Vol #1, Col #11: ‘In Jest’ You Say?

Ethel Barrymore, of the “royally-”deemed acting clan, once said, “you grow up the day you have your first real laugh…at yourself.” While Ethel was no psychologist, her words contain undeniable wisdom about human nature and the road to maturity: the ability to find humour within one’s own action(s) and/or reaction(s) is only possible once one is able to acknowledge his/her chosen behavioural responses as disproportionate (and ridiculous) to their impetus. In other words, as Spanish performer Diana Raquel Sainz purported, you can only laugh at yourself once you’re able to admit your faults and imperfections. In turn, this act promotes self-empowerment and growth. While the aforementioned is an important life lesson to learn, so too is knowing when humour is appropriate, welcome and in “good taste”. Allow me to explain:

About a month or so ago, I was hired on as a subcontracted agent to assist a website design firm with administrative, accounting and content updating duties. At first, I was completely stoked about the position given that all of the staff members were within my age range, the hours were flexible, work days didn’t typically start until noon and on top of that, the pay was decent.

I’m not certain whether to conclude my manager was sexist (ie: all of the other staff members were male) or just had some sort of superiority complex, but what started out as what I just brushed off as harmless wisecracking soon developed into constant assaults on my character for no reason I could conceive of, considering he never indicated he was anything but satisfied with my work. It became pretty evident to me that his use of thinly veiled insults passed off as “joking” (at my expense) was his means of maintaining control. I am after all more academically accredited than him, among other things.

Beyond paving the road to personal psychological maturity, Social Science academics have noted that humour serves many important cognitive, affective, physiological and social functions: it’s a proven “pick-me-up”, a tension reliever, a means of forging bonds with other individuals/groups, an effective teaching strategy, a way to lessen hostilities or simmer debates when they get out of hand, a vehicle for broaching taboo subject matter, a form of arousal and there’s even evidence to support there’s some truth behind the old adage, “laughter is the best medicine.”

Relevant to my recent job experience however is the anthropological finding that humour in the form of “mockery”, “ridicule” and “belittlement” is frequently used as a powerful symbolic weapon within pre-industrial Caribbean cultures to gain status, maintain the current pecking order and/or reaffirm social mores. The popularity of racist jokes within North American adds credence to this finding as their humour rests in pointing out widespread stereotypes of given ethnic groups, which only works to perpetuate said stereotypes. Moreover, it has been proposed that jokes rooted in discrimination stem from the subconscious fear of the dominant class that one day they’ll be overtaken by those they oppress. Ironically, these types of jokes are often “owned” by members of the minority groups they seek to insult; something that can be interpreted as an act of subversion/defence against ridicule OR the internalization of beliefs about one’s group held by the dominant class (Eck!).

Suffice it to say that for all of the joy incongruity, verbal wit, minor accidents (particularly those involving getting hit in the genital regions or stepping on animal feces), slips of the tongue and absurdity brings, humour can equally dampen your spirits, if done mindlessly or worst, maliciously.

To elicit the former, psychotherapist and mirthologist Steven Sultanoff offers the following five suggestions to ensure that one is using humour (in interpersonal settings) correctly and appropriately:

• Only use humour if the target/recipient of your humour has previously used humour with you.
  
  
• Only use humour when you have an established strong relationship with the target/recipient.
  
  
• Only use humour in socially appropriate and light-hearted situations. Although some use humour to eliminate tension, Sultanoff suggests that this could lead to potentially undesirable reactions if taken too far.
  
  
• If ever in doubt about one’s relationship with a target/recipient, test the waters first with self-depreciating humour to gauge the target/recipient’s response.
  
  
• And finally (and MOST importantly), humour is used most effectively when employed to poke fun at a situation, NOT at another person or group of people.

To this, Hugh LaFollette & Niall Shanks of American Philosophical Quarterly add that humour is context-dependent, and relies largely on a listener’s current state. Even if a listener has the cognitive capacity and necessary information to find a particular joke or situation humourous, there are factors that may interfere with the processing of a funny stimulus including: one’s current psychological (mood) and cognitive/physiological state (ie: if they are experiencing pain), the environment (ie: if telling jokes seems inappropriate), and one’s ability to employ “psychic distance” (ie: the ability to detach from one’s personal beliefs and see situations from varying perspectives). Gender contributes even more complication to these theories seeing as guys can and do regularly tear each other ‘new ones’ without getting offended…or at least not showing they’re offended as socialization dictates that “real” men never display their feelings (but that’s a whole nother can of worms).

