How to fend off a jerk(davedelaney.me)
davedelaney.me
How to fend off a jerk
http://www.davedelaney.me/blog/how-to-fend-off-a-jerk
122 comments
Interesting advice.
I don't really work in a dangerous part of town. But there's a group of shiftless young men who constantly pop up here and there. I refer to them as the Meth Head Bicycle Club (MHBC) as they tend to bike around and assemble in small groups at the local McDonald's or Rite-Aid (where AFAICT they take turns shoplifting petty items).
The other day I was walking to a nearby restaurant in the area that takes me along a somewhat marginal low-traffic area that borders an older industrial zone. As I'm walking down the road I see a member of what looks like the MHBC biking towards me. As he got closer, I noticed he was audibly muttering random swear words. I didn't feel threatened by it but was obviously on my guard. He biked past without incident and I just concluded he was crazy. But something didn't seem right about that conclusion. Why the bike (which was one of those urban lowrider types and seemed to be in pretty good shape)?
Your first bullet point now makes me wonder if this wasn't actually a quite uncrazy deliberate behavior. That would make more sense.
I don't really work in a dangerous part of town. But there's a group of shiftless young men who constantly pop up here and there. I refer to them as the Meth Head Bicycle Club (MHBC) as they tend to bike around and assemble in small groups at the local McDonald's or Rite-Aid (where AFAICT they take turns shoplifting petty items).
The other day I was walking to a nearby restaurant in the area that takes me along a somewhat marginal low-traffic area that borders an older industrial zone. As I'm walking down the road I see a member of what looks like the MHBC biking towards me. As he got closer, I noticed he was audibly muttering random swear words. I didn't feel threatened by it but was obviously on my guard. He biked past without incident and I just concluded he was crazy. But something didn't seem right about that conclusion. Why the bike (which was one of those urban lowrider types and seemed to be in pretty good shape)?
Your first bullet point now makes me wonder if this wasn't actually a quite uncrazy deliberate behavior. That would make more sense.
I wonder what would happen if someone tries to rob you and you put your finger against your inner earlobe, look down at an angle, and say to yourself "he's in position, MOVE MOVE MOVE"
Trying to outwit a panhandler is really stupid. Such a situation isn't hacker news, trying to look smarter than everyone else isn't going to win you any points.
They either will ask for money again, if you're lucky, or if you're not, get angry and then you're in a confrontation with somebody who has a lot less to lose in a fight than you.
I would recommend against anyone doing this. The best thing to do is keep your mouth shut and walk away.
They either will ask for money again, if you're lucky, or if you're not, get angry and then you're in a confrontation with somebody who has a lot less to lose in a fight than you.
I would recommend against anyone doing this. The best thing to do is keep your mouth shut and walk away.
In a "bad" part of town, maybe think of the people there as real people, and don't come across as obviously fearful. This has worked pretty well for me (although there are certainly other factors involved).
Maybe, and maybe get mugged. But I don't want to get mugged.
Sure on an intellectual level, everyone is a human being, deserves to be heard, not feared, etc, etc.
At night, in a neighborhood ridden with crime, seeing a bunch of teenagers zoom on your from across the street and starting to cross the street toward you, it is easy to re-assess some priorities.
Sure on an intellectual level, everyone is a human being, deserves to be heard, not feared, etc, etc.
At night, in a neighborhood ridden with crime, seeing a bunch of teenagers zoom on your from across the street and starting to cross the street toward you, it is easy to re-assess some priorities.
Y'know, people who want to steal for a living usually learn very quickly how to tell if you're gonna fight back. They don't want a fight, they want your money.
If you look like you'll bolt the moment you're threatened, that's a better outcome. Better than being stabbed or shot, at least.
If you look like you'll bolt the moment you're threatened, that's a better outcome. Better than being stabbed or shot, at least.
Oh they are certainly real people. Real people who will beat and rob you for $3. That's just how people can be at their basest level. Communication and charity doesn't go very far on that plane of interaction. Of course if you are in that part of town as a "customer" than it's different....
I can think of a variety of behavioral things that might help:
* walk quickly, don't look lost
* keep your head up
* brief eye contact with people you see/pass
but honestly, 99% of not being accosted is being male, so it's impossible to tell what really works.
* walk quickly, don't look lost
* keep your head up
* brief eye contact with people you see/pass
but honestly, 99% of not being accosted is being male, so it's impossible to tell what really works.
I'll probably get flamed for this, but this story reminds me of good ol' Proverbs 25:21,22!
If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. 22 In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you.
If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. 22 In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you.
I quoted the exact same verse in my response and was similarly concerned how it would be taken in this forum (having been the guy who generally rolled my eyes when people quoted the bible). Regardless of ones opinion of the bible, that verse is one that I started living by 20 years ago. Nothing is 100% reliable, and this bit of wisdom is no exception, but when applied properly the results have continually surprised me.
I wasn't a Christian when it was shared with me (I was somewhat hostile if I'm being honest with myself), but I credit the effectiveness of that one tiny bit of wisdom with my discovery that my view of Christians was unfairly colored by a vocal group of people who's real problem was unrelated to faith/religion, it just became an enabler for them to exert power and gain ego. You see it with every kind of group from Social Justice to Gluten Avoidance. There's always some collection of douche-bags that "become the label" with which everyone else is judged.
I wasn't a Christian when it was shared with me (I was somewhat hostile if I'm being honest with myself), but I credit the effectiveness of that one tiny bit of wisdom with my discovery that my view of Christians was unfairly colored by a vocal group of people who's real problem was unrelated to faith/religion, it just became an enabler for them to exert power and gain ego. You see it with every kind of group from Social Justice to Gluten Avoidance. There's always some collection of douche-bags that "become the label" with which everyone else is judged.
Don't worry about the flames:
Matthew 5:10-12
"Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Matthew 5:10-12
"Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
I'd rather just give him water & food while otherwise ignoring his attitude, simply because it is a logical way to defuse the situatuon. I see no need for heaping coals on his head or the promise of someone rewarding me.
Regardless of my misinterpretation, I enjoy the passage. :)
Regardless of my misinterpretation, I enjoy the passage. :)
What you've stated in your first sentence is a perfect interpretation IMHO.
