Tag: negative criticism

Dr. Thomas Szasz and Psychiatric Name Calling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

———————

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

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

anger conflict management conflict resolution emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum negative criticism perfectionism providing criticism suicide

Suicide, Perfectionism, and Criticism

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date October 20, 2014
7 Comments on Suicide, Perfectionism, and Criticism

Sometimes I’m asked why I write so much about dealing with criticism. The answer mostly has to do with the types of concerns that have been expressed to me over the years. Some involve the desire to be liked and respected. Others have to do with seeking to gain control over anger. And still others come from parents who find that how they go about disciplining their children has been a serious source of stress in their lives. Providing and responding to criticism in a pleasant, thoughtful manner involves skills that can be learned fairly quickly, and are clearly helpful when addressing these types of concerns.

Additionally, conflicts that bring forth negative criticism, if handled in an immature manner, can escalate and result in a destructive relationship between parent and child, the parting of a relationship between two valued friends, the loss of a job, serious injury, and prison time. And then there is the relationship between certain ways that people handle criticism and suicide.

In an earlier post, titled “Teenage Suicide and Cyberbullying: A Case Study,” I wrote about 12-year-old Rebecca Sedwick who had leaped to her death after more than a year of being incessantly criticized by a coterie of 15 middle-school children. Today, once again I take up the subject of the relationship between criticism and suicide because of an article I just read in this September’s Review of General Psychology by Gordon L. Flett, Paul L. Hewitt, and Marnin J Heisel titled, “The Destructiveness of Perfectionism Revisited: Implications for the Assessment of Suicide Risk and the Prevention of Suicide.” It’s written for research-minded people and has far more nuanced information than I can share in a single blog post designed for the general reader. Nevertheless, I’m going to summarize a few of its key points for I think they are very much worth considering as we move forward in our quest to become masters at dealing with name calling, insults and teasing.

Suicide and Criticism

The media is filled with stories about the Ebola virus, which has so far killed close to 4,000 people worldwide, and one person in North America. In contrast, it is estimated that over one million people worldwide, including 40,000 people in North America, kill themselves on an annual basis. Recent U.S. data indicate that suicide is the second leading cause of death among people who are under 40 years of age. For every person who commits suicide, several more attempt it, resulting in anguish for family and friends, and financial costs from emergency room and aftercare services that are estimated to be several billion dollars.

Of course, there are a number of reasons why people kill themselves, but the article I just read makes the following argument:

Chronic exposure to situations and contexts that place excessive pressure (or percieved pressure) on the individual to be perfect can have a destructive effect on most individuals and this is heightened among those people who are vulnerable and hypersensitive to criticism and social comparison feedback. Consider, for instance, the vulnerable perfectionist exposed regularly to a hypercritical parent, (boss/supervisor) or romantic partner who is ever-present and seemingly impossible to please. Alternatively, the vulnerable perfectionist may have a work environment where mistakes are simply not allowed and excessive standards are required by a tyrannical boss.

Now, I hasten to point out that most parents, bosses and supervisors who encourage quality performance don’t cause anyone to commit suicide. Moreover, the vast majority of people who may view themselves as perfectionists, even those who see themselves as particularly sensitive to criticism, don’t end up killing themselves. Nevertheless, the consistent evidence from studies that link suicide behavior with chronic exposure to external pressure to be perfect and the relationship between perfectionistic characteristics and an increased risk of lethal suicide behavior leads one to pause. Perhaps there may be some ways to encourage quality performance without increasing suicide risks.

Ideas about Prevention

Many people who view themselves as perfectionists tend to remain silent about any despair that they may experience. And those who demand that their children or workers be perfect don’t see anything wrong with this. So these people are unlikely to show up and ask to learn some skills to improve their behavior. Prevention programs, therefore, must be designed proactively and implemented broadly to reach these people. Schools, colleges and business organizations, if they are to impact people at risk, must provide education about these issues to their entire population. Thus, Flett and his colleagues recommend the following key themes be incorporated into school-based programs:

(a) fostering self-acceptance and compassion instead of experiencing shame and self-criticism; (b) promoting appropriate goal-setting and goal appraisal versus setting and maintaining impossible standards; (c) combating ambivalence about giving up the need to be perfect since the distressed perfectionist must be highly motivated to change; and (d) developing resilience to feelings of shame and ability to cope with interpersonal conflict and feelings of being rejected by others.

For the work environment, Flett and his colleagues state:

Prevention efforts should include an organizational focus on reducing pressures to be perfect. When perfectionism prevails as part of the culture and values of the workplace, it tends to promote poorer performance rather than superior performance (Gillett & Stenfert-Kroese, 2003) and it is linked with job dissatisfaction, poorer communication quality, role conflict, reduced likelihood of staying, and a poorer perceived fit between the person and the work environment (Balthazard, Cooke, & Potter, 2006; Rousseau, 1990).

Although, as a general statement, these ideas are worthwhile to think about, a far more detailed process is necessary to foster the goals of these researchers. For those who can afford counseling services designed to teach self compassion, along with addressing each individual’s concerns, I recommend working with either of the two counselors described HERE. For those who can’t access counseling services because of the financial costs, although not as ideal as direct one to one counseling, there is available for free a curriculum that teaches the necessary skills at this blog site (see below).