In conclusion, I’d like to leave you with a few final thoughts to mull over next time you’re contemplating adding some mirth to the mix:
1) ALL jokes are based on some sense of truth (albeit often exaggerated),

2) know your audience before you engage in displays of your wit, and finally

3) reserve your hilarity for its true purpose (ie: to produce happiness). If you’ve got nothing nice to say, don’t say it at all – coating it with the “oh I was just kidding” excuse is just as lousy as trying to convince someone that you only slept with their significant other because you were drunk. In two letters, it’s b.s. 

Vol #1, Col #10: Honesty IS a Virtue

It starts out with a slight exaggeration (typically characterized by the use of superlatives): I would NEVER this, it was the WORST experience of my ENTIRE life, she’s COMPLETELY obsessed with me. Then slowly but surely, what was once only a mild embellishment transforms into a full-on alternate reality. The more the story is repeated (to others AND importantly, oneself), the more it seemingly gains “credence”, purely due to its imposed familiarity. If one is not careful, this defense mechanism, rooted in an unconscious desire to preserve one’s self image (aka “to save face”) and/or avoid punishment could become “pathological”, wherein the liar him/herself can no longer separate his/her fabrications from the truth.

There, in “lies” (pardon the pun) the problem with lying: it is IMPOSSIBLE, even for the most “honest” people going, to stretch the truth just ONCE…especially once they’ve gotten caught. Accordingly, whoever came up with the expression “little white lie” obviously wasn’t all that acquainted with the act of deceit. In other words, there’s a reason the expression “web of lies” is equally well-known.

Now, it’s important to point out that even the most objective scientifically-oriented individuals are not immune to living within their own skewed perceptions and over-exaggerations of life events. However, there’s a HUGE difference between merely failing to consider another person’s perception and PURPOSEFULLY manipulating the truth. In sum, you CANNOT and DO NOT accidentally lie.

As psychology enthusiast Dr. Raymond Lloyd Richard explains: “when you tell a lie you make a deliberate, conscious effort to deceive someone, and that deception, at its psychological core, is an act of aggression. This aggression derives from two interrelated unconscious motivations, one about not knowing (ie: a desire to cover up a “lack” in order to prevent feelings of inadequacy), and the other about something you do know (ie: a response to knowing that someone has failed you). Therefore, your lies become cunning weapons of revenge in a psychological battle to inflict pain on those who hurt you. That is, when someone treats you critically, you feel hurt, shamed and afraid; and then, as an angry response to that hurt, you tell lies in a fabricated sense of invulnerability to hide your painful shame, while causing injury to that person.”

Richard makes it sound a lot more vindictive than most of us consider. After all, lying typically begins in our “innocent” childhoods as a means to either avoid punishment or obtain reward: the two drives behind ALL human activity. The thing is though as we age and begin to establish adult relationships, particularly of the romantic variety, lying becomes increasingly dangerous because there are considerably higher stakes at play. While I do not condone conning one’s parents in order to gain more recreational time or the like, playing with another person’s heart, I think it goes without saying, has a lot more serious consequences.

Despite our ongoing inoculation with the profession “honesty is the best policy” since childhood, lying, for many, has become second nature. The fact that our culture is built on distortions of the truth surely doesn’t help. From political promises to airbrushed celebrities and even the very way in which we recount our historical beginnings, if it’s not a deliberate INCLUSION of invented facts with which we’re contending, we’re faced with a calculated EXCLUSION of specific details intended to alter actuality to suit one’s own interests or needs. Moreover, we’ve allotted pretense its own designation as a form of entertainment…reality tv anyone? Finally, the examples of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Toothfairy prove that lying (at least, via storytelling) is culturally sanctioned; something that makes navigating this subject even more precarious! Though the act/art (depending upon who you ask) of lying seems to teeter the scales of moral ambiguity, from a psychological stance, let me assure you lying is a sign of immaturity and almost certainly an attempt to avoid responsibility.

And so, while there’s an ongoing joke among male comedians that one should never tell a woman if she
looks “fat” or “unattractive” in a given outfit, from a psychological AND female stance, I have to STRONGLY disagree. As I’ve relayed to my boyfriend on several occasions, “if you don’t think I look fantastic, why would I want to embarrass myself in front of a whole bunch of strangers who are far more likely to judge me negatively given they are not emotionally attached to me?” As Richard states, “If others reject you because you are honest, then you never had their love in the first place.” In other words, quite simply, don’t lie. It’s never honest ;)

Vol #1, Col #9: Provoked Jealousy

Before society started to invent ways for us to develop insecurities (ie: media messages of unrealistic perfection, among other things) that cause us to engage in irrational attacks of others, jealousy existed in its most basic form: rooted in a fight to ensure the survival of one’s kin. As psychologists Ofer and Azzia Zur of the Zur Institute explain, “jealousy is a territorial emotion that stems from a biological imperative to breed and carry on our genes.”