Providing kindness in response to evil diffuses the problem.
Some translations adjust that verse contextually to read "Heaping hot coals of shame". The resultant behavior of said evil person, however, can go either way, making "Heaping hot coals" an apt description of a very common (in my life, majority) outcome to that behavior. As in the story, the customer becomes exasperated as the author continues to respond with kindness. Some people like to treat others like crap (especially others who have a job that involves "serving them, the customer") because it allows them to assert power over the other person. I'm not talking about the occasional bad day "taking it out on someone else" and enjoying it, but the kind of person who has to do this all the time to feel good. Those people positively lose their shit when you respond with kindness. In that scenario, you've accidentally put them in a spot of having to admit that you might just be "the better person", so they escalate in hopes that you'll crack.
I find the bible most interesting for that latter bit, though. I was brought up in a church that regularly told us what to do but gave only "Because God says so" as the reason. I grew up and left the church entirely as a result. Later in life I was frustrated when I discovered that the advice is usually followed up with "and here's the earthly outcome you can expect if you do this" along with "the Lord will reward you (because He said so)".
Providing kindness in response to evil diffuses the problem.
Some translations adjust that verse contextually to read "Heaping hot coals of shame". The resultant behavior of said evil person, however, can go either way, making "Heaping hot coals" an apt description of a very common (in my life, majority) outcome to that behavior. As in the story, the customer becomes exasperated as the author continues to respond with kindness. Some people like to treat others like crap (especially others who have a job that involves "serving them, the customer") because it allows them to assert power over the other person. I'm not talking about the occasional bad day "taking it out on someone else" and enjoying it, but the kind of person who has to do this all the time to feel good. Those people positively lose their shit when you respond with kindness. In that scenario, you've accidentally put them in a spot of having to admit that you might just be "the better person", so they escalate in hopes that you'll crack.
I find the bible most interesting for that latter bit, though. I was brought up in a church that regularly told us what to do but gave only "Because God says so" as the reason. I grew up and left the church entirely as a result. Later in life I was frustrated when I discovered that the advice is usually followed up with "and here's the earthly outcome you can expect if you do this" along with "the Lord will reward you (because He said so)".
I worked as a waiter as a teen and I learned that, almost compulsively, some people must be a jerk in those situations. Personally, I found it best to feel sorry for them (rather than anger, if I must choose an emotion) but mostly just let them vent, not taking it personally. Sometimes they are trying to actually hurt your feelings on a personal level and it might be logical to aggressively inform them of their hurtful actions, but even then... letting them bother you is a mistake.
My major complaint is that the passage seems to insinuate that you must "win" the situation with the jerk, which I think is selfish. The hardest choice, perhaps impossible, is knowing when "winning" (making him face what he is doing) the encounter would truly benefit the jerk.
I really liked your response. Thank you.
My major complaint is that the passage seems to insinuate that you must "win" the situation with the jerk, which I think is selfish. The hardest choice, perhaps impossible, is knowing when "winning" (making him face what he is doing) the encounter would truly benefit the jerk.
I really liked your response. Thank you.
It's certainly not about "winning". God said vengeance is His. If heaping coals was vengeance, wouldn't that mean we ourselves apply vengeance, albeit indirectly, by being nice to our enemies? Wouldn't that mean the motivation for our acts of kindness is corrupted by the burning desire for revenge?
These problems cause others to find a different interpretation, putting the hot coals in a good light, instead of a "vengeful" one. Here is a short overview on the topic: http://prumc.blogspot.com/2009/04/heap-burning-coals.html
These problems cause others to find a different interpretation, putting the hot coals in a good light, instead of a "vengeful" one. Here is a short overview on the topic: http://prumc.blogspot.com/2009/04/heap-burning-coals.html
No need for flames. Even those of us who don't believe ought to be able to accept wise words and parables.
Along those lines, I'd like to offer a link to Walter Wink's Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus' Nonviolent Way. There's something to glean here, even if you don't believe in Jesus.
Quoting from http://www.cres.org/star/_wink.htm (where there's a good bit more on this theme)
Turn the Other Cheek
"If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." Why the right cheek? A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek of the opponent. An open-handed slap would also strike the left cheek. To hit the right cheek with a fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. Even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran carried the penalty of ten days' penance. The only way one could naturally strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the hand. We are dealing here with insult, not a fistfight. The intention is clearly not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer thus, and if one did the fine was exorbitant. The Mishnaic tractate Baba Qamma specifies the various fines for striking an equal: for slugging with a fist, 4 zuz (a zuz was a day's wage); for slapping, 200 zuz; but "if [he struck him] with the back of his hand he must pay him 400 zuz." But damages for indignity were not paid to slaves who are struck (8:1-7).
A backhand slap was the usual way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans, Jews. We have here a set of unequal relations, in each of which retaliation would be suicidal. The only normal response would be cowering submission.
Part of the confusion surrounding these sayings arises from the failure to ask who Jesus' audience was. In all three of the examples in Matt. 5:39b-41, Jesus' listeners are not those who strike, initiate lawsuits, or impose forced labor, but their victims ("If anyone strikes you...wants to sue you...forces you to go one mile..."). There are among his hearers people who were subjected to these very indignities, forced to stifle outrage at their dehumanizing treatment by the hierarchical system of caste and class, race and gender, age and status, and as a result of imperial occupation.
Why then does he counsel these already humiliated people to turn the other cheek? Because this action robs the oppressor of the power to humiliate. The person who turns the other cheek is saying, in effect, "Try again. Your first blow failed to achieve its intended effect. I deny you the power to humiliate me. I am a human being just like you. Your status does not alter that fact. You cannot demean me."
Such a response would create enormous difficulties for the striker. Purely logistically, how would he hit the other cheek now turned to him? He cannot backhand it with his right hand (one only need try this to see the problem). If he hits with a fist, he makes the other his equal, acknowledging him as a peer. But the point of the back of the hand is to reinforce institutionalized inequality. Even if the superior orders the person flogged for such "cheeky" behavior (this is certainly no way to avoid conflict!), the point has been irrevocably made. He has been given notice that this underling is in fact a human being. In that world of honor and shaming, he has been rendered impotent to instill shame in a subordinate. He has been stripped of his power to dehumanize the other. As Gandhi taught, "The first principle of nonviolent action is that of noncooperation with everything humiliating."