——————————-

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

Tags Assessment of Suicide Risk, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, Gordon L. Flett, insults, negative criticism, perfectionism, relationship, suicide, violence

conflict management conflict resolution criticism emotional intelligence feedback free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum interpersonal conflicts providing criticism providing negative criticism psychological maturity

Providing Negative Criticism: The Newest Guidelines

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date October 13, 2014
No Comments on Providing Negative Criticism: The Newest Guidelines

Readers of this blog well know that I often discuss immature and mature ways to provide negative criticism. Originally, I presented a post titled PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM: FIVE LEVELS OF MATURITY. There, in addition to providing an outline of what I believed was a good starting point to think about this topic, I asked readers for suggestions on how the outline could be improved. Many readers were not at all shy. While this was going on, I continued my own reading, and from time to time, I shared what I had learned. And now, just this week on the internet, I came upon an article that provided a new set of guidelines. I kind of like them, and therefore, decided to see what kind of reaction they might lead to. But first let’s quickly review what we already covered.

THE ORIGINAL FIVE LEVELS OF MATURITY FOR PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM

Below you will find preliminary descriptions of how people at five developmental levels of maturity provide negative criticism, that is, criticism that points out what we don’t like about someone’s actions, beliefs, or appearance. Level one is the most immature and uses observations of babies as its starting point. Each successive level is more mature:

This level requires displaying one or more of the following:

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

Although these three descriptors may not sound like providing criticism, in some situations we can see that it is the very beginning of the development of this skill. Let’s say Jill takes baby Bob’s crayon away believing he is done with it. Bob begins to cry and takes a swipe at Jill. She manages, by moving away, to avoid Bob’s swipe. Bob now looks even angrier and crumbles up a piece of paper and flings it on the floor. An observer to this may conclude that Bob, in a sense, is criticizing Jill for taking the crayon.

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

The criticizer does not explain what the offending behavior is, but instead expresses displeasure with glares, insults, shouting, silence, or threats that do not involve bodily harm. (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. 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 receiving the criticism 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 person who is the target of the criticism and the situation that he or she is in. As a result of such considerations, the criticizer may decide to alter the criticism.

IDEAS THAT FOLLOWED

After proposing the five levels of maturity, several additional ideas came my way. One person suggested:

Hey there. One thing that potentially could be even better than a level 5 way to provide criticism would be to ask the person permission to offer them a criticism. You could say like, “hey, would it be alright if I make an observation about the way you handled that situation” or “do you mind if I offer you a couple constructive criticisms about your song” or whatever. Then, if the person says yes, they won’t feel like they are being attacked because they’ve given consent. Or they’ll have the opportunity to say “you know what? I’m really sort of feeling on edge so maybe another time would be better for us to talk.” That way, instead of gauging for yourself whether or not the person is in a state to tolerate the criticism, you can let them decide for themselves. What do you think about this idea?

I responded:

I like your idea. It goes along with considering person variables. For me, personally, I’m almost always up to hearing criticism, even if it may sting. Therefore, always asking me for permission would eventually become tiresome. But until you know someone well, starting off the relationship as you suggest, makes sense. And if, in time, you learn the person is very sensitive about criticism, continuing asking for permission would be the wise course of action.

Others argued that unless you are invited to provide criticism, you should keep your mouth shut. And others argued that even if you are invited to provide criticism, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all. I address these issues in a post titled, UNSOLICITED CRITICISM: GOOD OR BAD? Very briefly, I agreed that these ideas were worthwhile to consider before providing criticism, but after this consideration there were times when providing uninvited criticism makes sense.

In a post titled “PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM: A LESSON FROM THOMAS JEFFERSON” I explained that recently I had been reading an excellent biography of Jefferson by Jon Meacham. There, I learned that early in a relationship Jefferson typically avoided mentioning any fault in his new companion. He felt that later, once the relationship was well developed, was a better time to discuss differences of opinion. As Meacham describes Jefferson’s style, “people often talk too much and listen too little, which can be self-defeating, for in many instances the surer route to winning a friend is not to convince them that you are right but that you care what they think. Everyone wants to believe that what they have to say is fascinating, illuminating, and possibly even epochal.” In that line of thinking, Jefferson advised a daughter: “Much better…if our companion views a thing in a light different from what we do, to leave him in quiet possession of his view. What is the use of rectifying him if the thing be unimportant; and if important let it pass for the present, and wait a softer moment and more conciliatory occasion of revising the subject together.” Now Jefferson clearly recognized there was exceptions to this general rule, but nevertheless it makes a great deal of sense that whenever we are tempted to provide negative criticism careful consideration of this idea makes sense.

Another set of comments came from a few parents who argued that although the five levels of maturity made sense when adults were interacting with other adults, when parents provided negative criticism to their children, yelling, and even hitting were perfectly permissible. I responded to this in a post titled, PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM: DEFENDING THE FIVE LEVELS. The issues this raises are simply too complicated to summarize here, so I’ll just refer interested readers to that post.

Finally, someone on Facebook presented the idea that it is helpful to use the sandwich approach to providing negative criticism. Here you begin with a slice of some positive comment, then you put on top of that the negative criticism, and then, on top of that, you provide another slice of positive criticism.

OK! So, basically, in a very abbreviated manner, those are some ideas we have already discussed. Now, to a new set of guidelines.