According to evolutionary psychology, jealousy manifests as fear of sexual infidelity in males, because in ancient times this would result in having to provide for children that “carry on another man’s traits;” thereby lessening the evolutionary fitness of one’s lineage. As for women, the fear of emotional infidelity is too rooted in our evolutionary beginnings in that if a man developed affection for a different mate, this would result in abandonment. As women did not have the means nor opportunity to provide for themselves or their children, fear for the worst (ie: death) was justified.

Romantic or “provoked” jealousy, then, as I’m sure is evident even from the brief description above, is a very different beast than unprovoked jealous which we discussed last week. For starters, oftentimes it is all TOO rational. Allow me to explain:

A close girlfriend of mine has been dating her significant other for several years. Though she is not by any stretch insecure, some of his behaviours would make any woman question the stability of their relationship. For example, though they never formally dated nor do they maintain an apparent sense of “closeness” friendship-wise, my friend’s boyfriend insists on visiting a woman he once fooled around with each year. Moreover, he’s willing to drive out of town to do so.

Because she didn’t want to start an argument, my friend remained silent on this issue for quite some time. However, this year she asked if she could come along for the visit considering that her boyfriend has assured her many times, “there is nothing going on.” Interestingly, this year’s plans somehow fell apart last minute and so the two women were never able to meet.

My friend’s boyfriend could honestly be telling the truth – that there is “nothing to be worried about.” BUT it seems pretty clear that he’s going to an awful lot of bother to maintain a bizarre “relationship” with a woman who doesn’t even have a place on his close friends list. Further the fact that this year’s meet-up – the first time my friend had ever asked to come along - got cancelled, seems a little suspect.

The most interesting aspect of this entire situation however is my friend’s boyfriend’s hypocritical behaviour. Undoubtedly as a result of the fact that he’s been cheated on several times in past relationships, he consistently “projects” his fears of infidelity onto my friend and is very protective when it comes to who she can associate with. In this way, he is attributing his OWN unacknowledged feelings and paranoia to HER as though they were HER issues, when in reality, they are HIS. At times, he has even gone so far as to accuse of her struggling with self esteem issues, and therefore feeling as though she’s going to lose him to a more desirable partner.

As an objective third party in this equation, my friend’s loyalty and commitment to her boyfriend, not to mention her self-assurance, is highly evident. Given this, his concerns are unfounded. As for his desire to continue empty relationships with other potential partners? Well, it could be one of two things:

• a subconscious impulse to ensure that if for any reason my friend breaks it off with him or worse breaks his heart, he will not be alone (ie: he’s afraid of being alone)

• more likely, it’s because he feels unworthy of love (due to past trauma evoked by those who have cheated on him) and irrespective of my girlfriend’s affection toward him, he has a need to feel desirable by others in order to fill a void in his self esteem.

I make no claims to being a relationship expert – believe me I’ve had my own run of questionable boyfriends – however, one advantage to combating jealousy that we clearly have in today’s world as opposed to our evolutionary past is this: equitable communication.

My girlfriend is strong, sophisticated, educated and career-oriented. She does not rely on her partner for provisions nor does she “need” him in order to survive. But before any genuine trust (the foundation of any healthy adult mature relationship) can be established, my friend’s boyfriend needs to face his fears and also acknowledge my friend’s perspective.

Unlike her evolutionary foremothers, my friend is not fearful of losing her mate and therefore her life. If she’s projecting any feelings of jealousy, it’s purely because she doesn’t feel as though she’s a priority. By no means am I suggesting that my friend’s boyfriend needs to sacrifice his social life in order to devote 100% of his time to her – that too is unhealthy and often leads to co-dependency. Rather, like so many of us running in the rat race, he needs to figure out the work/life/friends/romance balance.

Though we often encounter ads that try to convince us we can have it all – act like we’re single, but still have a loving mate to come home to - the joke is on those who fall for such absurdity. Life works in stages and you can live many different experiences throughout, but (and this is a BIG but) if you hope to maintain strong healthy relationships with anyone, you must first own up to your shit and secondly, treat those you care about with love, compassion and understanding. After all, if you don’t make their feelings a priority, why should they make yours one? In sum, learn how to talk WITH each other and ALWAYS ALWAYS be honest with others, but importantly too, yourself.

