Tag: maturity levels

Categories
conflict resolution insults respect Responding to Criticism

Is Viewing Someone As Acting Immature Insulting?

Welcome to From Insults To Respect. 

As someone with considerable training in developmental psychology, I sometimes view certain styles of behavior on a scale ranging from immature to mature. When I do that, might I be insulting those who I view as acting immature? For those of you, who like me, prefer not to insult anyone, I invite you to join me in considering this question.

Let’s begin with the following scenario:

In the above scenario, when Andy calls Marsha immature, does he insult her?

Hmmm.  Before answering this question, I think I’ll first take a little peek over here in my Webster’s College Dictionary.

Considering Webster’s Definitions of “Insult”

I see here that one definition of insult is “a deliberately discourteous or rude remark or act that humiliates, wounds the feelings, and arouses anger: an insult about her foreign accent.”  I see that there are other definitions as well.  I think I’ll spend a little time first considering this one, and then I’ll take a look at another definition.

Well, with this definition, I guess I can’t be sure just from looking at the pictures if Andy is deliberately trying to be discourteous or rude. And so, I’m not sure if he insulted her.

One way to interpret the two-picture scenario is that Andy became defensive at Marsha’s comment and in anger he deliberately tried to punish her by acting rude.  In that case, if Marsha reacted to Andy’s comment by feeling humiliated or wounded, then it seems to me that according to the definition I’m considering, Andy did insult Marsha.

Interestingly, even if Andy deliberately tried to punish her by acting rude, if Marsha didn’t react by feeling humiliated or wounded, with the definition that I’m currently considering, I would say that he did not insult her.

Another way to interpret the two-picture scenario, although less plausible to me, is that Andy genuinely believes that a mature woman does not mind her husband flirting.  If Andy, after saying, “Marsha, you’re acting immature,” gently explained his belief about this while remaining loving and caring toward Marsha, would his comment about her being immature still be an insult?  Not according to the definition that I am considering because he did not deliberately try to be discourteous or rude.  She might have felt insulted, but he did not insult her.

I see here that Webster does provide us another definition for insult–“something having the effect of an affront: That book is an insult to one’s intelligence.”

In that definition, it doesn’t matter if Andy is being deliberately discourteous or rude.  respect4If Marsha reacts to Andy’s comment as if it was disrespectful and an open offense to her dignity, then he has insulted her.  And, even if Andy deliberately wanted to be discourteous and rude, if Marsha did not react as if she had received an affront, then we could say that Andy’s comment did not insult her.  Perhaps we can say instead that Andy tried to insult Marsha, but failed.

My Personal Experience with Insults

Dr Jeffrey Rubin

An interesting thing about my own life is that when I was young, if someone tried to insult me, it usually worked–in that I indeed ended up feeling insulted.  As I got older–dare I say, more mature–I became less and less likely to feel insulted, even if someone called me stupid or an idiot.

I have become, over the years, more and more comfortable with who I am as a person, and I don’t rely as much on the opinions of others when judging my own worth.  I’m still very much interested in what other people have to say about me because I believe I can learn a great deal from these types of discussions. But I respect myself for having this attribute. And I don’t often automatically assume that a negative evaluation from others makes me a bad person.

My Blog, Immaturity and Insults

Let’s consider another scenario.

“Judy, it’s so nice to see you,” I say as she comes into my office and sits down on my couch.

“I read one of your blog posts last night, Dr. Rubin–the one titled, Providing Negative Criticism: Five Levels of Maturity.  You say in it that if a person provides negative criticism by using name calling, insults, and shouting, that’s immature.  Well, I sometimes use name calling, insults and shouting when I criticize my kids and my husband. That means that in your blog post, you insulted me, calling me immature.  Calling me immature is calling me a name, and an insulting one at that.  So you’re as immature as I am!”

“I think I understand what you are saying, Judy.  Do you feel that I was trying to deliberately be discourteous or rude to you?”

“Maybe not deliberately, but what you said in your blog post felt like you were being insulting, and I felt insulted.”

“Well, Judy, I didn’t mean to be discourteous or rude.  I certainly am not trying to do anything that tears you down–just the opposite.”

“I know, but calling people immature is insulting.”

“Well, Judy, I don’t want you to continue to feel that I am insulting you, so let’s see what we can do differently.”

“OK.”

“Now, to begin with, let’s quickly review why you have been coming to see me. As I recall, you were concerned about how you were getting along with your husband and kids and you wanted me to help you to address this–is that right?”

“Yes.”

“Now, during my training on how to help people with this type of concern, I had professors who viewed themselves as developmental psychologists.  These professors view people as going through different developmental stages or levels, moving from relatively immature levels to more mature levels.  They didn’t merely name each level, they did their best to go beyond the name to describe each higher level so that people, if they chose to do so, could have enough information to make some life changes.

Although I like this approach, I had some other professors that taught me how to use a couple of other approaches that I think can be very helpful, and they don’t bother with words like immature and mature.  For example, one approach would have you stop reading my blog, and when you visit my office I’ll listen to you in a caring, supportive way.  From time to time, I’ll ask you a few questions to challenge you to think more deeply about the issues that you are raising.  When you reply, I won’t give you my opinion. Instead, I’ll listen and empathize with what you are experiencing.”

“Well, actually, I look forward to reading your blog each week, Dr. Rubin.  They make me angry some of the time, but I must admit that they’ve been very helpful.  As far as just listening to me in a caring way, you already do a lot of that.  If I want your opinion, I ask and I guess I want you to be honest and tell me what you really think.”

“All right, Judy.  Another thing that we can try is this. Some people, when they are provided negative criticism, always feel insulted even when the criticism is provided without any name calling, insults and shouting.  Other people, even when they are provided negative criticism with name calling, insults and shouting don’t feel insulted.  Attempts to insult them are like water off of a duck’s back. These people can hear the negative criticism that comes with efforts to humiliate and wound their feelings, and they can seek to learn something from the criticism. Sometimes they do experience some strong emotions that arise when they hear the negative criticism, but this is experienced not as humiliation, but, instead, as an experience that helps them to come up with more efficient, effective, economical and beautiful accomplishments.  If you want, over the next few weeks we can work on this.”

“I like that, Dr Rubin. I do think I’m a bit too sensitive about criticism.  Let’s give that approach a try.”

“OK.”

Conclusion

Dr Jeffrey Rubin

Well, I guess, after considering all of this, I’ve decided to continue to view certain behavior patterns in a developmental framework. To my readers, I don’t mean to insult you when I refer to a pattern that you might utilize as immature, but rather, I hope to challenge you to consider some alternative pattern that you may find better in some ways. For those who are interested in my definition of psychological maturity, see HERE.