Philosopher Daniel Dennett’s Approach to Providing Negative Criticism

Recently on the internet I came upon a post by Maria Popova titled, “How to Criticize with Kindness: Philosopher Daniel Dennett on the Four Steps to Arguing Intelligently.” There I learned that Mr. Dennett has provided the following guidelines for composing a successful critical commentary:

You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

I kind of like this. Whereas it is not inconsistent with the original five levels of providing negative criticism, it provides some additional ideas to consider.

Over the course of a week or two I’ll come up with some specific examples that demonstrate Dennett’s approach. Until then, my best wishes to you all,

Jeff

———————

Tags conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, Daniel Dennett, dispute management, feedback, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, negative criticism, providing criticism, psychological maturity, respect, Thomas Jefferson

assertiveness conflict management conflict resolution criticism empathy fairness free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts negative criticism respect types of criticism Uncategorized

Women and Criticism

On this blog, I often discuss immature and mature ways to deal with criticism. The advice that I offer is designed to be helpful to males and females alike. But recently, in an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, Tara Mohr argues that when it comes to criticism, women can benefit from advice specifically targeted to the unique cultural situation that they find themselves in.

The New York Times Article

Ms Mohr, in her thoughtful article titled “Learning to Love Criticism,” tells us:

Criticism stings for all of us, but women have been socialized to not rock the boat, to be, above all else, likable. By the time a girl reaches adolescence, she’ll most likely have watched hundreds of films, television shows and advertisements in which a woman’s destiny is determined not by her own choices but by how she is perceived by others. In those hundreds of stories, we get the message: What other people think and say about us matters, a lot.

In addition to these messages in the media, for centuries women have had less rights than men. Being likable, or at least acceptable to stronger, more powerful men, became a primary survival strategy. For many women around the world, this is still the reality.

Given this history, we might think that women have mastered the skills to insure that they are liked, but in the business world there is some evidence that problems exist.

A Recent Survey

In a recent survey that looked at 248 performance reviews from 28 different companies, both men and women gave more negative feedback to the women being reviewed. Here are a few examples:

“You can come across as abrasive sometimes. I know you don’t mean to, but you need to pay attention to your tone.”

“Your peers sometimes feel that you don’t leave them enough room. Sometimes you need to step back to let others shine.”

“The presentation ultimately went well. But along the way, we discovered many areas for improvement. You would have had an easier time if you had been less judgmental about R—‘s contributions from the beginning.”

This kind of negative criticism showed up twice in the 83 critical reviews received by men. It showed up in 71 of the 94 critical reviews received by women.

There are three possibilities that present themselves here:

1. The women received more negative criticism despite not acting in any distinctively different way than the men because of distinctively different expectations of how women “should” act;

2. The women who received more negative reviews actually acted distinctly different in certain ways than the men and it is these differences that led to the additional negative criticism;

3. It is a little of both.

An Informal Survey

Interestingly, from my perspective, are the results of an informal survey of someone I know who was intimately involved in evaluating and promoting personnel. Here, early criticism was about equal between men and women, but more women took the negative criticism they received to heart and made changes prior to their following evaluation. This ultimately led to their promotions. The majority of the men who got negative feedback seemed uninterested in making any changes and subsequently lost their opportunity for promotion.

From this, I think that it is not only possible, but perhaps even probable, that despite the pattern suggested in the more thorough survey, there is great variability across settings.

Some bosses may have an archtype that a great leader is a tough, no nonsense person who only projects a demanding sense of profits. Such an attitude will provoke a very different style of criticism around the office than one that supports the idea working for profits doesn’t have to mean that we must abandon basic principles of human dignity.

Let me just add that the person involved in providing and promoting personnel in the informal survey happened to be a master at providing very specific feedback. Consider the example provided above in which someone stated in a review:

“You can come across as abrasive sometimes. I know you don’t mean to, but you need to pay attention to your tone.”

Such a statement potentially can be helpful as one looks within and seeks to come up with a less abrasive way to respond in situations. However, the feedback would be far better if a supervisor, let’s call him Bill, invited a subordinate, let’s call her Mary, to a one-on-one meeting shortly after an abrasive incident occurred. At that meeting, Bill does several things. He gently explains that he is about to imitate how Mary had acted, using her tone of voice and what was said. Then, after imitating for her how she acted, he displays for her in a role-play how he would prefer she act when a similar incident arises. He then proceeds to ask Mary to imitate what he just acted out. Then he goes through this process with Mary until she can actually copy the less abrasive style to his satisfaction. If Bill provided this level of specific feedback, it would be potentially far more helpful then the two-sentence feedback that was actually provided.

Advice

I very much support the recommendations that Ms Mohr provides in her New York Times piece. For example, at one point she writes,

If a woman wants to do substantive work of any kind, she’s going to be criticized — with comments not just about her work but also about herself. She must develop a way of experiencing criticism that allows her to persevere in the face of it.

How can this be done? “A woman,” says Ms Mohr, “can identify another woman whose response to criticism she admires. In challenging situations, she can imagine how the admired woman might respond, and thereby see some new possible responses for herself.”

I won’t go into all of the recommendations of Ms Mohr, suffice it to say her article is well worth reading. But I do think it is essential to point out that a single article will not do the trick for most of us, women or men, who want to learn to become a master at dealing with criticism. It takes several months of regularly bringing before our minds examples of criticism, followed by a discussion of how to transform each specific example into something better. My blog provides one way to go about doing just this. Readers can begin with the introduction to this blog, and move forward at their own pace by clicking on the next newer entry post. Additionally, by reading the trilogy of novels that I’ve written, people become immersed for a few months in adventures that illustrate the struggle to seek respect even under the most trying circumstances.

