bitch wants to take my job.”

This underlying anger is the real fuel igniting the bullying. I likened what the bullies of the NFL are doing to what white racist southerners did to blacks in the south.

Now I do want to make it clear that I certainly don’t have enough information to say if any specific person involved in the Incognito-Martin incident is guilty of doing anything wrong. But I personally think there is ample evidence that there is currently too much bullying going on in the NFL, and we should go ahead and start discussing ways to change the culture. Why do I believe this?

One reason is the words used by Ryan Tannehill, QB for the Miami Dolphins, while defending his teammate, Richie Incognito, who is being accused of bullying. “Does he [Incognito] like to give guys a hard time?” said Tannehill. “Yes. Does he like to pester guys and have fun? Yes. But he brought a lot of laughter and a lot of cohesiveness.” (Quoted in Bloomberg Press in article titled, “NFL Bullying Accusation Forces Teams to Look at Own Locker Rooms“).

These kinds of statements even from someone trying to defend Incognito supports my contention that it is time to start thinking about changing the NFL culture. A much better culture would impart to the players a clear understanding that there are far better ways to bring cohesiveness to a team than giving teammates a hard time and pestering them and that laughing about such behavior doesn’t make it excusable. I’m not alone.

Jason Reid, a writer for the Washington Post wrote a column on this topic titled, “Miami Dolphins Blacks’ Support for Richie Incognito in NFL Bullying Affair is Troubling.”

Here’s what Reid had to say:

“Miami Dolphins players don’t get it. Their support of suspended guard Richie Incognito – even after they learned he used a racial slur in a threatening voice mail left for biracial linemate Jonathan Martin – is among many troubling aspects of the bullying controversy that has engulfed the NFL franchise.

But for me, what’s most disturbing is that several misguided African- American Dolphins players – Mike Wallace, Mike Pouncey, Brent Grimes and Michael Egnew have been among Incognito’s most vocal defenders – identify more closely with Martin’s alleged tormentor than they do with Martin. Their support for Incognito shows the wrongheaded thinking that can arise from the locker-room culture and long-standing beliefs in the African American community about what behavior is socially acceptable for blacks.”

IF indeed there is too much bullying going on in the NFL, such verbal statements can be one way to change its culture.

There is some hope that the culture can indeed be changed. According to a recent USA Today report, at least one NFL team has already managed to do this at least for one team–the Pittsburgh Steelers. There we learn that:

The attention hazing and bullying have received this week surprises Pittsburgh Steelers safety Troy Polamalu. Having only played for one organization his entire 11-year career, Polamalu says he’s never seen any young players deal with anything even resembling hazing.

“Coach Tomlin has always said that if you are willing to help us win than you’re part of our family,” Polamalu said. “Whenever anybody young or new comes into here, we always have open arms and are willing to help them get used to their professional lives, whether it’s getting a car or giving them some change before they start getting paid.”

In another report, this one from ESPN, Polamalu said that the Steelers’ ethos starts at the top with chairman emeritus Dan Rooney and president Art Rooney II.

“They’ve really instilled a family environment that’s permeated our locker room so whenever a rookie comes in we accept them with open arms. We teach them the best way we know on how to be professional, how to take care of your body, how to train, how to learn the defense, the offense, whatever it may be.”

In the same article, Steelers’ coach Mike Tomlin is quoted as saying:

“We take a simple approach in that young players can be quality reasons why we’re successful so if they’re capable and willing to help us in terms of what we desire to get done as a football team then we’re all committed to helping them help us,” the seventh-year coach said. “I think our veteran players embrace that and have mentor-like relationships with our young guys…”

These statements suggest that it is possible to create a culture in the NFL without the hazing of the younger players that appears to go on elsewhere.

In my view, the culture should start at the point just before a player’s contract is signed. The coach should look the player in the eye and say emphatically, “I don’t know what you’ve been taught while playing football before, but if you sign with us, you must agree that you will not participate in any hazing or putting down of players, young or old. Is that absolutely clear?!”

Moreover the contract should clearly have wording indicating the consequences of breaking this rule that includes suspensions and monetary penalties. The coach should underline where in the contract these provisions are, and they should be fully discussed. If the player doesn’t want to agree to these terms, he should be told that he’ll have to find work elsewhere.