EDIT: formatting
Along those lines, I'd like to offer a link to Walter Wink's Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus' Nonviolent Way. There's something to glean here, even if you don't believe in Jesus.
Quoting from http://www.cres.org/star/_wink.htm (where there's a good bit more on this theme)
Turn the Other Cheek
"If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." Why the right cheek? A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek of the opponent. An open-handed slap would also strike the left cheek. To hit the right cheek with a fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. Even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran carried the penalty of ten days' penance. The only way one could naturally strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the hand. We are dealing here with insult, not a fistfight. The intention is clearly not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer thus, and if one did the fine was exorbitant. The Mishnaic tractate Baba Qamma specifies the various fines for striking an equal: for slugging with a fist, 4 zuz (a zuz was a day's wage); for slapping, 200 zuz; but "if [he struck him] with the back of his hand he must pay him 400 zuz." But damages for indignity were not paid to slaves who are struck (8:1-7).
A backhand slap was the usual way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans, Jews. We have here a set of unequal relations, in each of which retaliation would be suicidal. The only normal response would be cowering submission.
Part of the confusion surrounding these sayings arises from the failure to ask who Jesus' audience was. In all three of the examples in Matt. 5:39b-41, Jesus' listeners are not those who strike, initiate lawsuits, or impose forced labor, but their victims ("If anyone strikes you...wants to sue you...forces you to go one mile..."). There are among his hearers people who were subjected to these very indignities, forced to stifle outrage at their dehumanizing treatment by the hierarchical system of caste and class, race and gender, age and status, and as a result of imperial occupation.
Why then does he counsel these already humiliated people to turn the other cheek? Because this action robs the oppressor of the power to humiliate. The person who turns the other cheek is saying, in effect, "Try again. Your first blow failed to achieve its intended effect. I deny you the power to humiliate me. I am a human being just like you. Your status does not alter that fact. You cannot demean me."
Such a response would create enormous difficulties for the striker. Purely logistically, how would he hit the other cheek now turned to him? He cannot backhand it with his right hand (one only need try this to see the problem). If he hits with a fist, he makes the other his equal, acknowledging him as a peer. But the point of the back of the hand is to reinforce institutionalized inequality. Even if the superior orders the person flogged for such "cheeky" behavior (this is certainly no way to avoid conflict!), the point has been irrevocably made. He has been given notice that this underling is in fact a human being. In that world of honor and shaming, he has been rendered impotent to instill shame in a subordinate. He has been stripped of his power to dehumanize the other. As Gandhi taught, "The first principle of nonviolent action is that of noncooperation with everything humiliating."
EDIT: formatting
"heap burning coals on his head"
wff? if that's the endgame is I'm not giving anyone water ever again.
wff? if that's the endgame is I'm not giving anyone water ever again.
It's like from the opposite of Sun Tzu's book and still not. :-)
Have used this approach years ago when I worked retail and it works really well (as an aside working retail for at least a year will give you a sound grasp of customer service and introduce you to the 10/80/10 split, 10% are lovely to deal with, 80% are somewhere in between but fine and 10% are jerks).
I also learnt not to take it personally, some times people are having a really bad day for reasons you can't see and a little bit of empathy goes a long way.
I also learnt not to take it personally, some times people are having a really bad day for reasons you can't see and a little bit of empathy goes a long way.
> I also learnt not to take it personally
I think this is a big one. When I am upset and calling Comcast (as an example that I think most people can relate to) it's always a frustrating customer experience. When I catch myself getting angry, I always try to tell the tech I'm talking to: "Listen, I'm sorry I'm snappy. It's obviously not you, it's your company's process that is making me angry" and try to make sure they understand that. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but as a customer, I try really hard to make that difference clear.
I think this is a big one. When I am upset and calling Comcast (as an example that I think most people can relate to) it's always a frustrating customer experience. When I catch myself getting angry, I always try to tell the tech I'm talking to: "Listen, I'm sorry I'm snappy. It's obviously not you, it's your company's process that is making me angry" and try to make sure they understand that. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but as a customer, I try really hard to make that difference clear.
You've described their entire day. I'm sure they know it's not them
> You've described their entire day. I'm sure they know it's not them
It's more about demonstrating that you (the customer) don't blame them (the agent of XYZ faceless corporation) that you know where the blame lies. They know they didn't create company policy, but they deal with a lot of people who don't appear to realize that. I find that showing empathy for the person on the other side of the dialogue while politely reiterating my frustration with the situation goes a long way toward them going the extra mile to try to help me out rather than trying to end the interaction as quickly as possible.
I began operating this way after my own observations working in a support position and it works a lot more often than not. Also, as an aside, remember to use the name of the company when stating an issue rather than saying "you." For example: "Comcast over billed me," and not "You over billed me."
It's more about demonstrating that you (the customer) don't blame them (the agent of XYZ faceless corporation) that you know where the blame lies. They know they didn't create company policy, but they deal with a lot of people who don't appear to realize that. I find that showing empathy for the person on the other side of the dialogue while politely reiterating my frustration with the situation goes a long way toward them going the extra mile to try to help me out rather than trying to end the interaction as quickly as possible.
I began operating this way after my own observations working in a support position and it works a lot more often than not. Also, as an aside, remember to use the name of the company when stating an issue rather than saying "you." For example: "Comcast over billed me," and not "You over billed me."
Yes, I do believe everyone growing up should work in retail for at least a year. It's a valuable experience (my experience was working for a year in a Toys R Us).
Absolutely true. I wasn't a jerk to people in retail before I worked a crappy job as an ice cream server, but I didn't really care about how they were treated. One summer dealing with customer bullshit changed that real quick.
I worked retail in high school, and none of the takeaway lessons were about the customers...
What lessons did you learn?
I learned that I hated a business where there are cycles without positive feedback. Put away christmas displays, put up valentines, cycle through the holidays, never see the benefits (people might enjoy their purchases, but you'll never know it).