Well, that’s this week’s edition of From Insults to Respect. Here’s to hoping you’ll join us again real soon.

Jeff

——————————-

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

Tags conflict, conflict management, criticism, dispute management, disrespectful, insults, negative criticism, negative feedback, New York Times Op Ed, psychological maturity, respect, Tara Mohr, types of criticism, women and criticism

anger bullying conflict management conflict resolution criticism insults internet bullying

Internet Meanies

One day I happened to be flipping through the New York Times when I came upon a story titled Dealing With Digital Cruelty by Stephenie Rosenbloom. It had been a year since I had written a post about a particularly sad incident of internet cruelty. Back then, 12-year-old Rebecca Sedwick had leaped to her death after being cyberbullied by a coterie of 15 middle-school children who urged her to kill herself. Upon reading the Times story, I decided to revisit this issue.

The Times article begins, “Anyone who has ever been online has witnessed, or been virtually walloped by, a mean comment.”

Because communication on the internet can provide anonymity and invisibility it can lead many to feel uninhibited. If someone is sitting right in front of you, there is a chance that a mean comment could lead to the insulter ending up with a fat lip or witnessing streams of tears running down a sweet face. Not so when all you see is some letters.

The Times article offers us some advice. “One way to become proactive is to ask yourself if those barbs you can’t seem to shrug off have an element of truth.” An example is provided by a writer, Mr. Pozen, who became particularly upset upon reading that his book was too “U.S.-centric.” Mr. Pozen considered that idea — and decided that the reader, despite not having put it particularly nicely, might be right. “So I thought, ‘Well, if I ever write another version of this book I ought to take that into account,’ ” he said.

While I was doing some research on this topic, I came upon another good example of this:

The writer, Gina Trapani, tells us how she would handle the following type of internet comment,

“Hey asshat, way to waste my time with a stupid article that has no original information in it whatsoever. I wish you and your web site would drop dead, dry up and blow away.”…Once I got over the name-calling and the death wish, I might ask myself: Was this article unoriginal? Could it have been more in-depth or relevant? If nothing else make a mental note of the core problem minus the meanness, learn from it and move on. Put your critics to good use instead of letting them make you feel bad.

It’s not always possible, of course, to learn something from a nasty comment. Some are baseless; some are crass.

Illustration by Credit Kristian Hammerstad — Illustration by
Kristian Hammerstad

The Times article tells us that it helps to keep in mind that some people think of their online life as a kind of game with rules and norms that don’t apply to everyday living, a game for which they do not feel responsible. If bloggers and people who use social networks keep this concept in mind, he said, they will see the psychology of aggressors, and their comments may be easier to take — and possibly ignore.

Moreover,

Harsh comments can also be made to feel less potent by directly disputing to yourself what was said. If, for example, someone writes, “You’re an idiot and no one likes you,” you can marshal evidence against it by reminding yourself, Stuart Smalley-style, of the obvious: You have an education, a job, more friends than you have time to see in a week.

Speaking of time, be mindful of when you choose to glance at your blog or social media feeds. Researchers have discovered that feeling blue or even being in a so-called neutral mood makes people more vulnerable to nasty comments. In other words: Stay off Twitter if you just bombed a presentation.

These are just a few of the thoughtful advice the article provides. If you find yourself troubled by this type of experience, I highly recommend that you give it a thorough read.

Have a great week!

Jeff

——————————-

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

Tags anger, bullies, bullying, conflict management, disrespectful, insults, internet, negative criticism, New York Times, types of criticism

conflict management conflict resolution crying MATURITY relationships social intelligence

My Answer to the Question, Are People Who Cry When Criticized Immature?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date August 10, 2014
7 Comments on My Answer to the Question, Are People Who Cry When Criticized Immature?

Recently, I wrote a post titled, “Responding to Criticism by Crying: Is it a Sign of Immaturity?” In that post I explained that I had, in earlier posts, put forth a model of how to respond maturely to criticism. To help readers to rate their own skill level, and that of others, I had outlined five levels of maturity. Level 1 was viewed as the most immature level, level 2 as a little more mature, and so on (see HERE for a full description of the first 4 levels of maturity, and see HERE for a description of level 5, the most mature level). Level 1 had been described as follows:

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

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

As you can see from this description of level 1, I had come to believe that weeping or sobbing with tears was best to view as one of the most immature responses. I then explained several reasons why I had come to believe that, but I won’t repeat them here. I then wrote that since I came up with the five levels of maturity, I had met some individuals who seem rather remarkably mature to me in many ways, and yet they had revealed to me that they find themselves crying quite often when they are criticized. They say that they are very sensitive individuals, that they don’t hurt anyone or anything when they go through this experience, and that I should consider removing crying from the description of the lowest level. As I thought about this, I thought it would help me if I propose a change to my readers, ask for feedback, and only then make my decision whether or not to make the change. I ended that post as follows:

Proposed Change

Weeping, sobbing and crying will only be viewed as the lowest level of maturity if the person responding to criticism does nothing else but that, or if he or she does that along with the other lowest level responses such as physically attacking the criticizer or damaging property. If, after crying, he or she then begins to display responses consistent with level 4 or 5, crying will no longer be viewed as a sign of immaturity.

