Tag: interpersonal relationships

Categories
respect social skills William James

Why Was William James Respected?

Professor William James

Welcome to From Insults To Respect.

Here on this blog, I aim to shed light upon how folks might improve their self-respect and the respect others have for them. With this end in mind, from time to time I describe someone who has handled a difficult situation in a respect enhancing manner. For example, in one post I describe how Abraham Lincoln skillfully handled insults (see HERE). In another, I describe how Joni Mitchell wisely dealt with her experiences with depression (see HERE). Utilizing the same educational technique, today, I provide a brief look at how the astonishingly well respected psychologist and philosopher William James deftly dealt with his interpersonal relationships.

James’s Interpersonal Relationship Skills

In 1920, ten years after William James passed away, his son, Henry, published many of his father’s letters in a two volume set titled, The Letters of William James.

William with his brother, Henry

This Henry James was not the famous author, Henry James, who was William’s brother. He, nevertheless, reveals an accomplished talent for writing as he provides in the volumes’s beautifully written context for the letters.

The two volumes were very well received as we see in this excerpt of a review published in the New Republic. 

The very tones of his [William James’s] voice are audible in them, his wit is here, his fine considerateness, his friendships, naturalness, variety, sincerity. Nobody’s humor draws closer likenesses of persons and ideas and point of view. Nobody’s seriousness is more informal. Is there a better book of letters in English?

William James’s sons, Willie on the left, and Henry on the right.

Henry begins his two volumes with a brief biography of his dad. As this draws to a close, he summarizes his dad’s interpersonal style:

 He enjoyed being generous and hated to spoil a gift of praise by “stingy” qualifications. He might have said that the great point was not to let any unique virtue in a man evaporate or be wasted. At any rate, he said, that should be seen to in a university. He was quite unconventional in recognizing originality, and preferred all risks in hailing potentialities that might never come to fruition, to a policy of playing safe in his estimates. Yet on the whole he seldom “fooled himself.” Few men who have possessed a comparable gift of discovering special virtues in different individuals have combined with it so just a sense of what could not be expected of those same individuals in the way of other virtues.

But there would be danger of misunderstanding if this trait were mentioned without an important qualification. The reader will do well, in interpreting any judgment of James’s to consider whether the book, or theory, or man under consideration was new and unrecognized, or was already established and secure of a place in men’s esteem. In the former case, especially if there were anything in the situation to appeal to James’s natural “inclination to succor the under-dog,” his praise was likely to be extravagantly expressed and his reservations were apt to be withheld. In the latter case he was no less certain to give free rein to his critical discernment. Men who knew him as a teacher are likely to remember how he encouraged them in their efforts on the one hand, and on the other how stimulating to them and enlarging to their mental horizons were his free and often destructive comments upon famous books and illustrious men.

With regards to this trait of James to provide “free and often destructive comments upon famous books and illustrious men,” it is important to add that critical comments were not directed at the person, but at the ideas of the person. In fact, James often communicated to the person advocating an idea with which he had very much disagreed, some kind words about the author of the idea.

Prof. Hodgson

For  example, in a letter to the eminent Professor Shadworth H. Hodgson in which James severely criticizes his ideas that had been put forth in a philosophy article, James concludes his letter, with the following friendly words:

Farewell! Heaven bless you all the same — and enable you to forgive me. We are well and I hope you are the same. Let me add a wish for a happy New Year and the expression of my undying regard. You are tenfold more precious to me now that I have braved you thus! Adieu! 

James’s son, Henry, concludes this point thusly:

If more critics, and more of the criticized, were to cultivate the manliness, and generosity with which James always entered discussions, there would be less reviewers “never forgiven,” and less feuds in the world of science. 

Henry ends his description of his dad’s interpersonal style with these words:

…he helped many a troubled soul to face the problems of the universe in an independent and gallant spirit. He helped them by example as well as by precept, for it was plain to everyone who knew him or read him that his genius was ardently adventurous and humane. 

Discussion

Dr Jeff Rubin

Today, William James is largely respected because of his insightful ideas that he shared in his writings. In past posts, I discuss some of those ideas such as his highly practical suggestions about child discipline (see HERE), and his fatherly advice to his depressed daughter (see HERE). To get some sense of why James was respected for his interpersonal interactions, it makes sense to go beyond his writings and turn to someone who knew him well. James’s loving son, Henry is a good fit for this task for there is hardly anyone who knew him better. And yet, in doing so, it makes sense to surmise it is, to a certain extent, biased.