Now, I understand that one of the strategies of football teams is to insult players on the other team. This is done in the hopes of getting the insulted player so angry that he will start a fight and end up either getting thrown out of the game or costing his team some other penalty. And so, teams do have to train their players to handle these types of insults. This can be done very effectively without hazing in the following way.

Coaches can have the players practice responding to insults by saying, “Nice try.” The players are told that when they say these words, it actually means, “I am not stupid enough to fall for that trick.”

The players should undergo repeated training on this. The training periods should begin with the coach standing in front of all of the players. He then states, “We are all going to now practice handling insults. This practice session will be done like this. I’ll shout an insult and all of you are to call out, ‘Nice try.’ After your reply, I’ll then shout, ‘What do we mean when we say, Nice try?’ Then in unison, all of you will call out, ‘I am not stupid enough to fall for that trick.'”

This drill should be done with twenty repetitions and then repeated on several different occasions. Then the players are told by the coach that during intra-squad scrimmages, to practice using the “Nice try” technique, from time to time he will have one squad start to insult the other squad players during the practice game. At such times, the individuals being insulted are to practice responding to the insults by saying with a smile, “Nice try.” The coach should mention that it is only during these types of practices that players insulting players will be tolerated.

With this type of practice, players can become competent in handling insults during real games that is consistent with a respectful culture among fellow team members.

——————————-

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

Tags anger, bullying, conflict management, criticism, dispute management, disrespectful, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, insults, Jonathan Martin, Miami Dolphins, N.F.L., NFL, respect, Richie Incognito, threats

Bullied bullying conflict management conflict resolution downward comparison theory fairness free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum N.F.L. pranks respect taunting wisdom

N.F.L. Bullying: The Real Reason for it

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date November 6, 2013
5 Comments on N.F.L. Bullying: The Real Reason for it

Yesterday, my post discussed a New York Times article titled “In Bullying Case, Questions on N.F.L. Culture.” There we learned that what are being called pranks by some and humiliating behavior by others is ubiquitous in the N.F.L. What is the reason for it?

The Times article tried to throw some light on this when it stated that “Most incidents come with tacit, unsupervised approval of coaches and executives, who see the pranks as a rite of passage, a worthy bit of team building and character strengthening.” Hmmm. If the coaches and executives really believe this, what is the reason for their “tacit” approval. Why not openly encourage this type of behavior? I think it’s because they realize that there is something not quite right with this explanation. And if this explanation is not quite right, what is a better one?

We get a clue from the Times’s report when it indicates that the behavior designed to humiliate the rookies is viewed by the veterans as being done “in all good fun” is “entertaining” and leads to “a room full of laughing teammates.” What would account for the veterans enjoying humiliating the rookies so much?

Here’s what I think. Veterans recognize that the rookies are after their jobs. When Joe Quarterback sees a fresh new quarterback on the team, he says to himself, After all my hard work and effort and all of the damaging blows that I’ve taken for the team, now this young son-of-a bitch wants to take my job.

It seems to me that there is an undercurrent of resentment that comes to most players in this type of situation. Couple this with the fact that there are always far fewer guys on the team who are rookies, thus making the youngest players a clear minority. With this combination, we end up with the very same motivation of why so many southerners persecuted blacks for so many years. Many southerners realized that if blacks were to be treated equally, they would end up competing for the limited jobs in their area. When blacks were humiliated, those who were doing the persecution found it funny.

In psychology, there is a theory called the “downward comparison theory.” It posits that persons experiencing negative affect can enhance their subjective well-being through comparison with a less fortunate other, the process occurring on either a passive or active basis. When it is on an active basis, people actively try to create the conditions for others to be less fortunate. This explains why people persecute others, and it is the real reason why the majority of players are persecuting the younger ones.

To claim, however tacitly, that the humiliating treatment of some in the N.F.L. is to help those being humiliated to develop their character is no different than if white racists claimed they were persecuting blacks out of the goodness of their hearts because they were really seeking to benefit blacks.

It is high time that all of us come to understand that to persecute anyone is wrong, period! Whether we are rookies, blacks, whites, Latinos, Asians, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, rich or poor, we can all be harmed by prejudice. It is only by standing strong together as true Americans, that we can transform irrational hatred to wise understanding.

——————————-

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

Tags anger, bullied, bullying, conflict, conflict management, disrespectful, insults, jerry seinfeld, N.F.L., respect