So, with that, thanks for stopping by today at From Insults To Respect, and may the rest of your week be filled with wonder and delight.

———————————-

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
anger Bullied bullying conflict resolution emotional maturity insults interpersonal conflicts Name calling providing negative criticism social skills sports coaching

Abusive Criticism In Big Time Sports

bryce1It’s the bottom of the eighth inning. The talented star, Bryce Harper, front runner for the National League Most Valuable Player Award, hits a pop fly to left field that a professional outfielder is very likely to catch. However, there are times when such fielders do lose the ball in the sun or the stadium lights, and the ball ends up being dropped, allowing the batter to safely reach base if he had bothered to run. It is for this reason that Mr. Harper is supposed to hustle down to first base even if he has a pretty good reason to think that the ball he hit is, in all likelihood, going to be caught. Instead of sprinting down to first, Mr. Harper slowly steps out of the batter’s box and then heads to the dugout where he runs into a very angry teammate, Jonathan Papelbon.

Papelbon-chokeAccording to several sports reporters, Mr. Papelbon, an incredibly talented pitcher, began to criticize Mr. Harper about his lack of hustle, and after a very brief exchange, he charged into Mr. Harper, putting his hands on his throat and shoving him into the back wall of the Washington dugout. Fortunately, Mr. Harper was still wearing his batting helmet because his head smacked hard into the wall, and his helmet came flying off. Several Nationals players and coaches responded immediately and physically separated the two.

How Mature was Mr. Papelbon’s Style of Providing Negative Criticism in this Situation?

Regular readers of this blog know that when it comes to providing negative criticism, we are encouraged to consider a tentative model that describes five levels of maturity. Level one is viewed as the most immature, and each higher level is viewed as a little more mature. Let’s take a quick look at these levels, and as we do so, let’s see if we can figure out which of the five levels best describes Mr. Papelbon’s approach.

PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM:  FIVE LEVELS OF MATURITY

1. The criticizer displays one or more of the following behaviors:

  • Cries without stating what the crying is about
  • Physically attacks the person being criticized
  • Damages property

 

 

 

 

 

    2.  Those who are at this level display one or both of the following behaviors:

  • The criticizer does not explain what the offending behavior is, but instead expresses displeasure with glares, insults, shouting, silence, or threats that do not involve bodily harm. (For example, someone might be making too much noise and the criticizer might turn to the noise maker and glare, or cry out, “Jerk!”)
  • Threatens bodily harm regardless of what else is said.

      

 

3. Those who are at this level clearly state the criticism with enough detail so the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance, but couple it with glares, insults, shouts, or threats that are not about bodily harm.

         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.  Those who are at this level state the criticism without bodily attacks, damaging property, glares, insults, threats, or shouts, and with enough details so that the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance.  If the person receiving the criticism becomes defensive or angry, these criticizers empathize without returning glares, insults, threats, or shouts.

         

       

 

 

5.  Those who are at this level provide criticism in a manner very similar to a level four style of criticism but beforehand, they consider the person who is the target of the criticism, and the situation that he or she is in.  As a result of such considerations, they may decide to alter the criticism. 

 

 

 

 

According to the Above Model, What Level of Maturity Best Describes Mr. Papelbon’s Form of Negative Criticism?

While criticizing Mr. Harper’s lack of hustle to first base, Mr. Papelbon physically attacked him. Of the five levels described in the above model, level one, the most immature level, best describes what he had done.

Why is such a style considered immature? Well, one reason is that when people respond at the more mature levels, it demonstrates that they can consider the consequences of their actions before they choose what actions to take. In this case, the consequences for Mr. Papelbon has been a suspension for the rest of the season, a fine of thousands of dollars, and he has been displayed on national news in a negative light, thus tarnishing his reputation. A little forethought would have led to avoiding these clearly negative consequences.

sprintNow, it is important to note that the specific negative criticism that Mr. Papelbon wanted to deliver to Mr. Hudson, was, according to my own value system, correct. Mr. Hudson does owe it to his teammates to hustle down to first base in these situations. However, I disagree with how Mr. Papelbon provided the criticism.

Mr. Papelbon, center, after lunging at Mr. Harper.
Mr. Papelbon, center, after lunging at Mr. Harper.

What would have been a more mature response? A little forethought would have led to realizing that Mr. Harper was very frustrated with his own pop out in the game. Thus, to wait until the next day would give both parties time to calm down.

Moreover, providing negative criticism to someone in front of lots of other people is often a huge mistake. Face-saving actions tend to increase defensiveness for both parties. Asking to discuss such matters in private is often a kinder, wiser approach.

Finally, Mr. Papelbon would have been wise to first consider if he was the best person to present the criticism. Usually managers of a team are the ones who are considered to have the legitimate authority to bring these types of issues up to a player. If Mr. Papelbon felt he had a particularly close relationship with Mr. Harper, or an established mentor relationship, there could be some exceptions to this general rule. Otherwise, Mr. Papelbon might have been wise to privately discuss his displeasure about his teammate’s lack of hustle with his manager and urge him to take firm action.

Sports Illustrated Article on “Abusive Coaches”

In big time sports, Mr. Papelbon is in no way the only one who provides negative criticism in a manner that matches the most immature levels of our model. In a special report of the September 28, 2015 issue of Sports Illustrated, Alexander Wolff (with reporting by Lauren Shute) writes:,

Coaches yelling“Why do college coaches continue to yell, demean and demoralize? That’s yesterday’s tactic. Today’s athletes can’t-and won’t-take it. What’s more, it doesn’t work: Study after study shows the benefits of a more positive approach.” (p. 51)

What are the negative consequences of providing negative criticism in these low maturity level styles? The Sports Illustrated writer tells us about excellent players leaving their teams, and in rare cases, committing suicide.

Many coaches have lost their jobs after an athletic director’s investigation. Over the past 28 months at least seven Division I schools have had an investigation, and then parted ways with coaches following player complaints of mistreatment.

Moreover, some colleges end up getting sued. In one case, seven former players have filed a $10 million civil suit that charges the school and coaches were fostering a racially hostile environment.

There is some relatively good news in the Sports Illustrated article. Apparently, most players are not being treated in a demeaning manner judging from one recent NCAA survey. Of Division I players, 31% of men’s basketball players and 22% of football players reported that a coach “puts me down in front of others.” Although this indicates that there is still plenty of room for improvement, it can nevertheless be viewed as a hopeful sign that most coaches are finding more positive ways to bring out quality performances in their players.

Why Do Many Coaches Continue to Use Abusive Tactics?