I learned that terrible managers can be quite successful. The chain I was part of had 800+ stores, and MY store had the highest turnover rate of them all (because the manager was angry and mean). But we made our numbers, so upper management didn't care.
I learned there is a lot of risk being taken behind the scenes. When our accountant quit (because of manager), he had no one else to do the job so he stuck our newly hired 16 year old on the job (she came on a month after I did and had no more accounting background than I did, but he had no one else). One day I ended up doing an extra shift because it was a holiday sale and our asst manager was brand new. He relied on me a lot, and at the end of the day my register was somehow a few hundred short (honestly no idea how - probably accumulated errors over the 13 hour day, but I was normally dead on) and I never heard a second word about it even though that'd normally be an immediate firing.
I learned my coworkers (mainly 40-50 year old women) wished their husbands did more in the marriage. I also learned I'm a bit of an elitist snob. My favorite line: "Bill and I never go on dates anymore. But the tractor pull is this weekend so I'm hoping!"
The store bought overstock and sold it, and I learned a bit about what the difference between junk, junk with a brand name, and brand name goods that actually had value.
I learned that if you stocked unheard-of brands of condoms, people would still buy them.
I learned that terrible managers can be quite successful. The chain I was part of had 800+ stores, and MY store had the highest turnover rate of them all (because the manager was angry and mean). But we made our numbers, so upper management didn't care.
I learned there is a lot of risk being taken behind the scenes. When our accountant quit (because of manager), he had no one else to do the job so he stuck our newly hired 16 year old on the job (she came on a month after I did and had no more accounting background than I did, but he had no one else). One day I ended up doing an extra shift because it was a holiday sale and our asst manager was brand new. He relied on me a lot, and at the end of the day my register was somehow a few hundred short (honestly no idea how - probably accumulated errors over the 13 hour day, but I was normally dead on) and I never heard a second word about it even though that'd normally be an immediate firing.
I learned my coworkers (mainly 40-50 year old women) wished their husbands did more in the marriage. I also learned I'm a bit of an elitist snob. My favorite line: "Bill and I never go on dates anymore. But the tractor pull is this weekend so I'm hoping!"
The store bought overstock and sold it, and I learned a bit about what the difference between junk, junk with a brand name, and brand name goods that actually had value.
I learned that if you stocked unheard-of brands of condoms, people would still buy them.
Is there a cheat code that lets me give a post infinite upvotes?
Worked retail to pay for my BsCpe. I would definitely suggest working retail to anyone who has the opportunity. You'll never whine about another job again.
If you can't see the reasons for someone's bad day, it is very difficult to empathize with them.
You can empathize with their feelings regardless the reason for them. If they are frustrated, you understand feeling frustrated, so empathize. If they are angry, you understand feeling angry, so empathize. The precise reason doesn't matter.
How can you know their feelings, if you do not know the reasons for their feelings? Empathy as understanding someone's frustration requires you to first know that someone is actually frustrated (otherwise you are just imagining).
Have you had a bad day? If so, then you can empathize with their bad day without knowing their reasons.
Personal note, empathy is SO much easier for me the less I know. If they share their problems, I instinctively start dissecting and analyzing their situation.. It's easier to just recognize suffering and to try not to contribute to it or lessen it.
Personal note, empathy is SO much easier for me the less I know. If they share their problems, I instinctively start dissecting and analyzing their situation.. It's easier to just recognize suffering and to try not to contribute to it or lessen it.
I don't mean to be dismissive, but I really don't understand what you're trying to say. My understanding is that we are talking about face-to-face interaction with a clearly frustrated person. Why wouldn't you know they were frustrated?
I am talking about this situation:
>some times people are having a really bad day for reasons you can't see
It's not clear how you know someone is having a "really bad day" when you explicitly rule out knowing the reasons why the person is having a really bad day.
Maybe they told you they are having a really bad day? That is fine and fairly easy to empathize with.
Maybe you are just assuming someone is having a really bad day because of how you perceive their actions?
>some times people are having a really bad day for reasons you can't see
It's not clear how you know someone is having a "really bad day" when you explicitly rule out knowing the reasons why the person is having a really bad day.
Maybe they told you they are having a really bad day? That is fine and fairly easy to empathize with.
Maybe you are just assuming someone is having a really bad day because of how you perceive their actions?
[deleted]
You are using empathy in a different sense than (I think) most people are in this thread. I'm no psychiatrist, but usually when I hear people discuss empathy (or more often, someone's lack of it), they mean it almost in the sense of a lower-level mental process. Empathy is more than just feeling bad for random strangers who feel bad themselves- if anything, that's just a side effect. Empathy is the thing that makes you feel bad when you hurt someone else, even if you had a good reason for hurting that person. Empathy is the thing that allows you to sense other people's internal states- it's not magic or psionics or whatever, it's just your subconscious maintaining a background thread that is paying attention to signals from other people, and communicating those signals to you by internalizing a distant echo of what that background thread has determined that they must be feeling. It's fundamental to human interaction and cooperation and is (IMO) one the biggest drivers of the development of civilization.
A sociopath is an adult who never developed this facility. Children don't have empathy- it's one of the things that makes them children. That's why some kids do things like torture or kill animals...in their minds, those animals aren't creatures with sensory experiences like themselves, rather those animals (or even other people) are perceived as meat robots, for lack of a better term. Lacking empathy means when they hurt someone, they don't feel anything themselves because there is no background thread in their subconscious reminding them that the person they are hurting is another thinking, perceiving, feeling being like themselves.
Psychiatrists can't diagnose someone as a sociopath until they're 18, by which time people's brains are expected to have developed some capacity for it. People on the autistic spectrum also have a lesser capacity for empathy, that's part of what defines them as being autistic. They can't perceive subtle social queues because of this lack of empathy.
There are plenty of people who are self-aware, functioning sociopaths- they've spent their lives having fundamental social problems, never relating to other people the way that everyone else seems to be able relate to each other. At some point in life they discover that their cognitive development wasn't perfect, and once they understand the nature of the issue they can compensate by making a conscious effort to do so. There are also plenty of sociopaths who never made this leap, and basically all you can do is stay as far away from them as possible, because who wants to deal with someone who thinks you're a meat robot?