Vol #1, Col #8: Green Eyes

This past summer, I attended the wedding celebration of a dear friend of mine. Because I strongly believe that one should get decked out for special occasions (and well, I like any excuse to dress up really. On that note, I can’t wait for Halloween!), I purchased myself a fine little Jessica Rabbit-inspired number and styled my hair and makeup a la the 1940s era. Not to toot my own horn, but if I do say so myself, I looked rather smashing. Indeed, my friend the bride and I were exchanging compliments all night.

Before the formal ceremony began, I excused myself from my date in order to “powder my nose.” While I was in the loo, I encountered an older woman (likely in her 50s or 60s) who was accompanied by a little girl I can only assume was her grandchild. Upon seeing me, the little girl’s face lit up. She turned to the older woman and expressed she was a great fan of my personal style.
Despite being in the position of “rolemodel”, the older woman commented under her breath (but loud enough so I could hear) in a snarky tone, “Well, some people feel they need to get all dressed up for weddings.” At this point, it’s imperative to note that the older lady was draped head-to-toe in a bland well-worn tracksuit; her hair and makeup equally appeared neglected. I should also note that while there were a few other stragglers dressed questionably for such a formal gala, the aforementioned older woman definitely took the cake in terms of a clear lack of effort.

Perhaps she had given up on herself long ago, perhaps she didn’t buy into socially constructed ideas of formality or tradition, perhaps she never conceived of herself as an attractive woman, irrespective of the deep-seated subconscious underpinnings informing her reaction, one thing was/is clear: she felt threatened by me. Like defensiveness and “people pleasing”, unprovoked jealousy (aka cattiness or envy) comes from a place of insecurity. As academic/author James Leonard Park explains, unprovoked “jealousy arises because of three [related] factors:

1) comparison
2) competition and
3) the fear of being replaced”.

Now, the important factor that distinguishes unprovoked jealousy versus provoked jealousy (we’ll be discussing this next week) is “rational thinking” or a lack thereof, I should say. In the above described example, it is not as though I deliberately selected my outfit and styling in an attempt to “show up” the older woman. For that matter, we had never been acquainted before that very moment nor did either of us know the other would be in attendance. Yet, somehow, on a subconscious level, my appearance was perceived by her as an “attack” to her self-concept. Accordingly, instead of acknowledging the truth of the matter (ie: that she was under-dressed), she projected her insecurities onto me via criticism in an attempt to regain her confidence and win back the perceived lost respect from her “granddaughter”.

As per Park’s three factors, the older woman compared herself to me, saw me as competition in terms of being a potential rolemodel for the little girl, and because the older woman feared being replaced in her position as rolemodel, she used the only ammunition she had available to her: defensive criticism. As we’ve already discussed at length, this falls into the psychologically IMmature response category.

I’d be bending the truth if I didn’t come right out and say we all get jealous (myself included) from time-to-time. What sets apart the psychologically mature and immature however is how said “green” feelings are dealt with:

How to Overcome Unprovoked Jealousy

• For starters, acknowledge there will ALWAYS be those who are MORE talented, beautiful, intelligent, well-off than you are etc. BUT also acknowledge that you will be perceived exactly that same way by others.
  
  
• Develop a self concept defined by what Parks refers to as “irreplac-ability”, in which you identify all of the factors about yourself that make you uniquely you. Take pride in your uniqueness.
  
  
• Self-talk is crucial: if you find yourself becoming catty toward someone (and this applies to guys and gals alike, don’t kid yourself), ask yourself what it is about this other individual that you find so threatening?
  
  
• And finally, acknowledge that those you’re jealous of can actually be fantastic resources as well as sources of motivation. If they have something you don’t have but want, instead of wasting energy putting them down (and making yourself look like a jerk in the process), re-direct that energy toward self-developing exercises in which you strive to achieve that which you feel you are lacking. Respect what others have to offer and what you can learn from them. Who knows? They may even turn out to become some of your greatest allies.

One final caveat: There’s nothing “sexy” about real life arguments between women. Any guy who thinks that “cat fights” will miraculously turn into stripteases in which he’ll merit an invitation for a threesome in an idiot.

Vol #1, Col #7: En Garde!

As our discussion of “dissociative anonymity” proved, having a disagreement with a stranger, even if it leads to verbal abuse, is an entirely different ballgame than arguing with someone to whom you have personalities, either professionally or personally. Unfortunately, no matter how much you love or respect someone (and vise versa), sometimes things are still said and done that really can’t be taken back. Unlike what the childhood rhyme would suggest, words can AND do cause considerable pain.