Although I could make this change after I get some feedback, I hasten to point out that it won’t change the fact that many people will still consider crying in the face of criticism as a sign of immaturity. Some will lose respect for those who cry.

Perhaps these sensitive individuals can help to reduce the lack of respect that they might encounter. They can explain that their sensitivity helps them to more deeply consider the criticism. Moreover, they might suggest that for people who feel uncomfortable around someone crying, they can provide the criticism at first by email, snail mail or voice mail. This will allow the sensitive person time to process the criticism. Then, a follow-up meeting to further process the criticism can be arranged.

I hope to hear from readers on this.

After I published this, I received more feedback on this post than anything I had previously written. It came mostly from several Facebook groups I belong to, but also from a couple of professional organizations as well. Today I’d like to share with you several of these comments, and then provide my new description of level 1.

The Feedback

The first three comments came from psychologists.

I have read your material, and tend to agree w/ you. It appears to me to qualify for a level 1 response, as it reflects a lack of (age appropriate ) skill development (if it is not a reflection of serious cognitive inefficiency in general). It does invite further negative input from the criticizer and others. It increases the victims sense of vulnerability. There are many other alternatives which could be modeled or practiced — even if they are not available for immediate accessing by the victim. In this sense, I agree with Dr. Phil (who I many times don’t agree) “Fake it till you make it”

Dr. Charles Morrissey school psychologist and lic.clinical psychologist NY

Hi Jeff,

Your query is very intriguing to me. As a psychodynamic therapist, I have found that crying can occur when a criticism becomes associated with an old psychological wound that has yet to be fully processed (e.g., perhaps the criticism sounds like something painful someone heard from his/her mother repeatedly, but they did not recognize this past hurt until it was activated by the current criticism). I hope this example makes sense. I like your revision and think it takes into account such a consideration. I hope that helps!

Take care,

Ashley

Ashley Curiel, Psy.D.

Jeff, you write (I think correctly) that, regardless of any adjustments you make in your hierarchy, you “hasten to point out that it won’t change the fact that many people will still consider crying in the face of criticism as a sign of immaturity. Some will lose respect for those who cry.” I suspect that many will considering crying a sign of “weakness,” an even more damaging judgment than “immaturity” in many social and vocational settings. (I admit to some confusion about the strength-weakness continuum as it has sometimes been explained to me, where compassion was considered “weakness” and aggression a sign of “strength.”)

I wonder how much the context of the criticism matters in this analysis. If a grad school classmate told me I was “incredibly stupid” because I did not know some obscure fact about endocrinology, I could probably have shot at a Level 4 (well, at least 3) response, especially if I had been getting all As in my courses and making great progress on my dissertation while anticipating a return to a secure and fulfilling job. However, I might well cry upon hearing the same words from the chair of my dissertation committee a week before my defense, especially if the time limit on my doctoral program was almost exhausted, I was struggling to make payments on the second mortgage I had taken out to pay for the doctoral program, and my new job was contingent on my receiving the doctoral degree by the end of the school year.

You are obviously correct that most individuals cry less readily in the face of criticisms and other stresses as they become older, which does fit a “maturity” continuum, but there do seem to be individual differences in general readiness to cry when criticized, when singing the national anthem on Memorial Day, when watching a sad movie, or in moments of joy. Some folks also think there are gender differences involved.

Thanks for sharing these posts with us.

John Willis

The rest of the comments came from members of Facebook groups that I belong to.

Phoebe Âû Perlman-Miller

Thank you Jeffrey. I had a few thoughts about your article in so much as I think that we have to be careful about labelling someone who cries, as a response to criticism, as immature. I think context is important and needs to be appreciated, and the nature of the conflict or the criticism needs to be explained. Crying is a pretty normal response to grief, stress, sadness etc., and isn’t something that the “crier” should automatically be ashamed of or guilty about, nor is it a reaction to which the other party, or parties, should automatically attach shame or blame. We expect people to be able to manage their emotions and to control themselves physically, but sometimes I think that this expectation can be a little unreasonable although, again, context is everything. Crying is a reaction which is generally triggered by a heightened emotional state, and sometimes it is difficult, even for the most emotionally mature or emotionally intelligent person, to manage to balance out their threat and soothing/calming systems, depending on what has just been triggered for them. There are also, in genuine cases of distress (not the “crocodile” tear brigade), things going on in the automatic nervous system which make it difficult not to cry once the emotion has kicked in, such as the opening up of the glottis, the muscle controlling the opening from the back of the throat to the voice box, causing the “lump in the throat” feeling which often accompanies crying. Sipping water and deliberate yawning are techniques which help to release tension in throat muscles when this happens but I don’t imagine that these will automatically spring to mind when someone is in the middle of a conflict situation and, indeed, deliberate yawning might be taken the wrong way and exacerbate the matter. I think that a great proportion of those who cry when criticised do indeed use tears as part of an immature or manipulative or inappropriate response, because they know no other way of expressing or managing their distress or anger or fear etc., but I don’t think that it will be the case in every instance. I have known some of the most “together” and emotionally mature people to crack under sufficient levels of pressure (those who were criticising were certainly deliberately pushing buttons and hitting below the belt), and to cry despite obviously not wanting to, and they were certainly not wanting this physical manifestation of their emotional state to take centre stage in the interaction. Their response happened to be accompanied by some tears, but those tears were not central to their response, and certainly were not being used in a manipulative manner, nor were they accompanied by aggression or any other inappropriate behaviours, such as shouting or hitting or abuse of any kind. I think we need to look at the skills sets of both the criticisers and the criticised, and make a judgement based on the bigger picture – a somewhat wide-angled approach. Also, while I think that those who use tears to manipulate should not be allowed to gain any traction with such behaviour, I would hate to think that we “condition” people not to cry – there is a “stiff upper lip” stigma already in many societies which can be and is emotionally damaging, especially for men. We need to respect the fact that crying is natural and helpful and healing and cathartic, while also helping people manage their emotions and their conflicts using appropriate language and careful, respectful, assertive forms of communication.

