Welcome to From Insults to Respect.

As I write this post, Election Day, with all of its turbulence, has now passed us by. Perhaps now is a good time for us to take some deep calming breaths and reflect on all that transpired.

Along this line, I’m thinking it would be a useful exercise at this point if we attempted to integrate what we have learned from this blog about the nature of respect with what we know about President Trump’s style of conducting himself. After all, the president is someone we all got to know pretty well. Couple this with the swirling controversy around the man, which can be readily seen in a recent article by the Herald News titled, “Trump continues to show a lack of respect for America.” The first paragraph reads,

We knew beyond doubt that our president was an inveterate liar, a business cheat, and a bully, but the debate last week proved that he refuses to adhere to any rules, even those upon which he has himself agreed. Those who counted say he interrupted 71 times in 90 minutes. That should not come as a surprise, since he does not appear to respect any of the laws that everyone else is expected to obey, including our Constitution. Talk about a lack of law and order.

Such statements clearly arouse powerful emotions for many, and it just so happens that learning exercises tend to be particularly memorable when strong emotions are aroused. Exercises that skillfully utilize this arousal tend to be processed at a much deeper level than those utilizing ho hum examples. So, if you will, let’s see where such an exercise might lead.

We’ll begin with a look at how Trump’s statements that run counter to principles of science might influence how much respect others have for him. Then we’ll rate how much respect he earns from the way he responds to criticism and provides criticism. Finally, we’ll rate his level of respect for displaying several other behavior styles. Although, admittedly, there is a degree of subjectivity to this exercise, going through it will help to clarify for all readers their own understanding of the nature of respect.

Respect and Trump’s Statements Related to Science

Whenever I write a new post, I come up with a tentative title, and then, not wanting to use it if others had, I put it in the Google search engine to find out. When I did this for this post’s title, “Trump and Respect,” I was pleased to see nothing came up with that title. At the same time, as expected, my search found articles and books that are somewhat related to this topic. The first two were articles that expressed serious concerns about Trump not respecting science. The argument that was put forth for this proposition has to do with Trump’s statements regarding the environment and handling the pandemic.

Trump on the Environment

With regard to the environment issue, Trump has repeatedly claimed scientists are perpetuating a hoax when they tell us that urgent action is needed to transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar. My guess is that rather than really believing this is a hoax, Trump promoted it because of how crucial he viewed winning Pennsylvania was for his chances to be elected.

The Keystone State obtains huge economic benefits from its fracking industry, which is a technique that draws the fossil fuel of natural gas from deep below the Earth’s surface. To move forward on a transition plan threatens the livelihood of many state citizens, and consequently, anyone supporting such a plan risks losing a significant number of votes.

I will explain my reasons for this guess shortly, but let’s just pretend, for the benefit of this exercise, that it is true that Trump does respect science but his desire to hold onto the presidency is of greater importance to him. If you were convinced that Trump chose holding on to the presidency over protecting the health and safety of human beings by avoiding further damage to the environment, would that influence how much respect you have for him? How much would it influence you?

Trump on the Pandemic

In the articles that I came upon in my search, much of the argument that claims Trump does not respect science comes from his statements that contradicted or undermined the pandemic recommendations from science experts within and outside his own administration. Also, in complete contradiction to scientific evidence, he has repeatedly told the American people that the end of the virus’s spread was just around the corner, and continued to do so even as it was increasingly plain to all that the virus was spreading at alarming rates. Nevertheless, as I indicated in the previous section, I doubt that these public statements of Trump are really indicative of his true feelings. Here’s why.

First of all, on Bob Woodward’s tape recordings, Trump repeatedly admitted, based on the information he received from his expert scientists, just how deadly and contagious the virus is. Thus, on February 7 he told Woodward the disease is “deadly stuff.” In an April 5 interview with Woodward, Trump explained, “It moves rapidly, Bob. It moves rapidly and viciously. If you’re the wrong person and if it gets you, your life is pretty much over if you’re in the wrong group.” During his April 13 interview with Woodward, Trump told the journalist that the virus is “so easily transmissible, you wouldn’t even believe it.”

Couple these statements that had relied on his scientific experts, with two more sets of facts. Trump threw his full support behind developing a vaccine, which relies on scientists using the principles of science. When he came down with the virus, he checked into a hospital that provided him with the most scientifically supported treatments.