As reported in the Sports Illustrated article, according to Ramogi Huma, executive director to the National College Players Association, which often hears from abused athletes:

“I believe this is a cultural problem. A lot of coaches, they were hollered at and abused when they were players.” (p. 52)

coach yelling 2There is also undoubtedly a great deal of pressure on the coaches. If they don’t win, they are very likely to be replaced.

But perhaps the major reason is that coaches are not provided enough inspiring stories about how successful coaches find ways to win by fostering bonding, loyalty, and commitment to a team in a positive manner. Dramatic enthusiasm when explaining to players what specifically they can do to improve, rather than belittling them about what they did wrong, is one such positive approach. Celebrating each step toward improvement is another.

Conclusion

Thinking about what happens when immature styles of criticism occur in the world of big time sports can provide us an important lesson with regards to how we provide criticism to others in non-athletic situations. The five levels of maturity provides guidance not only to big time athletic teammates and their coaches, but also to the rest of us.

Real change from lower levels of maturity to higher levels rarely occurs from reading a single article. More typically, it requires bringing examples of people utilizing the higher level skills before one’s consciousness at least weekly for several months, and, on each of these occasions, an effort must be put forth to consider how these skills can be specifically applied to one’s own life. Following this blog is a no cost way to help make this happen.

I hope you join us again real soon.

My Best, Jeff

——————————-

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

Categories
anger conflict management conflict resolution criticism insults Islam Muslims respect Responding to Criticism

Killing People Because They Criticized Your Muslim Faith: Is It A Sign of Immaturity?

paris-rally-large-169Anyone who follows the news, has heard about the most recent terrorist act in France. This post, however looks at what occurred earlier this year against those who worked for the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.  The magazine had published articles and cartoons that criticize those who believe that the proper response to people making fun of a group’s religious beliefs is to kill them.  Although the magazine writers had poked fun at all of the major religions, it was individuals who viewed themselves as followers of the Muslim faith that actually carried out these murders.

Before I go any further, I hasten to point out that Muslim statesmen, clerics and intellectuals have condemned these awful acts.  Moreover, the vast majority of those who view themselves as Muslims are not going around murdering anyone, let alone people who voice criticism of their faith. That said, we still have laid before us on the front pages of every media outlet this particular event. I therefore am personally moved to spend some time today throwing around some relevant ideas.  Anything that I do say today in no way is meant to imply that I think Muslims, in general, are more violent-prone or immature than other people.

Violence in Response to Criticism

Regular followers of this blog well know that I have put together a tentative model of different levels of maturity for responding to criticism.  There are 5 levels.  Level one is viewed as the most immature set of responses.  Each higher level is viewed as more mature.

If you will, take a look below at the five levels of maturity and see what level of maturity best describes the actions of those who murdered the Charlie Hebdo magazine workers?

  1. This level requires displaying one or more of the following:
  • Weeps or sobs with tears or pouts unless also displaying responses consistent with either level 4 or 5.
  • Physically attacks the criticizer (regardless of whatever else is said or done)
  • Damages property (regardless of what else is said or done)

cryinglevel 1 fightLevel 1 paint

 

 

 

 

 

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

level 2-1 Level 2-2 Level 2-3

 

 

 

 

Level 2-4

 

 

 

 

                             

  1. 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.

level 3-1.jpg level 3-2.jpg.gif

 

 

                        

 

  1. Individuals at this level listen to the criticizer in a supportive, warm, friendly style, and then make it clear that they fully understand what was said.  Moreover, they put the criticizer at ease by making statements that indicate that the wise learn from criticism.  Some time is spent on showing that they are thinking about the criticism.  Level 4If, after thinking about the criticism the criticism is deemed to be correct, they make a statement frankly indicating, “I can see your ideas have merit, and I intend to use them in the future.”  If they are not sure if they agree, they make a statement indicating that they are very interested in what was said, plan to think a little more about this over the next few days and then they will be ready to discuss this further. If, after thinking about the criticism, the criticism is deemed to be incorrect, a statement is made designed to disagree without being disagreeable.  More specifically, a sense of humor, some listening in a caring way and a few smiles help to traverse rough terrain.  As the episode winds down, the criticizer is encouraged to feel comfortable communicating suggestions in the future.

 

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

 

Okay, so now that you looked over the five levels of maturity for responding to criticism, which level do you think best matches those who slaughtered the group of individuals who worked for the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo?

My Response

As I looked over the levels, the task was easy.  As far as I’m concerned, level 1 is clearly the best match.

Now some might say, why bother to put the actions of those who did the killing in a developmental framework?  For many, just calling them vile names more than suffices.

Well, one reason is that calling someone vile names doesn’t automatically point one to a description of what would be a more mature response, as a developmental model does. Additionally, if you want to talk the language of many experts in human behavior, getting away from the vile name calling fits in with their zeitgeist.

Mustafa Akyol
Mustafa Akyol

Consider Mustafa Akyol, author of Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty and the writer of yesterday’s New York Times Op-Ed titled “Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy.”  First, Mr. Akyol points out that,

The only source in Islamic law that all Muslims accept indisputably is the Quran. And, conspicuously, the Quran decrees no earthly punishment for blasphemy — or for apostasy (abandonment or renunciation of the faith), a related concept. Nor, for that matter, does the Quran command stoning, female circumcision or a ban on fine arts. 

Mr. Akyol explains that religious nationalism is guided by religious law — Shariah — which was developed over 100 of years after the Quran, and it is there that we find clauses about punishing blasphemy as a deadly sin. While Shariah is believed by many Muslims to be rooted in the divine, according to Mr. Akyol, the overwhelming majority of its injunctions are man-made, partly reflecting the values and needs of the seventh to 12th centuries — when no part of the world was liberal, and other religions, such as Christianity, also considered blasphemy a capital crime.

In contrast to Shariah law about blasphemy, the Quran tells its followers: “God has told you in the Book that when you hear God’s revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them.”

Mr. Akyol concludes his Op-Ed piece with the following:

Just “do not sit with them” — that is the response the Quran suggests for mockery. Not violence. Not even censorship.

Wise Muslim religious leaders from the entire world would do Islam a great favor if they preached and reiterated such a nonviolent and nonoppressive stance in the face of insults against Islam. That sort of instruction could also help their more intolerant coreligionists understand that rage is a sign of nothing but immaturity. The power of any faith comes not from its coercion of critics and dissenters. It comes from the moral integrity and the intellectual strength of its believers.

Notice Mr. Akyol’s last paragraph refers to immaturity, and he lays out what he views as a more mature, wiser path.  That is the type of model that I, myself, am striving to emulate.