Recognizing this, we need not assume Henry’s description is absolutely accurate in every respect to obtain from it something of value. Taken solely as a narrative of someone who just might have acted thusly, it provides us an opportunity to reflect upon our own conduct to see if we can glean from it some skills we just might usefully seek to incorporate into our own conduct.

Wishing all of my readers a colorful autumn,
Jeff

Categories
Bob Dylan conflict resolution interpersonal conflicts

Thoughts On Dylan’s “Let’s Keep It Between Us”

Welcome to From Insults To Respect.

In an earlier post (see HERE) I made some rational arguments for people to consider resolving their conflicts in private whenever possible. For example, I mentioned a research study that found people are more likely to escalate an argument into a fight when spectators are around (“Impression Management and the Escalation of Aggression and Violence,” R. B. Felson, Social Psychology Review, 1982).

Rational arguments are important considerations as we go about choosing how to deal with social problems. So, too are emotional issues. With that in mind, today I thought we would look at the lyrics of Bob Dylan’s song “Let’s Keep It Between Us” that appears on his Springtime in New York album. There we find Bob tenderly explaining his feeling to his darling.

Bob’s Song

Utilizing a melody deeply influenced by the blues, and featuring an impressive intermingling of organ and guitar, the song’s first stanza goes,

Let’s keep it between us
These people meddlin’ in our affairs, they’re not our friends
Let’s keep it between us
Before doors close and our togetherness comes to an end
They’ll turn you against me and me against you
’Til we don’t know who to trust
Oh, darlin’, can we keep it between us?

In these words, we see the singer’s utmost concerns. Involving others can lead to some taking sides, leading to confusion and thus their relationship might go kaput.

The next stanza reveals more of the singer’s feelings.

Let’s keep it between us
We’ve been through too much tough times that they never shared
They’ve had nothing to say to us before
Now all of a sudden it’s as if they’ve always cared
All we need is honesty
A little humility and trust
Oh, darlin’, can we keep it between us?

Those lines, as I interpret them, have to do with feelings that are missing in people who suddenly claim to want to help because they care. They don’t know about the shared tough times the lovers have experienced. Keeping these experiences alive, along with honesty, humility, and trust is sufficient, says Bob, to work through their problems.

Moving on to the next verse, Bob expresses his feelings that he and his darling have their faults, but so too do those seeking to help them.

I know we’re not perfect
Then again, neither are they
They act like we got to live for them
As if there just ain’t no other way
And it’s makin’ me kind of tired

Here we see Bob growing weary at seeking to live as others believe is right, while those offering advice have their own lack of perfection.

Let’s see where Bob goes from here in the next verse.

Can we just lay back for a moment
Before we wake up and find ourselves in a daze that’s got us out of our minds?
There must be something we’re overlooking here
We better drop down now and get back behind the lines
There’s some things not fit for human ears
Some things don’t need to be discussed
Oh, darlin’, can we keep it between us?

In the above stanza, Bob sings, “Can we just lay back for a moment.” Here he’s asking for time to experience the feelings that the two lovers have shared. These feelings, the singer says, don’t need to be discussed, though they may reveal something of value not noticed before. The two lovers’ shared experiences may yet offer some guidance on how to lovingly move forward.

The next few lines Bob expresses concerns about how much one can trust those who learn about the problems with his relationship.

They’ll tell you one thing and me another
’Til we don’t know who to trust
Oh, darlin’, can we keep it between us?

The final two verses express the fear that involving others that lack knowing the true inner feelings of the lovers will be harmful.

Let’s keep it between us
Before it all snaps and goes too far
If we can’t deal with this by ourselves
Tell me we ain’t worse off than they think we are
Backseat drivers don’t know the feel of the wheel
But they sure know how to make a fuss
Oh, darlin’, can we keep it between us?

Can we keep it between us?

Thoughts

Bob’s expressive singing, music, and words powerfully capture some issues relevant to two lovers working through sensitive problems. Taking time to be mindful of the feelings of both partners is essential for maintaining love relationships. Combining them with more rational type arguments are often the most helpful approach.

Although not addressed in the song, in my opinion, there are some occasions in which it might make sense to consider conferring with a respected adviser such as a professional counselor. But a deep listening beforehand of how your partner feels about sharing certain information is an essential part of any process designed to effectively and lovingly resolve conflicts.

——————————-

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.

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

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 Madow
Rachel Madow

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

Rep. Michael Grimm emerged Wednesday at the Capitol, calling his rant a 'mistake.'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. Michael Scotto says he isn't frightened by the threats, 'I'm not taking it personally.'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.

Categories
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

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