In the context of this thread, people aren't talking about sociopaths or anyone with autism/Asperger's/etc., but imagine a seemingly normal adult with underdeveloped empathy- it manifests in all sorts of ways, from being jerks to retail employees to stiffing waiters to just being an unpleasant person to interact with. Those people don't realize they have an underdeveloped cognitive process, they just go through life wondering why so many people think they're jerks, and saying things like "99% of humanity is way too sensitive". I would attribute a lack of self-awareness to a lack of empathy as well- if someone is incapable of seeing themselves through other people's eyes, then they have no way of gauging their own behavior or feelings.
A sociopath is an adult who never developed this facility. Children don't have empathy- it's one of the things that makes them children. That's why some kids do things like torture or kill animals...in their minds, those animals aren't creatures with sensory experiences like themselves, rather those animals (or even other people) are perceived as meat robots, for lack of a better term. Lacking empathy means when they hurt someone, they don't feel anything themselves because there is no background thread in their subconscious reminding them that the person they are hurting is another thinking, perceiving, feeling being like themselves.
Psychiatrists can't diagnose someone as a sociopath until they're 18, by which time people's brains are expected to have developed some capacity for it. People on the autistic spectrum also have a lesser capacity for empathy, that's part of what defines them as being autistic. They can't perceive subtle social queues because of this lack of empathy.
There are plenty of people who are self-aware, functioning sociopaths- they've spent their lives having fundamental social problems, never relating to other people the way that everyone else seems to be able relate to each other. At some point in life they discover that their cognitive development wasn't perfect, and once they understand the nature of the issue they can compensate by making a conscious effort to do so. There are also plenty of sociopaths who never made this leap, and basically all you can do is stay as far away from them as possible, because who wants to deal with someone who thinks you're a meat robot?
In the context of this thread, people aren't talking about sociopaths or anyone with autism/Asperger's/etc., but imagine a seemingly normal adult with underdeveloped empathy- it manifests in all sorts of ways, from being jerks to retail employees to stiffing waiters to just being an unpleasant person to interact with. Those people don't realize they have an underdeveloped cognitive process, they just go through life wondering why so many people think they're jerks, and saying things like "99% of humanity is way too sensitive". I would attribute a lack of self-awareness to a lack of empathy as well- if someone is incapable of seeing themselves through other people's eyes, then they have no way of gauging their own behavior or feelings.
In the context of this thread, I don't understand why you brought up either sociopaths or autism/Asperger's/etc., especially when you specifically disclaim it in your last paragraph.
I think the problem with this conception of empathy is that it seemingly derives solely from the person experiencing it. This type of empathy requires a subconscious background thread to be keeping track of signals which may or may not exist in the external reality. If it is at all possible to know (whether or not such signals exist), it would appear to at least require some communication. Otherwise you are just trying to make inferences off of what you observe, which is probably a near insignificant amount of what the person you are supposedly empathizing with has observed (leaving the question: How do you actually know that the things you are feeling are actually, exactly the same as what the other person is feeling?). I believe this definition of empathy allows people to feel good about themselves, that they are not a sociopath, while still allowing for the possibility that the empath is not actually feeling the same thing as their target.
I think the problem with this conception of empathy is that it seemingly derives solely from the person experiencing it. This type of empathy requires a subconscious background thread to be keeping track of signals which may or may not exist in the external reality. If it is at all possible to know (whether or not such signals exist), it would appear to at least require some communication. Otherwise you are just trying to make inferences off of what you observe, which is probably a near insignificant amount of what the person you are supposedly empathizing with has observed (leaving the question: How do you actually know that the things you are feeling are actually, exactly the same as what the other person is feeling?). I believe this definition of empathy allows people to feel good about themselves, that they are not a sociopath, while still allowing for the possibility that the empath is not actually feeling the same thing as their target.
That depends on your initial assumptions, which you can shape over time (though you may not want to or find it advantageous to do so).
Yes, you could engage in a conversation with the individual to better understand their situation. However, in the scenario presented:
>some times people are having a really bad day for reasons you can't see and a little bit of empathy goes a long way
I don't see how you can have much empathy. Patience, yes. Compassion, yes. Full sharing of feelings, no, purely by the description of the scenario.
>some times people are having a really bad day for reasons you can't see and a little bit of empathy goes a long way
I don't see how you can have much empathy. Patience, yes. Compassion, yes. Full sharing of feelings, no, purely by the description of the scenario.
This is just a case where the person said empathy, but meant sympathy. It's a common mistake to make.
This seems like a good example of this article posted yesterday: https://pchiusano.github.io/2014-10-11/defensive-writing.htm...
I'm not sure sympathy is quite the right word either. Pitying someone is not very productive; I typically find it quite patronizing.
'Pity and sorrow' is one of the definitions of the word sympathy, but that's not the meaning generally implied when used in comparison to empathy.
"Sympathy (from the Greek words syn "together" and pathos "feeling" which means "fellow-feeling") is the perception, understanding, and reaction to the distress or need of another human being."[0]
"When you sympathize with someone, you have compassion for that person, but you don’t necessarily feel her feelings."[1]
Generally the difference between empathy and sympathy is the internal response to the feelings of others. If you personally are feeling the same thing as the person, then that's generally empathy, otherwise it's generally sympathy.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathy
[1] - http://grammarist.com/usage/empathy-sympathy/
"Sympathy (from the Greek words syn "together" and pathos "feeling" which means "fellow-feeling") is the perception, understanding, and reaction to the distress or need of another human being."[0]
"When you sympathize with someone, you have compassion for that person, but you don’t necessarily feel her feelings."[1]
Generally the difference between empathy and sympathy is the internal response to the feelings of others. If you personally are feeling the same thing as the person, then that's generally empathy, otherwise it's generally sympathy.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathy
[1] - http://grammarist.com/usage/empathy-sympathy/
define pity
pit·y
ˈpidē/
noun
noun: pity
1.
the feeling of sorrow and compassion caused by the suffering and misfortunes of others.
I use a version of this when dealing with police.