Emotions can be both wonderful and debilitating sensations,often simultaneously. As Courtney Love so eloquently put it, “I love so much I hate.” Because emotions like psychoactive substances can become overwhelming to one’s being (mentally, physically and spiritually), developing self-control,learning coping strategies and importantly, mature conflict resolution is essential to one’s very survival. In fact, as a course in criminology I once took taught me, the number one type of homicide is that which occurs between two males, 18-24, fighting over the same female mate. Yes…love can kill.

In any argument, you will find yourself in one of two roles: that of the instigator or that of the retaliator. While both terms conjure up negative connotations, it’s important to understand that conflict in itself is NOT necessarily a bad thing. Rather, it’s how you deal with it that determines whether the outcome is positive or negative. In fact, many psychologists argue that conflict can be the breeding ground for both self and relationship growth.For example, though initiating emotional discussions is not anyone’s particular cup of tea, dealing with issues when they occur (as opposed to bottling up one’s feelings) is a more mature and healthy response in that it prevents resentment, which can lead to subconscious attempts to sabotage the offender,from building up. Likewise, while it may not be a pleasant experience to hear someone out in terms of how you’ve hurt or offended them (it bruises one’s ego after all), allowing yourself to get defensive and failing to validate the  other party’s feelings only ever makes small conflicts turn into maelstroms. With this said, if you’ve got to tango, you need to learn the moves. In any conflict:

1)     It’s important to talk openly, calmly and honestly:

If you don’t feel comfortable in expressing yourself candidly, you may want to contemplate what the relationship in question actually means to you. Those who love, respect and value you will accept you,warts and all. That’s their job as is yours to reciprocate. Accordingly, if you’ve done something stupid, wrong, hurtful, whathaveyou, be mature and own up to it. Accepting responsibility for your actions is one of the first major steps to growing up.

2)      To avoid defensive reactions which bar communications, learn to preface your complaints with statements of care:

For example, before launching into how the offender has hurt you, say something gentle along the following lines: “I’d really like us to be able to have an open and mature relationship with each other so that we can better understand each other’s perspectives. With that said, I’d like to speak with you about what happened the other day. I’m not sure if you’re aware, but (this)and (this action) really hurt my feelings.”

I know this may seem like a bunch of gobbly-goop, but honestly, just making a few statements such as those above before participating in a full-on emotional discourse can save you from getting into a further conflict about the argument itself! There are a few important aspects of the above preface worth mentioning:

 a) the emphasis on what you desire in your relationship with the other person. By stating outright how much you value the other person, their perspective and what ideally you’d like to work toward with them relationship-wise, it minimizes the chance of a defensive reaction by reaffirming your words are coming from a place of care and a desire to fix issues, rather than create them.

b) the emphasis on ‘speaking with’ the individual, rather than ‘speaking’ to them. Subtle changes in word phrasing can result in dramatic effects, both for the better or worst. By using the expression “speak with” in this context rather than “to speak to”, it illustrates your desire for cooperative non-confrontational discussion as opposed to lecturing or belittling which again, for obvious reasons, will minimize the chance of a defensive reaction.

c) the emphasis on owning your feelings. Again, though subtle, stating that you felt hurt (ie: an ‘I statement’)as opposed to “YOU HURT ME” (ie: a ‘You Statement’) makes a world of difference in terms of the reaction it’ll merit. By owning your feelings in discussions,it allows you to explain your point-of-view, while at the same time compelling the offender to validate your feelings by demonstrating empathy. 

3)     If there’s a chance things will get heated, set ground rules for discussion such as allotting each speaker a time limit to express their concerns, while making it clear that personal attacks will not be tolerated.

If one or both parties begins to “brickwall” (ie: gets so emotional that there’s no logic in their words and they’re effectively only spewing fire from a defensive stance), it may be best to leave the “scene of the crime” until you’ve both had a chance to cool down. Note however it’s important to not leave the discussion hanging in limbo for too long as that too could breed further problems.