———————

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
Abraham and Isaac Bible change conflict resolution free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum negative criticism psychological maturity wisdom

Conflict Resolution and The Wisdom of Abraham

male criticismfemale-criticsmSometimes we observe people doing things that seem terribly wrong. We may then find, welling up from within, an urgent desire to provide negative criticism.

In earlier posts, in an effort to provide some guidance on how to avoid expressing our concerns in a form that can potentially make a bad situation far worse, I provided a description of 5 levels of maturity for providing negative criticism (see HERE). In many situations, by simply attempting to create a communication that is consistent with the level 5 description, we end up dramatically improving our chance to make a valuable difference. But there are certain subtle situations that require special considerations.

world viewSometimes the actions you hope to change are intertwined with certain entrenched worldviews. In these types of situations, to expect to encourage people all at once to make what might seem to them to be some enormous change, might be way too much to expect. How better to deal with these situations? In today’s post, I’m going to present a parable that I hope you will find helpful when dealing with these types of situations.

bibleThis little parable is based on a story that appears in the bible about Abraham. I’ve taken some creative license in its telling, and based on this altered narrative, I’ve come up with a dramatically different literary interpretation of its meaning than the typical religious interpretation of the actual biblical story. For those who have a deep sense of religion, I don’t mean any disrespect. I do realize that by using a biblical story in this way I may grate upon tender associations, but I simply am unable at this point to derive any alternative that contains this story’s emotional impact. In no way am I attempting to claim that it has some sort of religious authority that some of you may feel for the actual biblical story.

With that said, I now present the story of “The Wisdom of Abraham.”

The Wisdom of Abraham

abraham1A few thousand years ago a man named Abraham lived in a village whose inhabitants followed the religion of Ba’al. The village was bound to the economy of the land that depended on the regularity and adequacy of the rains. Anxiety about the rainfall was a continuing concern of the inhabitants and this gave rise to rites to ensure the coming of the rains.

Many of the elders of the community remembered a drought that was so severe that over half the village died of starvation. After that terrible year, some of the Ba’al leadership prayed and reported that their god had spoken to them and commanded that to avoid another similar severe drought the people of the village must sacrifice a couple’s first born child. The people reluctantly obeyed, and from that point on there had never been another drought quite as bad.

Now, in this community, it came to pass that Abraham had a wife, Sara, who, after many, many frustrating years of trying, she, at long last, became pregnant. When the community members heard about this, they all gathered in the village square.

The leader of the community, Hareesh, took out a knife with a golden handle encrusted with sparkling jewels. “Abraham,” Hareesh cried out so all could hear, “after all of your difficulties in getting Sara pregnant you have finally succeeded. God will indeed appreciate your great sacrifice when your child is born. All in the village are so fortunate, for because of your great sacrifice we will surely have a wonderful rainy season and our crops will be bountiful. Let us all thank god.”

“Well, um,” Abraham began to stutter, “um, well I know that in the past it was our tradition to sacrifice our first born child, but, um…”

“Abraham!” cried Hareesh in a booming voice, “there will be no buts about this matter. You will follow the will of god!”

Abraham saw the look on the face of this leader, and he glanced quickly over the faces of the others in the village and it was plain that if he was to object any more he and his wife would be put to the fire, and so he held his tongue.

abraham and babyOn the day that Sara gave birth, all again gathered in the village square. And there stood Hareesh with the golden handled, jewel-encrusted knife. “Abraham,” he cried out, “do you want me to do the deed, or do you wish to do the deed yourself?”

“Last night,” Abraham replied, “I prayed and prayed, and then, just as I heard the first cry of my new born son, god oh mighty spoke to me and he did command me to do as other village fathers have done before me. God commanded that I indeed must sacrifice my son. Because of all that Sara and I went through to have this son, god has ordered that this sacrifice must occur in a special holy place up in the mountain in the region known as Mariah. I’m to take my best ram with me for it is a two-day journey to the special holy place and he will help to carry my supplies. I will also take two of my most capable servants. Give me the sacrificial knife and I will follow god’s commandment.”

“Abraham,” cried Hareesh as he fingered the gold handled jewel encrusted knife,” you must do the deed just as god has commanded. But bring back the dead body of your son so we can give him the respected burial he well deserves.” And then Hareesh handed the knife over to Abraham.

Abraham and ramAnd so, Abraham took his son, along with his ram, and two servants up to the mountain. A few days later he returned with his son very much alive. Following beside him was Abraham’s two servants carrying the ram, which was dead, and it had the sacrificial knife stuck in him.

As soon as Abraham had been spotted descending from the mountain, the people of the village began to gather.

“Abraham, your son is still alive!” boomed Hareesh. “What is the meaning of this?!”

“Well,” said Abraham, “I did as god had commanded. On the third day of my journey, I looked up and saw the holy place in the distance. I said to my servants, “Stay here while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then I will come back to you, having sacrificed my son, Isaac.”

“I placed my son on the holy site, and just as I reached back with the knife in my hand, the Lord called out to me from heaven, ‘Abraham! Abraham!’

“‘Here I am,’ I replied.

Abraham and Isaac“And the lord said to me, ‘Do not lay a hand on the boy. Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you are my loyal servant, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son. And I can see within you, Abraham, how hard it is to bring yourself to do this deed. I am a merciful god, and therefore, from now on no one in your village shall ever sacrifice their first born as a sacrifice for me. Instead, you must sacrifice one of your finest rams.”

“And so, I followed the lord’s commandment and, as you can plainly see, I killed the ram with the sacrificial knife.”

And as Abraham finished his story, his servants laid the dead lamb at the feet of the crowd standing before him. And suddenly a great cry rose up from one segment of the crowd, and Abraham saw that it was from all of the women who were currently pregnant. They were crying that the lord was merciful, and tears were running down their faces. They fell to their knees, yelling, Thank you oh merciful lord, thank you.” And the husbands, realizing they would not have to kill their first born, also began to cry out, “Thank you oh merciful lord, thank you!” And there followed quickly another wave of cries. This time it was from all of the young men and women who had recently married and knew that if this new change had not occurred, they too would have had to sacrifice their first born, and they were greatly pleased. And then, even the men who had sacrificed their own first born, seeing how thrilled their own young sons and daughters were at Abraham’s story, also began to thank god for being so merciful.

Now, Hareesh, and some of his followers, were somewhat skeptical of what Abraham had said, but seeing the great passionate joyful response from almost everyone in the crowd, he held his tongue. Later the leader said, “We will see how the rains come, and if there is a drought, we will know the truth.”