Âûnty Jack

I think this depends a great deal on the type of criticism. Careful constructive criticism would be less likely to evoke tears especially if, for example, the sandwich technique was used – strength, need, strength. I think still, it is possible that someone who is tired and stressed might break down – perhaps consider that human if it is an atypical response. If the response to considered criticism and I am not talking about victimization, provoking, harassment or brutal comments, is always tears, the person may be highly manipulative, rather than immature.

Peter Rafferty

Sometimes a criticism may tap into something from childhood, to which the natural response is to cry. Crying could also be seen as mourning for a parent who criticised a child, but because of the child’s inability to cry in front of the parent, will cry in front of a therapist. Even if crying is accompanied by anger, it may display a need that the inner child is unconsciously displaying – perhaps an insecure, anxious attachment that needs to be addressed.

Kerrie Moor

Your level 1 change pleased me ..

Kerrie Moor

My response to many things are tears.:

Abrar Pirzada

Crying can only mean to show your sensitvity for a certain moment or thing!

Carmen Hipps Prettyman

IMO, crying releases all the pent up anguish that is toxic, it is a way to cleanse. On the other hand, it can also be an overwhelming emotion that can only be expressed through the release of the flow of tears….words just can’t express some of the emotions we feel…good or bad!!!

Franciane Thonet

Sometimes, criticism can remind someone of a bad place in their Life, re-open a wound that never was quite healed..I agree with no right or wrong here.

Ellen Cohen

Crying is natural and very human. If you feel that you want to cry as a response, then cry! Your feelings are your feelings. There’s no right or wrong feelings.

And so, those are some of the many thoughtful responses that I received. After giving them a great deal of thought, I have now decided that in future posts, when I describe the five levels of maturity, I’ll word the first level as follows: 1. This level requires displaying one or more of the following:

Weeps or sobs with tears or pouts and then does nothing else to address the criticism. (Some mature people are very sensitive and do cry on occasion when criticized. If they cry and also address the criticism in a manner that is consistent with level 4 or 5, crying is not viewed as a sign of immaturity.)
Physically attacks the criticizer
Damages property

Although this is my plan for the future, I am always open to hearing additional comments and suggestions for improving the wording of all of the five levels of maturity. 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.

Tags conflict management, conflict resolution, constructive criticism, criticism, crying, dig for the conflict, dispute management, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, negative criticism, tears, weeping

conflict management conflict resolution criticism crying free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum

Responding to Criticism by Crying: Is it a Sign of Immaturity?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date July 27, 2014
28 Comments on Responding to Criticism by Crying: Is it a Sign of Immaturity?

Readers of this blog know that I have put forth a model of how to respond maturely to criticism. To help readers to rate their own skill level, and that of others, I have, in earlier posts, outlined five levels of maturity. Level 1 is viewed as the most immature level, level 2 is viewed as a little more mature, and so on. Let’s take a quick look at the first four levels:

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.

The Most Immature Level

As you can see from the description of level 1, if you respond to criticism with weeping or sobbing with tears, this is viewed as among the responses viewed as very immature. I have placed this type of response at level 1 for three reasons.

First, I recalled that when I was very young, at times when I was criticized I would start to cry. As I became older, I didn’t cry as much to such provocations. And now, even when facing the most harsh levels of criticism, I’m pretty cool with it. From these recollections, it seemed to me that I had gone through some developmental levels as I became at least physically more mature, and part of this involved a reduction in crying when criticized.

Second, as I spoke to others, I found that this developmental change of crying less and less in the face of criticism as they became older is rather typical.

Finally, when I observed people crying in response to criticism, often people said things like the person was a cry baby or acting like a baby. Since I have argued that one reason to respond to criticism in a manner that matches the more mature levels is because it increases the respect people have for us, it didn’t make sense to put crying into one of the higher level descriptions when it appeared to decrease the respect that people had for the criers.

But, since I came up with the five levels of maturity, I have met some individuals who seem rather remarkably mature to me in many ways, and yet they have revealed to me that they find themselves crying quite often when they are criticized. They say that they are very sensitive individuals, that they don’t hurt anyone or anything when they go through this experience, and that I should consider removing crying from the description of the lowest level.

Well, therefore, let me propose a change to you, my readers, and see what you think.

Proposed Change

I hope to hear from readers on this.

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.