4)     Avoid both saying and accepting the “I’m Fine” statement:

In a word, it’s b.s. If there’s a distinct frustration,anger, annoyance etc. in someone’s tone of voice and they tell you “they’re fine”, don’t buy it. That’s not license to poke and prod them however as this will likely only piss them off further. A more successful approach would be stating something along the lines of, “I don’t wish to irritate you, but it seems to me there is something on your mind. If you’d like to speak about it,I’d be happy to listen. I’m just concerned is all.” As with the last suggested phrasing, there are some key aspects to point out here:

a)      the emphasis on not wishing to create further problems and a genuine concern for the individual’s well being. By including both of these considerations in your approach, it should help the individual feel “safe” in expressing their concerns as well as calm any anger that may be brewing, even if what has gotten them riled up in the first place directly involved something you said or did. 

b)      the use of “it seems to me” and “I’m concerned”: Again both of these phrasings indicate an owning of your emotions without putting words into the other party’s mouth. If the individual is using the “I’m Fine” statement, the last thing you want to do is assume you know what’s bothering them. NEVER assume anything in a conflict - people will and do surprise you.

c)       the emphasis on when THEY’D like to speak about what’s ailing them. You’ve effectively put the ball in the other person’s court, BUT IMPORTANTLY ALSO indicated you’d like to resolve the issue. This demonstrates a mature approach and again should help the individual open up in a more timely and calm manner.

5)     ALWAYS avoid childish “I told you so”-like remarks as well as passive aggressiveness (ie:acting like everything is fine, only to turn around seemingly of nowhere and explode). I believe this is self-explanatory.

6)      Learn the Art of Forgiving and Letting Go:

You’ve heard the expression, “focus on the task at hand.”While usually uttered in reference to the workplace, it would do you a great service to also employ said suggestion when it comes to conflict resolution.Ongoing guilt-tripping is psychological abuse intended to manipulate and establish unfair power dynamics in a relationship. It’s a low move and accomplishes nothing...nothing positive anyway.

Conflicts, as I stated near the beginning of this piece, can serve as a tremendous source of growth, but that’s only if you allow yourself and others to move forward, learn from your mistakes and let go.

As for forgiving others, set limits and know them. Some acts are altogether unforgiveable – that’s a given -- but remember, forgiveness benefits you just as much as the offender. Studies have proven that maintaining grudges not only affects individuals on an emotional level, but further can affect one’s physical health. The same goes for living with guilt.  

And finally…

7)      Remember, there is a HUGE difference from the listener’s perspective in terms of being outright called a derogatory comment VERSUS having one’s actions labelled as symptomatic of that derogatory comment (ie: you are a bitch vs. you are being a bitch).

Yes, that’s right folks, for clarity purposes, I’m referencing yet again the concept of the “personal attack.” The former statement above implies a permanent character trait that one cannot change, while the latter points out that while you are clearly displeased with the individual’s current choices/behaviour, you still love/respect them. Criticize actions, not individuals. In other words, this week’s lesson: fight fair. 

Vol #1, Col #6: The Great Debate

As an editorialist, I tend to walk (erm…write) on the “controversial” side of the spectrum. Touching upon subjects like whether religion or science has caused more human catastrophe, whether certain behaviours should remain gendered and/or whether humans have the right to play “God” via technological intervention, for example…I’m sure you get why I tend to piss a lot of people off.  

But, of course this is NOT my motivation, but rather a symptom of the fact that individuals frequently get emotional when one expresses strong convictions about well…just about anything. I must be doing my job right however if I’m at least getting you thinking; after all, you wouldn’t be reacting emotionally unless that were being accomplished. Just saying… 

The problem, in my view, does not lay within maintaining opinions nor expressing them. As someone who gets paid to tout her thoughts, I’d be a huge hypocrite if I were not always readily and happily available for a good debate. Instead, the problem rests in our reactions upon hearing something that flies in the face of everything we believe, likely always have believed and/or hold dear to our hearts. When it comes to differences of opinion, what sets apart the psychologically mature and immature then comes down to three distinct characteristics:  

1) the former does not cling to his/her values, attitudes and beliefs in ignorance (ie: he/she has strong validation, if not research to which to refer to back up his/her opinions. In a word, such an individual is “invested” into who they are and why they believe what they do. There’s that good old introspection again!) 

2) the former is willing to admit errors in judgement upon the acquisition of new information and therefore adjust his/her views accordingly 

And finally and most importantly, 3) the former is respectfully accepting of the opinions of others, even when they directly contradict his/her own views (ie: he/she will simply “agree to disagree”) 

With all of this said, I hope it is obvious that it is NOT the receipt of impassioned emails I receive from readers pointing out the “flaws” (in their opinions) of my views that bothers me. In fact, I ALWAYS (and you can quote me on this) take the time to read through their arguments and respond in an objective fashion. The issue I have is when my simple expression of a given opinion somehow transforms me in my entirety into an individual characterized by a derogatory comment, particularly when it’s being uttered by someone who doesn’t know a thing about me other than the fact we do not see eye-to-eye in ONE area. This is what is known psychologically-speaking as a “personal attack”. But before I get into that definition, I’d like to point out what I feel are two important pieces of information to consider from my perspective in this equation (sorry for all the numbered lists!):  

1) I don’t recall ever forcing anyone to read my writings

Moreover, 2) I don’t recall ever forcing anyone to accept my opinions as their own  

Now, in any disagreement with another individual, you always have a clear choice in terms of how maturely you will phrase your reactions. Admittedly, we all get heated at times and say things out of turn, but a huge aspect of developing psychological maturity is getting a handle on one’s emotions (ie: both being able to control oneself and further being able to understand why one reacts the way he/she does).  