When the rainy season did come, there were at times some ups and downs. But, in the end, overall, there was great agreement that there had been an excellent harvest, and the people were pleased.

Abraham2The following year, one day, Abraham, who had now become greatly respected in the village, announced to the people that while he was praying, the lord once again spoke to him, saying that he saw that many of the good people of the village who dutifully sacrificed their finest ram each year, were deeply grieved upon doing so. And therefore, the lord, being merciful, has now commanded me to tell you that no longer will we have to sacrifice a ram once a year, instead we must make a sacrifice by fasting once a year for a whole day, from sundown to the next sundown.

Now, most of the people liked this new change, but there were a growing number of villagers who felt that Abraham was beginning to take them too far away from the old ways. And this feeling grew. And in those days, people felt that the only way to settle this was to set up a war council meeting, plan a date to violently fight it out, and those who survived got their way.

But, on the day of the war council meeting, Abraham had many of his biggest warriors standing beside him. And he announced that while he was praying that morning, the lord again had spoken to him and he said, “Among those who want to follow the old ways I see that there are many with beautiful souls, and are good god fearing people. And among those who want to follow you, Abraham, there are also many with beautiful souls, and are good god fearing people. Both groups must live side by side in peace. And so I command that those who want to follow the old ways are to be free to do so, and those who want to follow my instructions to you, Abraham, are to be free to do so. Let both groups live together in peace.”

Many of the villagers were perplexed by this and said, “Hmmm, we can do that? You mean we don’t have to kill each other to decide this. Those who want to live the old way can live as they wish, and others can follow god’s instructions to Abraham?”

“Yes,” said Abraham. “Now let us all go in peace.”

The villagers who had been unhappy with Abraham, looked over at the big guys that Abraham had standing beside him, they looked over at Abraham and thought he was a pretty decent guy, and they started to warm up to this idea. And as the days passed, peace was found throughout the land.

Well, that’s my post for this week.

My Best,

Jeff

——————————-

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

Categories
conflict resolution criticism free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum negative criticism respect wisdom

Dealing with Criticism: A Calvin and Hobbes Lesson

For most of us, improving our skills at dealing with criticism takes some practice. If we do this in a safe situation in which we will not expose ourselves to potential embarrassment, we can think more clearly about what is going on.  Once we become very clear about how we would like to handle various situations involving criticism, it becomes easier to apply these skills during actual critical moments.

In several previous posts, I presented ideas about recognizing when subtle forms of criticism are occurring. Let’s apply this skill as we study the following delightful comic:

Calvin and Miss Wormwood

calvin1

First Task: Here we see Miss Wormwood asking Calvin to put his stuffed tiger in his locker. As she does so, is she at the same time providing any negative criticism? Take a few seconds to answer this question and see if you can provide a defense of your position.  After you have completed your answer, I’ll provide mine.

calvin2

My Answer: In my view, Miss Wormwood does provide Calvin negative criticism when she asks him to put away his “tiger” in his locker.  It is an implied form of negative criticism, but negative criticism nevertheless.  My reason is that it seems to me that Miss Wormwood has evaluated where Calvin has placed his “tiger,” she doesn’t like it, and she has decided that she would prefer it to be placed instead in his locker.

You may recall that according to Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary “criticize” means, “1: to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly : EVALUATE”

Because “criticism” is so often associated with an unfavorable evaluation, to avoid confusion, on this blog we have been distinguishing between the various types of criticism by using the word negative criticism for unfavorable evaluations, neutral criticism for evaluations that leave the evaluator feeling neither positive nor negative about what has been evaluated, and positive criticism for favorable evaluations.

Second Task: In the next panel of the comic, Calvin responds to Miss Wormwood’s criticism.  Please take a good look at how he does so:

 calvin a

Below, I’m going to provide the first 4 levels of maturity for responding to criticism.  If you will, take a look at them and see what level best describes Calvin’s response.  After you answer, you’ll be able to compare it to mine:

Four Levels of Responding to Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.  Level 4 individuals listen to the criticizer in a supportive, warm, friendly style, and then make it clear that they fully understand what was said.  Moreover, they put the criticizer at ease by making statements that indicate that the wise learn from criticism.  Some time is spent on showing that they are thinking about the criticism.  If, after thinking about the criticism the criticism is deemed to be correct, they make a statement frankly indicating, “I can see your ideas have merit and I intend to use them in the future.”  If they are not sure if they agree, they make a statement indicating that they are very interested in what was said, plan to think a little more about this over the next few days and then they will be ready to discuss this further.  If, after thinking about the criticism, the criticism is deemed to be incorrect, a statement is made designed to disagree without being disagreeable.  More specifically, a sense of humor, some listening in a caring way and a few smiles help to traverse rough terrain.  As the episode winds down, the criticizer is encouraged to feel comfortable communicating suggestions in the future.

Okay, I’m hoping you will now make your decision at what level best matches Calvin’s response.

My Answer:  I think that somewhere between a level 2 and a level 3 makes sense to me.  Calvin appears to be shouting at Miss Wormwood, which is clearly in the level three description. At the same time it seems to me that he criticizes his teacher’s criticism without first fully addressing her original criticism, which is clearly in the level 2 description.  If I was rating Calvin’s response I would give him a 2.5. His response would have matched a higher level if he would have had something like the following exchange with his teacher:

“Miss Wormwood, I know you like to have everything we bring to show and tell put away after we’re done with that.  How come?

“This way people won’t be tripping over stuff and the class is more neat.”

“Oh, that makes sense.  But I don’t like to put Hobbes in the locker because he might suffocate.  Can you please make an exception today.”

If Calvin had this type of conversation with his teacher, he would have first made sure he understood his teacher’s criticism and then respond directly to what her position was.  Only after doing this, Calvin would have then moved on to respectfully make his request.  Such an approach would have done an excellent job matching the level 4 description.

Third Task:  In the above comic, when Calvin finishes up his response to Miss Wormwood’s criticism, he criticizes her polite request to put his “tiger”in his locker by crying out that “He’ll suffocate!”  Miss Wormwood then responds to this criticism.  Take a good look at her response:

calvin a

I would now like you to see if you can decide what level of responding to criticism best matches Miss Wormwood’s response.  To help you out, you can check the 4 levels that I already provided above, and, below, I’m going to also provide the description of level 5, which is the most mature level.

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

My Response: As I go about considering what level I would assign her response, first I notice that Miss Wormwood has not hit Calvin or put him down in any way and has heard out what Calvin had to say. Her response makes it pretty clear that she understands Calvin’s concern because she is no longer asking him to put Hobbes in his locker and has instead made a request that may be more agreeable to Calvin. This turns out to be a modified request Calvin can live with. Miss Wormwood has offered this change in her request even though she is unlikely to have agreed with Calvin that his stuffed tiger will suffocate if he is put in a locker.