Tags conflict management, crying, dispute management, Five levels of responding to criticism, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, individuals, negative criticism, responding to criticism: levels of maturity

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

Dealing with Criticism: A Calvin and Hobbes Lesson

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date July 24, 2014
2 Comments on 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

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

Tags Calvin and Hobbes, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, dispute management, maturity levels, Miss Wormwood, negative criticism

army child discipline confiict management conflict management conflict resolution fairness free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum interpersonal conflicts military discipline psychological maturity relationships respect threats

Providing Criticism with Shouting, Insults and Threats: Is There a Place for It?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date June 13, 2014
7 Comments on Providing Criticism with Shouting, Insults and Threats: Is There a Place for It?

“Left turn!” hollers the drill sergeant to his new recruits.

Private Smith begins to turn right, but catches his mistake as he notices the other recruits turning in the correct manner. He manages, although a bit clumsily, to end up turning left.

“Boy, don’t you know your left from your right?” the drill sergeant shouts in Private Smith’s face.

“Yes, Drill Sergeant.”

“I’m so glad to hear that, boy!” shouts the drill sergeant. “Now listen-up you stupid maggot! If I order you to turn left, you turn left! Do you got that, boy?!”

Yes, Drill Sergeant.”

“If I catch you turning right again when I order you to turn left I’m going to have you scrubbing the latrine with a toothbrush for a week. Do you got that, boy?!”

“Yes, Drill Sergeant!”

In the above scenario, we see an example of a sergeant providing criticism, and as he does so, he shouts, insults and threatens Private Smith. The army leadership believes that for this type of situation this style of providing negative criticism is helpful.

How does the army’s views on providing negative criticism compare to mine?

Providing Negative Criticism: Comparing My Approach with that of the Army’s

Regular readers of this blog know that I have presented a post titled, “Providing Negative Criticism: Five Levels of Maturity.” If you check that post out, you will see that the sergeant’s style appears to most closely match the level 3 description, which is as follows:

Here’s an example of a style of providing negative criticism that matches level 3:

A level 4 style of providing criticism, that is, one level more mature than level 3, is described as:

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 receiving the criticism becomes defensive or angry, the criticizer empathizes without returning glares, insults, threats, or shouts.

Here’s an example of a level 4 style of providing negative criticism:

You are not likely to see anything that looks like a level 4 style of providing negative criticism coming out of a drill sergeant’s mouth during a training situation if he or she is speaking to a private.

And so, it looks like my level 5 model for providing negative criticism runs counter to the army’s view, at least in some situations. But before we conclude this, let’s first take a quick look at how a level 5 style is described:

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 person who is the target of the criticism, and the situation that he or she is in. As a result of such considerations, the criticizer may decide to alter the criticism.

As we can see, people who provide criticism in a manner consistent with level 5 are apt to do so in a manner that is very similar to the level 4 description. However, before they actually provide the criticism, they consider the person who is the target of the criticism, and the situation that he or she is in.

In this regard, I think it’s worthwhile to point out that as tough as sergeants may be on privates, they act very differently when speaking to someone who has a higher military rank, such as a lieutenant or general.

That is, sergeants first consider who they are speaking to before deciding on how they will provide negative criticism. This is one of the hallmarks of a person who tends to provide negative criticism in a manner that is consistent with level 5.

The Army’s Reasons for Supporting the Drill Sergeant’s Style of Providing Negative Criticism

The army’s leadership believes that those who hold a higher military rank are better qualified to make tough military decisions than those who hold a lower rank. They based this belief on their process for selecting who is invited to get training for a higher rank, the quality of the training that is provided, and the fact that only those who successfully complete the training are promoted. Those who do not perform well after they are promoted are demoted.

In a number of military situations, quick decisions are necessary to achieve military objectives while minimizing the number of casualties. If platoon leaders see enemy troops rapidly advancing, with their guns blasting and bombs going off, there simply is not a lot of time to discuss how to respond. Those with the most training for dealing with this situation rapidly cry out orders and those with a lower rank rapidly obey.

Now, with all of the gun firing and bombs going off, military leaders are probably going to shout out their orders to be heard. If some of the privates suddenly feel offended because their leader has yelled at them in a tone of voice that strikes them as unfair criticism, without proper training perhaps they might start yelling back, “How dare you talk that way to me!” Perhaps they might even physically attack the leader for the perceived insult. Such actions would seriously delay the carrying out of orders and thereby risk the military objectives and the lives of the soldiers.

During battles, there are times when even the best trained personnel may become irritable. Perhaps a captain might have lost a soldier she was very close to. If the captain, in her irritable state, was to slip up and accidentally speak to someone who is at a lower rank with a tone of voice that seems a bit disrespectful, would valuable time be lost because of an argument over the perceived insult? To avoid wasting time on these types of arguments, the army leaders have come to support training soldiers to respond immediately to orders even if it comes with criticism that might not be viewed as ideal in more typical situations. I think their position is reasonable.

Applying a Drill Sergeant’s Style of Negative Criticism to Situations Beyond the Military

Many people who have been in the army, having experienced basic training, come to believe that what worked well in the army should work just as well in all other situations. And so they begin to provide negative criticism in a style that matches that of a drill sergeant.

Some parents try this with their kids, and when the kids are young it often seems to work. But too often the drill sergeant approach leads to a building up of bitter resentment. Some teenagers end up running away from home, while others essentially end their relationships with their parents as soon as they are old enough to live on their own.