With all of this said, there’s a HUGE difference in terms of strongly disagreeing with someone on a given subject matter and not liking them as an individual altogether. I should know being the hippie artistic child of a highly successful entrepreneurial businessman father: when it comes to the subject of the value of money or the government’s right to taxation, we couldn’t possibly be singing from more different song sheets. Our difference in opinion however is not “just cause” for me hating my pops nor calling him a selection of profanities. So why has this unduly treatment been issued to me and other entertainers/personalities? Well a few reasons (oh man, another numbered list?! I know, I know I apologize in advance.):  

1) when you work under the public’s scrutiny, "the common joe" seems to believe that your feelings don’t get hurt as easily or as much when shit is slung in your general direction, and/or you can or SHOULD be able to take more shit than the average person. FYI this is NOT always true.   

2) when a psychologically immature individual is faced with evidence that may cause him/her to re-examine (or examine for the first time) the rationale driving his/her beliefs which is an aspect of his/her self-concept, instead of being introspective, he/she will often react defensively and emotionally as a means of self-preservation (something we discussed last week)  

and 3) this week’s discussion: the concept of anonymity. The individuals who send me and others “hate mail” don’t truly “know” who we are as people and therefore have no obligatory ties to us. In sum, unlike if I were to call my dad a dick for believing something I could not even begin to conceive of, the aforementioned “hate mailers” suffer little to no consequences for their actions.  

As explained by Rider University’s Dr. John Suler in, CyberPsychology and Behavior: “Anonymity works wonders for the disinhibition effect. When people have the opportunity to separate their actions from their real world and identity, they feel less vulnerable about opening up. Whatever they say or do can't be directly linked to the rest of their lives. They don't have to own their behavior by acknowledging it within the full context of who they ‘really’ are. When acting out hostile feelings, the person doesn't have to take responsibility for those actions. In fact, people might even convince themselves that those behaviors ‘aren't me at all.’ In psychology this is called ‘dissociation.’” 

As you’ll recall, I earlier stated that I always take the time to write back to my “hate mailers” and probe them further to question themselves as to why they hold the views they do, while gently reminding them that a difference of opinion is not grounds for verbal abuse. Interestingly, I NEVER receive responses; a fact that very much confirms Suler’s analysis that those engaged in “dissociative anonymity” do not categorize their actions as an encompassment of who they are. To respond would force them to own up to their actions, whereas failing to carry on a dialogue and actually getting to know me as an individual allows them to maintain their prejudicial views. It isn’t a stretch to consider then that racism is commonly based upon similar foundations (ie: lack of exposure to/ignorance of other groups outside of one’s own immediate periphery).

In sum, while issuing “personal attacks” may allow the instigator of such to achieve a temporary feeling of quasi-“superiority” based on an avoidance to look within, from a psychological stance, it’s a logical fallacy to divert an argument to belittling unless the goal were to determine who is willing to sink to a lower level (see political “muckracking” campaigns if you require more proof). Likewise, it’s a logical fallacy to possess feelings of hatred toward strangers and/or label strangers hurtful derogatory comments seeing as it literally does not make sense to harbour such strong feelings when there is no actual emotional connection (yet another indication one should look within, instead of outward). In other words, and as we’ll cover more next week, by all means go forth and debate, but first learn the art of “fighting fair.”

Vol #1, Col #5: Bloody Pirates!

Once upon a time in a land not too far away, I made the naïve presumption that the world of theatre was somehow more legit than that of rock’n’roll. That was until the following story was relayed to me… 

Excited to endeavour to express his artistic side via a new medium, I’ve been assured that the motivation behind the actions in which my good friend (who will remain nameless, out of respect) partook that I’m about to describe, stemmed only from a desire to achieve what was best for the production for all involved.  