Miss Wormwood uses steering in the direction the criticizer would prefer to go in coming up with her response. I’m rating her response pretty close to a 5.

Well, I hope you had some fun with this little practice session.  Until next time, may you find all of your criticism experiences a window to wisdom.

——————–
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
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

Categories
anger conflict management conflict resolution criticism emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts MATURITY negative criticism psychological maturity social intelligence Uncategorized wisdom

THE MOST MATURE LEVEL OF RESPONDING TO CRITICISM: ADVANCE LESSON

criticismAre there different levels of maturity for responding to criticism?  If so, what is the most mature level?

Over recent weeks we have been pursuing an answer to these questions (see for example, Responding to Criticism: Four Levels of Maturity and Responding to Criticism: The Most Mature Level).   During this pursuit, I put forth a tentative proposal for a most mature level because I think that’s a good way to get into these types of questions.  Not only have I described what I think is the most mature level, I have presented arguments against this most mature level and arguments for it.

When I have taught these types of lessons in a classroom setting, despite all that I have already said on this topic, many of my students continue to raise some additional questions.  And so, in this post I will try to clarify some points of confusion that have been brought to my attention by my students over the years.

Clarifying the Difference Between a Pawn and an Origin.

Responding to criticism at the most mature level requires that we seek to lead the criticizer to feel more like an origin than a pawn.

pawnMany of my students have asked me to talk more about this point.

When people feel like pawns, they feel pushed around, and they feel that they are like puppets with someone else pulling the strings.  Somewhere in our hearts and minds we realize that bossy people create a revolt against perceived illegitimate power.  Calvin’s father, in the following comic, begins to realize this.

Calvin and Hobbes steeringFeeling like a pawn may be contrasted with feeling like I have an influence over what I do—that I have played at least a part in originating my behavior.

When you respond to criticism at the most mature level, you seek to come across as “not being bossy.”  By trying to come up with some way to steer in the direction of the criticism,  you come across as showing that you can be influenced by the person who is criticizing you.

Providing More Examples of Steering

After explaining a little more about the difference between feeling like a pawn and feeling like an origin, many of my students ask me to provide some more examples of people using steering.

teacher3In the DeCharms study I discussed earlier (Pawns in The Classroom), teachers who had learned to steer put fifteen minutes aside once a week to ask students to criticize how things are going during the week.  The teachers in the study didn’t actually use the word “criticize.”  The students were asked to provide “suggestions.”  Suggestions, as we have discussed are, in a sense, criticism because people only make suggestions when they first make some sort of evaluation of what they perceive.  Based on the evaluation, they then declare what they think might be an improvement.

The teachers were taught to listen to the student suggestions in a manner very similar to the description of level four on the five levels rating system. However, when teachers who use steering feel a suggestion does not make sense they do not merely attempt to disagree without being disagreeable.  Instead, they try to use some aspect of the suggestion so the student feels the suggestion has been taken seriously.

teacher2For example, let’s say a student suggests that if the class works hard all day, the last hour should be free time.  Suppose the teacher, let’s call her Mrs. Jones, feels that a daily hour of free time would waste too much learning time.  Mrs. Jones can still steer in the direction of the suggestion.  That is, she can explain her concern about wasting too much time; then she can propose that if by the end of the week the students had done a spectacular job all week long, the last hour on Fridays they will be given the freedom to choose either to get a head start on homework, write in their journal, or read a library book; then, after proposing this, Mrs. Jones asks the class if they want to give this a try.  Notice that she is using the student’s suggestion of free time to influence where she steers the activities for the week.

Steering frequently ends up with the criticized person offering some type of choice to the criticizer.  But there is a difference between providing a choice using a steering model and offering a choice in general.  teacher4Consider a teacher who offers a choice to a student by saying, “Either you do the assignment or fail the course.  Those are your choices.”   This is not an example of steering.  Nor is this—a teacher says, “I’m giving you a choice between playing ‘Math Blaster’ or ‘Race to the Moon.’  Hurry up and pick one, I don’t have all day!”

A teacher who is using steering would be more likely to say something like, “Here are two games that teach some math skills.  Which one do you think would be best for you?”  Notice the difference in attitude between the approaches.  In the first two examples, the choice may not be perceived as a genuine choice but more of a demand to pick either one or the other.  In the Peanuts comic below, we get a sense of how strong a reaction can occur when a child comes to believe the choice he or she is given is not really genuine.

Peanuts AUGH!Steering by teachers demonstrates a degree of respect in that the teacher is genuinely interested in the student’s opinion and is willing to have that opinion count in deciding what will be done.

Here’s an example involving a father and his son.

For Better, steeringIn the For better or for Worse comic, Michael criticizes his father’s decision that it’s time to go to bed.  The father, no doubt, disagrees with his son’s criticism.  Yet, rather than just saying his son is wrong, he seeks instead to come up with a way that utilizes some aspect of his son’s criticism to come up with a new alternative.

I think that the father, by asking his son to ask EVERY kid in town about bedtimes was unreasonable, but I trust that you get the point I’m trying to make in this example.

In the Luann comic below, Knute’s effort to work out what to do on his upcoming date with Crystal is evident.

Luann steeringKnute’s effort to find something to do that they will both like probably will be far more helpful in establishing a relationship with Crystal than if he insists on taking her to a monster truck rally.

Now, some people confuse steering with compromise.  Steering can involve a compromise, but oftentimes it leads to something better than a compromise.  The classic example of a compromise occurs when someone wants to buy something, let’s say a used car.  The car dealership wants ten thousand dollars for the car, but the buyer wants to pay only five thousand dollars for it.  In the end, they settle on $7,500.  Both parties don’t end up getting quite what they had hoped, but they settle so they can close the deal.  Both parties may walk away a little disappointed.

Oftentimes, when steering occurs, neither party is disappointed.

Steering envisions that the person criticized makes an effort to see if there is some way out of the conflict, a way where two opposing views can be reframed into an original and larger context that provides new values to both parties.  This may be difficult and at times not always possible or desirable, but as we move along, I hope to show that it is possible far more often than commonly believed.

Rudyard Kipling’s Poem, If

kipling

Back in 1897, Rudyard Kipling wrote one of his most famous poems—If.  Relevant to our discussion is the part that says:

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise…

Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

When someone is blaming, doubting, hating, or lying about you, they very likely are criticizing you and in a rather unflattering manner.  How would it be best to respond to this?