I know someone who was given the job to coach a women’s college basketball team. He had in the past, coached a boys college team and found the drill sergeant approach had worked, in his estimation, fairly well. Occasionally a good player would quit the team, but he felt that this was just the cost of maintaining good discipline. But when he tried the same technique with the women’s team, more than half quit. In order to field any team at all, he had to go to the women who had quit and apologize. In the end, he found that there were alternative ways to provide negative criticism in his new situation that worked much better for him. The incident reminds me of a great scene in the movie, “A League of Their Own.”

In the army, if someone thinks about quitting, there are very serious consequences. The army can put the quitter in prison for a time, give him or her a dishonorable discharge, etc. Moreover, there are a number of positives for hanging in there even under the most trying of circumstances. There is the honor that comes from helping your country, a military salary, VA benefits, etc. When we raise children or coach a team, the consequences for quitting or staying in the relationship are very different.

And so, for those who think it makes a great deal of sense to use a drill sergeant’s approach for providing negative criticism in non-military situations, I urge caution. People have strong desires to be liked and to escape from situations in which someone seeks to interfere with their freedom to make their own decisions. A drill sergeant’s approach runs counter to these desires. It is only in rare situations where rapid action is required, the available leadership is well trained, and other desires are so strong that shouting, insults and threats may make sense.

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

Tags conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, dispute management, disrespectful, drill sergeant, drill sergeants, insults, name calling, negative criticism, respect, threats, wisdom

conflict resolution coward cowardly fear insults intrapersonal conflicts wisdom

Does Your Fearfulness Make You a Coward?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date May 28, 2014
1 Comment on Does Your Fearfulness Make You a Coward?

As far back as I can remember, the first time I called myself a coward was when I was in fourth grade. The teacher gave the class an assignment requiring each student to get up in front of the class and give a speech about a book we had read. We were allowed to use some cue cards but were not permitted to read the speech word for word.

At home, when I thought about that assignment becoming due in a week, my heart pounded and I thought that I’d end up looking stupid. Then I thought to myself, I’m such a coward. I called myself a chicken for being scared and a number of other names as well. At the same time, I began to do some other things. I chose a book that I would report on, wrote out what I would say, and rehearsed in front of a mirror. In the end, my little speech turned out just fine.

Did viewing myself as a coward, and calling myself names help me in any way to get through this ordeal? It is indeed true that it was part of the process that led to a good outcome, and partly because of this, it became associated with what I needed to do to achieve success in other fearful situations–kind of like a superstition. But, in time, I learned to deepen my understanding of the nature of fear, and I no longer bother with framing myself as a coward or deliberately calling myself insulting names. Oh, from time to time, some of the old words still spring up in my mind during fearful moments, but I simply observe them passing by in a nonjudgmental manner, and they fade away in a few seconds.

What did I learn that led me to this understanding? Well, to get at this, I think a little parable might help.

The Parable of Mother Nature’s New Creation

Once upon a time, Mother Nature came up with a new creation—human beings. At first there were just a few of them.

In winter, the nearby lake iced up. To keep the food supply flowing, some bravely walked out on the lake and created ice fishing. Others refused to go out on the ice explaining that they were fearful the ice would break and they would end up all drowning in the frigid water.

Although the ice fishers were brave when it came to walking on the ice, some were fearful when it came to dealing with other situations. For example, some fishers refused to farm because they were fearful of the bugs and slimy creatures that were uncovered during the turning of the soil.

Barty, one of these early humans, was way too fearful to go on the ice to fish, so he tried to help out his little community by farming. The insects and slimy creatures scared him, so after about an hour, he left the field and returned to his little hut a bit shaken by what he had experienced.

Seeing her son looking fearful, Barty’s mother told him a story filled with rich images of how thankful the other humans were when the farmers showed up in the evening with wonderful fruits and vegetables. With those inspiring images, Barty went out a little longer the next day, and a little longer the next, and soon he got so used to the bugs and slimy creatures that they no longer scared him.

Some of these human beings who were fearful of either ice-fishing or farming tried to come up with other ways to be helpful. A few worked on coming up with techniques to preserve food that were grown in summer so that it would remain edible during winter. In time they created several approaches that allowed for a more varied winter food supply.

Then one day something terrible happened on the ice. It cracked and all of the fishers drowned in the freezing water. Some who were afraid to go out on the ice watched in horror. Barty, when he heard what happened, began to tremble. And then he thought to himself, it’s a good thing some of us were afraid to ice-fish or we would have all perished.

Parable Discussion

As it turned out in this parable, it was a good thing for this new creation of Mother Nature that some of the human beings were fearful of the ice. Otherwise all of the human beings would have died in this one horrible event. Because there were those who were fearful of the ice, this human characteristic was essential for keeping this new creation of Mother Nature thriving until this very day. Having some diversity in what people fear need not be a sign of cowardliness but helpful for survival.

In my view, when we experience fear, we are wise to spend some time embracing this feeling and deeply experiencing its physical sensations in a nonjudgmental manner. Then, some of the skills I discussed in my last two posts for transforming our fear into actions that lead to achieving our desires are employed (see posts titled Free of Fear and Overcoming Fear). These types of experiences are an essential part of who we are and lead us on to our most treasured accomplishments.

Tags conflict, conflict management, conflict resolution, cowardly, cowards, criticism, dispute management, fear, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, human beings, insults, Mother Nature, name calling, negative criticism, respect, wisdom