Instead of trying to act happy or friendly, I remain as level as possible. Think "Mr. Spock with a smile".
I have found that even "huff and puff" types calm down after a minute or so of this.
Instead of trying to act happy or friendly, I remain as level as possible. Think "Mr. Spock with a smile".
I have found that even "huff and puff" types calm down after a minute or so of this.
How often are you dealing with police?
A couple of times a year.
There's a beautiful illustration of this principle from the NFL, of all places. When quarterback Andrew Luck gets sacked, he enthusiastically compliments his tackler for a great play. It completely messes up the opponent's psyche, at least according to this darkly funny Wall Street Journal story:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/andrew-luck-the-nfls-most-perple...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/andrew-luck-the-nfls-most-perple...
This is unfortunately rewarding poor behavior with extra attention- it's teaching people that they get better service when they are rude.
In a face-to-face position, this might be a good coping strategy where the confrontation is temporary and unavoidable.
On the web, it's best not to engage with rude users at all, since they will continue coming back and learn to expect attention from negative behavior. Try to only engage with polite and positive users.
In a face-to-face position, this might be a good coping strategy where the confrontation is temporary and unavoidable.
On the web, it's best not to engage with rude users at all, since they will continue coming back and learn to expect attention from negative behavior. Try to only engage with polite and positive users.
Honestly, when somebody who isn't a subordinate, friend, or direct charge acts like a jerk, I don't think it's worth taking this kind of pedagogical role with regard to etiquette (probably not a good idea in the friends case a lot of time as well). If somebody wants to be a jerk, there are enough providers of goods and services that they'll find one that responds favorably to that. Not to mention that they'll probably rationalize turning them away as the provider being a jerk rather than learning something from it. As DarkTree points out, the provider's response to that behavior is more about managing the provider's quality of life than about shaping customers for the greater good.
Indeed, there should be a dichotomy between real life and the web when using this strategy, but again, I think this strategy is more about increasing your own happiness then it is to diminish theirs.
The principle I think you're hinting at here is one of reinforcing good behaviour and extinguishing bad behaviour, à la Skinner. However, this can only be done over time, with repeated interactions.
The mechanism described in the article doesn't seek to alter the behaviour of the customers, each of whom may never be seen again. Rather, it is a defence mechanism for the employee.
The mechanism described in the article doesn't seek to alter the behaviour of the customers, each of whom may never be seen again. Rather, it is a defence mechanism for the employee.
Sometimes it's not possible to just avoid people, even on the web - I worked online customer support for a while and we had to respond to every request. This tactic works well for those types of situations.
David Burns (in the book "Feeling Good") wrote about the "disarming technique" which is "find some truth in what the other person is saying, even if it seems totally unreasonable or unfair".
Playing dumb can be effective disarming others who might otherwise percieve you as a threat.
Shady character asking you for time, cigarette, etc.
"Nah bruh, shit I need one too, you got one? My bad fam."
This has gotten me out of questionable situations during the wrong hours out in Brooklyn/Manhattan inner city areas.
Shady character asking you for time, cigarette, etc.
"Nah bruh, shit I need one too, you got one? My bad fam."
This has gotten me out of questionable situations during the wrong hours out in Brooklyn/Manhattan inner city areas.
I worked at a fast food place back in high school, I often used this approach to a pretty effective degree. The only issue that can arise is when your increasing friendliness causes the person you're dealing with to get irrationally angry and do something rash, such as throw a cup of coffee at you.
It was pretty painful, but the laughter the situation induced was a nice distraction.
It was pretty painful, but the laughter the situation induced was a nice distraction.
I'd imagine that increasing friendliness in such a situation could easily be interpreted as mocking or patronizing (no matter how sincere you are) and in that case the hostile reaction isn't to the friendliness it's to the mis-perception of it.
in most cases it is patronising; that's the entire point of how you psychologically "win" the encounter by being friendly to someone who is being a jerk to you.
...which is why using social manipulation techniques like these area great for working with strangers or people you will never see again, but mostly a bad idea in more permanent relationships. E.g. with colleagues, repeat customers that you want to see again etc.
I will work customer support at a company sometimes just for fun. I work in completely unrelated field but I love the psychology of customer support, to me its a video game with very well created bots.
Over 1000+ online chats I have never been given a negative review and any customer can leave one through the live chat feedback. I have never had anyone complain about my service on phone either.
A couple things I find key, do not let anyone's words bother you, ever! You are immune to damage from words.
To me its like, do I get mad at a video game because the level is hard ? or do I enjoy it because its a challenge. That is probably the hardest part for most people. To me they are "crabby bots" that you want to defuse and brighten their day.
I never let someone's mood effect me, I consider that giving someone control over my emotions. They are forcing you to act a certain way by their actions and that to me is losing control, Which I find to be a weakness for many reasons. Once you are immune to them having any effect on your emotions you cannot be dragged down or taken off point, so you operate from a position of power.
Then, Empathy, Empathy, Empathy, and personalize your response almost as if you are friends. They are mad because their package is late ? "I am so sorry for that, I cannot stand when my packages are late."
They hate that their package is late ? well you realllly hate it when packages are late. They could not reach tech support, called and couldn't reach anyone so they are mad ? "I really have to apologize for that, it is unacceptable, I completely understand why you feel that way".
You adopt their sentiment that they are expressing and relate to it. It lets them know you are in their corner. They bash your companies customer service ? you reply with "I cannot stand poor customer service, so I will make sure we get this right because I know how frustrating it can be.
It's a game! You take no damage and get to play with someone's mind!! how fun is that!
Another subtle thing, Is don't just use copy paste responses that make you sound like a bot. I actually leave some typos and grammar errors in when I do customer support, and use smiles and lol sometimes (makes you human). Remember its your friend who you are talking to and they are trying to give you money, Help them do it.
Over 1000+ online chats I have never been given a negative review and any customer can leave one through the live chat feedback. I have never had anyone complain about my service on phone either.
A couple things I find key, do not let anyone's words bother you, ever! You are immune to damage from words.
To me its like, do I get mad at a video game because the level is hard ? or do I enjoy it because its a challenge. That is probably the hardest part for most people. To me they are "crabby bots" that you want to defuse and brighten their day.