Among the things Mr. Kipling encourages you to do is to keep your head even when others are losing theirs—admittedly, not always an easy thing to do.  He urges you to trust yourself when all doubt you and make allowance for their doubting too.  I’m not sure I completely agree with this, for spending some time in doubt seems to prod me, at times, to consider some important alternatives—but I think I have some sense of what he was trying to get at here.

Although I’m tempted to analyze Kipling’s poetry with a fine tooth comb, the thing about poetry is that the poet seeks to capture more than what can be analyzed.  With just the right mixture of words and phrasing, Kipling strove to capture a certain subtle emotion and attitude.

I present the poem for your consideration in hopes that you will see that there is something in it that captures the emotion and attitude of the two highest levels of the five levels rating system.  If you read the poem a couple of times and then the description of the two highest levels, you may find, when taken together, that they share a truth beyond words.

Well, that’s today’s lesson.  I hope you enjoyed it.

———————

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
conflict resolution criticism free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum interpersonal conflicts MATURITY wisdom

RESPONDING TO CRITICISM: DEFENDING THE MOST MATURE LEVEL

Welcome to From Insults to Respect. 

Most people would agree that some people are less skillful at handling criticism than others.

dilbert suggestion

Those following this blog well know that I have been encouraging readers to be able to recognize five levels of maturity for responding to criticism.  As I began my efforts, first I provided a lesson about the first four levels of maturity (see Responding to Criticism: Four Levels of Maturity).

In that post, I described level 4 as follows:

4.  Level 4 individuals listen to the criticizer in a supportive, warm, friendly style, and then make it clear that they fully understand what was said.  Moreover, they put the criticizer at ease by making statements that indicate that the wise learn from criticism.  Some time is spent on showing that they are thinking about the criticism.  If, after thinking about the criticism the criticism is deemed to be correct, they make a statement frankly indicating, “I can see your ideas have merit and I intend to use them in the future.”  If they are not sure if they agree, they make a statement indicating that they are very interested in what was said, plan to think a little more about this over the next few days and then they will be ready to discuss this further.  If, after thinking about the criticism, the criticism is deemed to be incorrect, a statement is made designed to disagree without being disagreeable.  More specifically, a sense of humor, some listening in a caring way and a few smiles help to traverse rough terrain.  As the episode winds down, the criticizer is encouraged to feel comfortable communicating suggestions in the future.

After describing all four levels, I explained why the ordering of the four levels makes some sense. For example, I explained how I had made a lot of TV shows with a variety of actors.

In each show the actors respond to criticism in different ways.  Then I asked others to watch the shows.  Together, we discussed their reactions to the way the people in the video recordings handle the criticism.

I soon became very familiar with what people like and respect when it comes to responding to criticism.  This helped me to come up with four different ways to handle criticism.  I put them in order from the least respected to the most respected.  Level one is the least liked.  Each higher level is viewed as more mature, likable, and respected by those who watched the video recordings.

Unlike the first four levels of maturity, it is not as easy to make video recordings of people displaying a level 5 response because quite a bit of this level’s response occurs up in the head of the responder.  To understand this better, let’s briefly review the level 5 response (For a complete description of level 5 see Responding to Criticism: The Most Mature Level).

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

Here’s a quick example of someone responding to criticism at level 5.  My wife, Andrea, and I are getting dressed to go to a party.  When Andrea sees what shirt I put on, she criticizes my choice, saying, “That’s not quite right for this occasion.”As I prepare my response in my mind, I realize that I disagree with her.  But before I begin to disagree with her, while at the same time trying not to be disagreeable or defensive, I silently ask myself, “Is there someway I can steer in the direction of Andrea’s criticism?”

I quickly realize that I have two other shirts that I would enjoy wearing to this party as much as the one I initially picked out.  And so, I pulled them out of my closet and said to Andrea, “Well, if you don’t like the one I picked out for this evening, how about either of these two?”

“Oh,” she says, “the one on the left would be perfect.  Thanks dear.”

And so, from this example, you can readily see that a good part of my response occurs in my head as I tried in my mind to come up with an option that both Andrea and I would end up feeling comfortable.  Said a little differently, I searched my mind to see if I could find a win-win response to her criticism.

To illustrate my using a level 5 response, I could use some type of a gimmick such as having me strike a classic pose of someone thinking and then my head would appear above me, and it would start to speak the words I’m supposedly thinking.  This has been done effectively in the movies, but it’s just not as clean an approach as the one I used to demonstrate the validity of the first four levels, and I’m not sure how to go about creating the special effect of the extra head gimmick.  And so I’m going to defend level 5 in another manner.

Originally, I had formulated the current five levels system as a four levels system, but when I heard Professor Richard deCharms speak at a conference back in 1977, he convinced me to add the fifth level.  He spoke about how most teachers treat their students like pawns, rather than origins.

pawn

When people feel like pawns, they feel pushed around, and they feel that they are like puppets with someone else pulling the strings.

Feeling like a pawn may be contrasted with feeling like I have an influence over what I do—that I have played at least a part in originating my behavior.  Such a feeling, Professor deCharms told the audience, is what he called, “feeling like an origin.”

An idea that is similar to the one Professor deCharms describes has been referred to as the powerless versus empowerment spectrum.  People who perceive themselves powerless often experience alienation or reactance against those perceived as the bosses.

Dilbert boss

In the business world, leaders attempt to get their subordinates to “buy into a plan” by asking for their feedback and trying to use their suggestions as best as they can to strengthen the plan.  This strategy doesn’t always work, but leaders know that it has the potential to improve the process of implementing the plan.

To see what happens when teachers act in ways that are designed to lead students to feel like origins, Professor deCharms and his colleagues designed a project that provided a unique training program to inner-city teachers.  His findings are dramatic.[1]

  • Academic achievement as measured by standardized tests was significantly better in the classrooms after the teachers received the training.  In fifth grade, the children in this inner-city district were typically more than one-half year behind national norms in grade equivalent scores.  This downward trend continued in the children who had teachers who did not receive the training so that by eighth grade they were a year behind national norms.  The trend was reversed for the children who had the trained teachers to the point that they gained, on average, more than a full year between the end of sixth grade and the end of seventh grade and maintained their advantage through eighth grade.
  • School attendance and punctuality were positively affected in the classes with trained teachers.

More recent studies[2] provide further evidence that students are more likely to act in accordance with group decisions or school rules if they have participated in forming them.