So, despite his public posture of a cavalier attitude that played down the risk, there is ample evidence that Trump well respects the scientific evidence. The two most plausible reasons for his public posture are, that he was trying to protect his own financial interest, and he assessed the attitudes about the pandemic from his most ardent supporters whom he could not afford to lose in his bid for reelection.

With regard to his financial interests, it is well known that Trump is heavily invested in hotels around the world. When Trump heard about the pandemic from his advisors, when he asked about what needed to be done to contain it, he was told that the public has to stay home and only leave their homes for absolutely essential reasons. This is not at all good news for someone in Trump’s financial situation. And keep in mind, he has repeatedly faced bankruptcy, a pretty awful experience, especially for someone who hates the image of a loser.

Although Trump claims he has been playing down the seriousness of the virus because he doesn’t want to cause a panic, this is implausible. If he was in a reasonable state of mind, he would have known the general public would hear from plenty of experts an accurate account of the risks that are involved.

Rather than fear of causing a panic, a far more plausible theory is that he panicked upon hearing about the need to have people severely restrict their travel plans. Note, as well, that he had no problem trying to create a sense of panic with regard to those who would vote for Biden, claiming their cities and suburbs will end up in flames by looters and violent demonstrators if Biden is elected.

Even though by now, Trump must know that most of the general public are well aware of the serious risks of this pandemic, he continues to play down the risk.

The most plausible reason to me is because many of his base supporters delight in claiming the news is fake. We see them at his rallies throwing up their arms in jubilation each time he mentions the “awful lying fake media.” Many of them, just like him, are in denial about the dangers of the pandemic because a full shut down of nonessential businesses has terrible consequences for their own businesses, and the thought of not partying at bars is, to them, completely unacceptable.

Okay, now that I provided some background about Trump’s statements about science, for the purpose of this exercise, let’s just say, whether you believe it or not, that Trump indeed respects science, but he puts his personal finances and his desire to be reelected over the safety of the American people. Would that influence how much respect you have for him?

Respect and Trump’s Style of Responding to Criticism

For this part of today’s exercise, I’d like you to rate Trump’s style of responding to criticism. To help guide you in coming up with your rating, below is one model that describes five different responding to criticism styles. I put them in order from the least respected to the most respected. Each higher level is viewed as more mature, likable, and respected by a wide group of individuals who watched video recordings depicting different people displaying the five different styles.

In coming up with your own rating, you need not rely on these five descriptors, but in considering them, it will help to clarify in your own mind what you respect when it comes to responding to criticism. Let’s take a look at these five levels.

Five Levels of Responding to Criticism

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

Weeps or sobs with tears or pouts without using any of the higher level skills
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.

5. 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.

Now that you looked these five levels over, what level do you think best matches Trump’s style?

Respect and Trump’s Style of Providing Criticism

For this part of today’s exercise, I’d like you to rate Trump’s style of providing criticism. As I did when I asked you to rate his style of responding to criticism, to help guide you in coming up with your rating, below is one model that describes five different styles placed in order from the least respected to the most respected.

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.

Rating Trump on Several Other Attributes Related to Respect

All that is left to do to finish this exercise is to look over the following list of attribute descriptions, and for each one, rate Trump on a scale of 1 to 5 on how well that description fits him.

Being a Good Role Model

Present yourself well

Set an example for others

Make your own decisions

Don’t be overly materialistic

Be a cultured person

Keep your language clean and respectable

Exude confidence

Be optimistic

Stick to your word

Excel at something

Admit to your mistakes

Avoid getting overly intoxicated in public

Stick up for yourself when you need to

Respecting Others

Greet people in a proper and friendly manner

Never bully others or take advantage of their weaknesses

Give everyone a chance

Be prepared to see other people’s side of the story

Don’t act like a know-it-all

Be discreet

Conclusion

Well, there you have it, an exercise designed to deepen your idea about the nature of respect. As I mentioned above, you are of course free to create your own conceptualization of respect according to your own lights. Nothing that I’ve said throughout this exercise is designed to be presented in a dogmatic fashion.

As I leave you today, I can’t help noting that the lead headline of my newspaper states, “Explosive Growth of Virus Is Recorded Across the U.S.” With that in mind, please do take all precautions for your own safety, and for the safety of others.

——————-
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.

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

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.

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

———————

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.