I never let someone's mood effect me, I consider that giving someone control over my emotions. They are forcing you to act a certain way by their actions and that to me is losing control, Which I find to be a weakness for many reasons. Once you are immune to them having any effect on your emotions you cannot be dragged down or taken off point, so you operate from a position of power.
Then, Empathy, Empathy, Empathy, and personalize your response almost as if you are friends. They are mad because their package is late ? "I am so sorry for that, I cannot stand when my packages are late."
They hate that their package is late ? well you realllly hate it when packages are late. They could not reach tech support, called and couldn't reach anyone so they are mad ? "I really have to apologize for that, it is unacceptable, I completely understand why you feel that way".
You adopt their sentiment that they are expressing and relate to it. It lets them know you are in their corner. They bash your companies customer service ? you reply with "I cannot stand poor customer service, so I will make sure we get this right because I know how frustrating it can be.
It's a game! You take no damage and get to play with someone's mind!! how fun is that!
Another subtle thing, Is don't just use copy paste responses that make you sound like a bot. I actually leave some typos and grammar errors in when I do customer support, and use smiles and lol sometimes (makes you human). Remember its your friend who you are talking to and they are trying to give you money, Help them do it.
I don't think the defence is really the happiness, it's the appearance of immunity to their behaviour. Which only helps if they're not actually in a position to puncture your defensive bubble. Are you supposed to keep acting happy when the jerk starts being physically violent or stealing your stuff?
Edit: Please imagine me smiling broadly despite the downvotes.
Edit: Please imagine me smiling broadly despite the downvotes.
Well, obviously there is a difference between "trying to piss you off" and "doing shit that is actually illegal".
There's only a difference in practice if you have a chance of getting whatever law they're breaking enforced. Also there are bad things people can do that are legal.
The technique may work well with people whose only ambition is to be slightly irritating and who aren't particularly committed to that goal.
The technique may work well with people whose only ambition is to be slightly irritating and who aren't particularly committed to that goal.
This works really well for software support too.
I have some technology related courses out and I sometimes get people who ask questions in extremely passive-aggressive ways or just have a terrible attitude.
I just bombard them with optimism and treat them in the best way I can. Most of the time they will do a full 180 and become very reasonable, sometimes even apologize.
I have some technology related courses out and I sometimes get people who ask questions in extremely passive-aggressive ways or just have a terrible attitude.
I just bombard them with optimism and treat them in the best way I can. Most of the time they will do a full 180 and become very reasonable, sometimes even apologize.
Very interesting! My question is, does it work in email? At least, it might be worth trying.
Email is an interesting medium as it is one where if the recipient is in an emotional state then it is completely ineffective. No matter what you write you end up reinforcing the recipients emotional state. There does not seem to be anyway to get a person to calm down and assess the situation rationally via email. I feel the best way to handle a jerk by email is get on the phone and call them if you can.
I find trying to be "overly nice" in email can often come off as a little condescending.
If someone's being rude to me I don't mind being a little condescending.
The problem with acting happy in email is it adds more for the client to read. Most people don't enjoy reading longer emails.
Just change/add some little quirks to make it seem like you're happy. Example, instead of Regards, - Say Thanks!
Just change/add some little quirks to make it seem like you're happy. Example, instead of Regards, - Say Thanks!
With email, rather than happiness, amping up the professionalism and courtesy might be an analogue.
This approach only works if the other person realizes they're being rude/obnoxious. If they're not self-aware enough to know that, they're just going to interpret your friendliness as a sign that you enjoy being around them...
This can be a good thing too. I worked at a gas station for a few years, and I had a share of regulars who seemed to have no regard for me as a person by the way they interacted with me. Some things that I would encounter from them included ignoring formalities, getting impatient over mild inconveniences, and generally acting haughty in conversation. I wasn't really in a position to act offended, so I would just follow my routine of acting friendly and saying hello and good-bye to them.
Almost every time, after enough repeated interactions like this, it's as though these regulars forgot that they didn't like me. They would see me and light up, or they would eventually thaw out and start putting more consideration into the way they interacted with me.
Whatever their inclinations for acting unpleasant may have been, I rarely, if ever, had anyone not come around and act more personable after enough friendly encounters with me.
Almost every time, after enough repeated interactions like this, it's as though these regulars forgot that they didn't like me. They would see me and light up, or they would eventually thaw out and start putting more consideration into the way they interacted with me.
Whatever their inclinations for acting unpleasant may have been, I rarely, if ever, had anyone not come around and act more personable after enough friendly encounters with me.
I would have gone insane years ago if I didn't pick this up. If you remain happy & friendly while being able to explain the reason for any question you ask, no reasonable person can bring you down.
This is surprisingly easy to pull off, especially if you have good senses of absurdity and perspective.
As noir_lord mentions, just don't take it personally.
As noir_lord mentions, just don't take it personally.
"A soft answer turneth away wrath." - not sure who said it, but I agree.
On the other side of the fence, I find that a sympathetic word to a cranky/grumpy cashier or salesperson can really help cheer them up. For example, "Wow, looks like you're having a super-busy day. How's it going?"
On the other side of the fence, I find that a sympathetic word to a cranky/grumpy cashier or salesperson can really help cheer them up. For example, "Wow, looks like you're having a super-busy day. How's it going?"
I try to do this every time they look harried. Because you know they're angry that the manager hasn't opened up more lines, or worried the people waiting are mad, or some sort of anxiety. So being friendly and acknowledging their predicament costs you nothing, but can make their day a bit easier.
> I sighed and grabbed the squeegee to do his entire window again.
You wouldn't last long in Japan if you sighed at customer requests. Hai, sumimasen, and wipe it again.
A jerk is what that customer is being today; it's not necessarily what he is.
You wouldn't last long in Japan if you sighed at customer requests. Hai, sumimasen, and wipe it again.
A jerk is what that customer is being today; it's not necessarily what he is.
Now a days I could see that being a nice service while I used my phone but what did people do while their car was being filled up back then? I'd rather be doing something rather than sitting in my car doing nothing...