Upon being cast for their various roles, he along with the others were issued a score, script and cd featuring the musical’s key tracks and provided with the simple instructions that they were to familiarize themselves with each before formal rehearsals began. Well, one can only imagine the dismay he and his fellow cast members experienced when practises started and they discovered that one of the featured tracks was to be performed in a completely different (MUCH higher) key than what was featured on the disc. Worse, the leads in the song were clearly “actors” more than “singers” and their struggle to hit the right pitches was apparent to everyone. 

Several under-the-breath comments, grimaces and questions were issued toward the musical director (MD, for short) of the production, but he seemed either oblivious or uninterested in catering to the strengths of the cast. My friend gave him the benefit of the doubt that it was the former and sent him a politely worded email that I agree was anything but confrontational bringing this concern to the MD’s attention. The message emphasized that my friend was merely speaking on behalf of himself and SOME of his fellow cast members with whom he’d conversed, and proposed that perhaps at the next rehearsal a poll could be taken to see how everyone was feeling in regard to the new key of the song.  

Now admittedly, this was my friend’s first ever experience with community theatre and therefore he’s willing to admit it’s possible he did not correctly follow protocol here, however it only seemed logical to him (and me, for that matter) that if one had a music-related concern, they’d address it toward the music director. But I digress… 

Believe it or not, my friend’s seemingly innocuous act addressing what he felt was only a minor concern led to all hell breaking loose and the MD proceeding to send out a mass email to the entire cast and crew accusing my friend of being the ringleader in a “mutiny” against him. Instead of even attempting to resolve this matter professionally (keep in mind my friend even offered to apologize to everyone despite the fact he’s still not certain where he went wrong), my friend was as they say “cut” from the show.

Now there are several different psychological concepts this story houses within itself (ie: outgroup versus in-group mentality and “scapegoat-ism” to mention a few), but I’d like to offer a theoretical hypothesis for the MD’s over-the-top response:

Generally as a result of some sort of trauma or bullying they've experienced, certain individuals (usually those with pre-existing insecurities) develop what is known as a “hypersensitive” disposition as a means of self-preservation. Essentially, on a subconscious level their minds become primed to react consistently in a “survival protectionist mode” (also known as “defensiveness”) anytime anyone proposes even the slightest objection/suggestion in regard to their actions. Given that I’m told the MD was an eccentric fellow and member of a minority group, I’m gonna hazard a guess and suggest that he likely continues to be/has been in the past tormented by others.  

Because of this hypersensitivity, such individuals are unable to react rationally (ie: non-defensively/non-emotionally/non-combatively) even when NO clear “personal attacks” are issued (personal attacks to be discussed at length in the near future). As leadership mentor Shelley Holmes explains in her hit e-book, Influence Your Way to Success, a hypersensitive reaction occurs when one feels psychologically “unsafe” in conversation. This feeling of “unsafeness” is triggered by a fear of, “being found to be less than what they want others to perceive them as, a loss of status, [a belief that one’s] self-image is under challenge, [a belief that one’s] self-esteem is threatened or finally a fear of rejection”. Basically, anything that doesn’t fit into the context of “praise” regardless of the tone used, content discussed or the person who is uttering said remarks is interpreted as a means to “go to war”.  

It’s important to recognize that the MD’s elected form of strategy (ie: to form a gossip train) instead of having a mature adult discussion with my friend directly or at the least asking the director of the show to act as a mediator between them to resolve the issue, further exemplifies (t)his behaviour is rooted in insecurity: why else would one launch a “smear your enemy/pity me campaign” unless it were to seek the validation of others and therefore denounce any sense of personal responsibility for causing the concern? That’s highschool tactics 101.

The biggest problem however when it comes to hypersensitive individuals is that if you point out their defensiveness, it generally only leads to them then becoming defensive about being defensive. Eugh! Suffice it to say there’s a reason that defensiveness has been labelled one of the “four horsemen of [relationship] apocalypse” by psychology professor and marriage researcher Dr. John Gottman. It not only impedes communication between parties, but ALSO self-reflection on behalf of the individual afflicted by this issue. The reality is this: defensiveness like depression is ultimately something the bearer of said behaviour has to overcome by first being willing to admit they have a problem.  

If you should ever (god forbid) find yourself in a situation wherein you’re dealing with a hypersensitive individual, how you react in turn will undoubtedly be affected by your relationship to him/her. If, for example, you’re dealing with a loved one, the best advice I can offer is to gently remind them that the motivation behind whatever you’ve said or done that’s resulted in their defensiveness is purely coming from a place of care and therefore there is no need for them to feel threatened. If on the other hand you encounter this behaviour from a stranger, superior or someone with better established political ties within the group, you may very well be screwed as my poor friend was.