Steering not only improves learning and behavior but health outcomes as well.  In a remarkable series of studies at a nursing home,[3] elderly residents were each given a choice of houseplants to care for and were asked to make a number of small decisions about their daily routines.  Nurses were taught to steer in the directions the residents requested.  For example, residents requested a movie be provided each evening in the community room.  Although there was inadequate funds for this, the nurses did increase the number of movies that were shown from occasionally, to once per week.  A year and a half later, not only were the residents who had nurses that learned to steer more cheerful, active, and alert than a similar group in the same institution who were not given these choices and responsibilities, but many more of them were still alive.  In fact, less than half as many of the decision-making, plant-minding residents had died as had those in the other group.

Some people, when they first hear about steering, express concern because it seems to them that it requires that they give up on holding fast to their treasured ideals.  “It is just designed to promote conformity!” claimed a student.  “If a teacher criticizes the length of my hair, if I don’t cut it a little shorter, does that make me immature?”

“I’m against war,” said another student.  “With steering does that mean that to be mature I must come to a position that holds that a little killing is okay?  Steering means that the only proper ideal is to be middle of the road, a position that I despise.”

My response to these examples is to explain that I am not proposing that every time you are criticized you must make some change.  Steering envisions that the person criticized makes an effort to see if there is some way out of the conflict, a way where two opposing views can be reframed into an original and larger context that provides new values to both parties.  This may be difficult and at times not always possible or desirable, but as we move along, I hope to show that it is possible far more often than commonly believed.

[1] Richard deCharms, Enhancing Motivation: Change In the Classroom, New York: Irvington Publishers, 1976.

[2] N. Way, & M. G. Robinson, 2003, “Effects of Perceived Family, Friends, and School Experiences on Change in Self-Esteem among Urban, Low-SES Adolescents,” Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 324-346.  M. Wang, 2009,

“School Climate Support for Behavioral and Psychological Adjustment:  Testing the Mediating Effect of Social Competence,” School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 240-251.

[3]E. J. Langer and J. Rodin, 1976, The Effects of Choice and Enhanced Personal Responsibility for the Aged: A Field Experiment in an Institutional Setting, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(2), 191-198; J. Rodin and E. J. Langer Rodin, 1977, Long-Term Effects of a Control-Relevant Intervention with the Institutionalized Aged, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(12), 897-902.

———————

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
anger comic strip conflict management conflict resolution criticism emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults intrapersonal conflicts psychological maturity social intelligence types of criticism wisdom

CRITICIZING YOURSELF MATURELY: A LESSON FROM BLONDIE

Over the course of the last few weeks I presented some lessons that aim to get you to think about immature and mature ways to provide negative criticism to yourself (see CRITICIZING YOURSELF: FIVE LEVELS OF MATURITY and CRITICIZING YOURSELF MATURELY: A COMIC STRIP LOVER’S GUIDE). As I’ve pointed out on many occasions, becoming a master at utilizing the higher levels of maturity takes more than just thinking about them on a single day.  It requires some practice utilizing the concepts over several occasions.  And so, from time to time, I insert a little practice session to remind you of the previously presented ideas and to give you a little practice utilizing them.  Today, we will take a look at a Blondie comic example.  There, you will find that after Dagwood gives Blondie a statue she sees as ugly, she criticizes herself.  Please take a look at her response to her self-criticism, and see if you think she handled it maturely.

blondie intra 1blondie intra 2blondie intra 3blondie intra 4blondie intra 5blondie intra 6blondie intra 7 blondie intra 8blondie intra 9

As you think about how maturely Blondie criticizes herself in this comic, perhaps it would be of help to look at the five levels of providing criticism that we discussed earlier:

  1. This level requires displaying one or more of the following:
  • Cries without stating what the crying is about
  • Physically attacks themselves
  • Damages property

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

  • They do not explain what the offending behavior is, but instead express displeasure with glares, insults, shouting, silence, or threats that do not involve bodily harm. (For example, calling themselves a jerk”)
  • Threatens bodily harm regardless of what else is said.    

    3.  The criticizer clearly states the criticism with enough detail so the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance, but couples it with glares, insults, shouts, or threats that are not about bodily harm.        

4.  The criticizer states the criticism without bodily attacks, damaging property, glares, insults, threats, or shouts, and with enough details so that the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance.  If the person becomes defensive or angry, the criticizer empathizes without returning, glares, insults, threats, or shouts.        

5.  When the criticizer provides criticism, he or she does so in a manner very similar to a level four response, but beforehand, the criticizer considers the situation that he or she is in.  As a result of such considerations, the criticizer may decide to alter the criticism.

Now that you refreshed your memory of the five levels, does any one of them seem to match how Blondie criticized herself?  Think about this, if you will, and then you can have some fun comparing your thoughts with mine.

My answer:  Obviously, what we see is not meant to display Blondie’s whole response, but there is enough here to hazard a guess for our educational goal of familiarizing readers with the maturity rating system.

blondie intra 6Blondie frames her feeling as “terrible.”  It would be a sign of higher maturity if she conceptualized her experience instead as “sad” and “a valuable emotion that will lead to her thinking more deeply about something very important to her—her relationship with her husband.”

We know from what we see here and from observing her behavior over the years that Blondie is a very caring person.  So, perhaps she is the type to be compassionate toward her own limitations.  She doesn’t hit herself, so she may not be at level 1.  In the last box, she may be crying and this would indicate her response deserves a level 1 rating unless she also displays some set of responses that deserves a higher rating.

When Blondie calls herself insensitive, it comes pretty close to matching level 2.   Admittedly, this is a tricky call.  One reason for the difficulty is that she might not be really insulting herself at this point.  Instead, she might be displaying the process of thinking through the best course of action for herself.   That is, she might be laying out for her consideration the value of being considerate.

If she had obviously put herself down by calling herself a rat for example, this response would be easier to rate as a level 2.  But the descriptor, “insensitive,” is very relevant to what concerns her about her actions.  I like her concern for her husband.  I view empathy as a sign of higher levels of maturity.

blondie intra 9In the last frame, she is taking some time to deal with her challenging experience.  Maybe she is actually using the “sensory focus” technique we recently discussed (see DEALING WITH EMOTIONAL PAIN).  “Sensory focus” involves turning your attention to the physical qualities of the pain and observing the sensations you are experiencing.  This can convert challenging feelings into a search that leads to ever higher levels of truth.

I think this is where we leave Blondie in the comic we are analyzing.  Without being able to discuss this episode with her or to observe further how the events continue to unfold, I’m going to just take a very tentative guess that she is indeed trying to figure out how to respond in a sensitive way toward Dagwood, and that she will not really insult herself.  In time, she probably would have displayed a response very close to a level 4 or 5.

Thanks for visiting today.  I hope to see you soon.

——————————-

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.