I have a pet theory that people had longer attention spans back then and didn't need constant entertainment to distract them from the present moment. Also they listened to the radio and enjoyed not being out in the cold.
get out and chat with the attendant usually, at least that's what I used to do when I was living in Europe in a country where self-service was available only after hours.
It's not very common to do long trips requiring refueling at the end, so most of the time you go to the same gas station for years and as time goes on you end up making friends with the people there, also considering often gas stations are a lot smaller than here and either just have the owner pumping or max 1-2 rotating additional people.
If it's an unfamiliar gas station it really depends, in some cases the attendant will just put the pump in your car and click it so it keeps pumping and go to a different car to get paid in which case you stay inside, but if it's a slow time pre-cellphone days you just got out and chatted for the few minutes it took to refuel
It's not very common to do long trips requiring refueling at the end, so most of the time you go to the same gas station for years and as time goes on you end up making friends with the people there, also considering often gas stations are a lot smaller than here and either just have the owner pumping or max 1-2 rotating additional people.
If it's an unfamiliar gas station it really depends, in some cases the attendant will just put the pump in your car and click it so it keeps pumping and go to a different car to get paid in which case you stay inside, but if it's a slow time pre-cellphone days you just got out and chatted for the few minutes it took to refuel
Not everyone who acts like a jerk (as described) is seeking confrontation. Some people who act like this are simply a rare combination of finicky and totally self-absorbed. If you act happy and bend over backwards to meet their demands, they'll see you as a rare individual worth coming back to again and again and again. Sometimes you really do have to stop smiling and let such people know they're being unreasonable, because they're totally clueless.
This will be added to my toolbox after some excersicing... If I'm able to do it correctly would be nice.
Buuuuut, I have a question: imagine this is a call, and you go by the rule with extreme optimism to an angry customer on the phone, don't you risk in the case of a recording to sound kind of crazy? it should be incredibly natural and well thought and executed... if not you risk being exposed.
With that said... isn't this a way of making your employees being nice no mater what?
Buuuuut, I have a question: imagine this is a call, and you go by the rule with extreme optimism to an angry customer on the phone, don't you risk in the case of a recording to sound kind of crazy? it should be incredibly natural and well thought and executed... if not you risk being exposed.
With that said... isn't this a way of making your employees being nice no mater what?
Based on the comments here, I'd better practice up on being rude. Seems like I'll get better results.
I've often used a similar technique driving, but it has backfired. When someone gets angry, flips me off, etc. I will usually wave exuberantly, with a huge smile. Unfortunately making an angry driver angrier gets scary quick.
I've often used a similar technique driving, but it has backfired. When someone gets angry, flips me off, etc. I will usually wave exuberantly, with a huge smile. Unfortunately making an angry driver angrier gets scary quick.
Once in a while, I catch myself making some kind of mistake on the road that angers another driver.
I really wish there was some kind of international, "Sorry, my bad!" gesture. If there is one, I'm unaware of what it is.
Once in a while, I catch myself making some kind of mistake on the road that angers another driver.
I really wish there was some kind of international, "Sorry, my bad!" gesture. If there is one, I'm unaware of what it is.
And when you find yourself hanging on a cross or inhaling a liter or two of water in Gitmo, just remember this -
https://youtu.be/WlBiLNN1NhQ
This is my usual route to any sort of confrontation. Act happy while stating my disagreements. Nothing pisses my wife off more.
Great read and I've seen this work directly in my life for the 20 years after I heard this advice for the first time. There's no avoiding it. Someone is going to treat you terribly for reasons you don't deserve and most of the time and you can't "patch" the other guy/gal.
I was the youngest member of the team by 6 years at the company I started my career[1]. I was treated like a kid (often called a whiz-kid, but not in a flattering way). I worked with sysadmins, several of which had terrible attitudes and all of which were at least 5 years my senior. Three were outright bullies and made me hate a job I would otherwise love. A coworker told me "treat them with undeserved kindness" and quoted a bible verse about it being like "heaping hot coals over them". I wasn't a Christian so the bible didn't have the authority that it held for him, but after a long talk, I understood the usefulness and decided to run with it. It came down to "whether or not the abuse is deserved, you can't make the other guy do something different, you can only control yourself".
I became the guy who was kind to "the 3 jerks". I'd find things to do for them -- volunteering to swap tapes, noticing how coffee was taken and bringing an extra back when I refilled[2], twisting received backhanded compliments into compliments (with inappropriate thanks), and apologizing about things they complained to me (and about me others) seeking advice on how to do better[3]. My behavior toward "the jerks" spilled over to everyone else. One of the 3 bullies became my defender and friend (I got the impression he was a jerk to fit in at the time but such is not the case today).
I really liked the description of what happens to you when you decide to put this attitude in action. The more you do it the more comical grumpy, angry people become. The phrase "it must suck to be you" sarcastically rang through my head occasionally. The two remaining bullies, however, behaved how I've found most bully-types behave when I'd ceased to be a reliable target. "Heap hot coals" was a perfect description. They became bigger jerks and their behavior spread out to everyone. I was picked for projects over them because I was seen as kind/friendly while they were stereotyped as BOFH. Coworkers saw the undeserved abuse given me by "the jerks". On the same day I received a promotion, they were laid off (and I was told directly that it was due to their terrible attitude and the way myself and my advice giving coworker were treated). I became a much happier person in general. Thinking about it now, it's strange to think that happened because I chose to accept abuse and be kind, but it was.
[1] I was 19 doing sysadmin/infrastructure support for a telecom - most of my coworkers were over 25, many over 35.
[2] I remember grabbing myself a cup of coffee and filling up another cup for my coworker, prepared the way he always took it, and having him say "sucking up to me, now, are ya?" and then complaining that it had too much sugar. My boss was in the cube next to his at the time and overheard the conversation. He stopped by to apologize for this employee's abuse and asked me why I was being so nice to him. I don't remember my response.
[3] This was the only hard part - swallowing my ego. Experience has taught me that Sysadmins/Devs have strong opinions about things that are as important as the color of the bikeshed. I'd be denigrated for not following rules that were unwritten (and not followed by these individuals) and trivial (i.e. tabs vs spaces where "wall of pink" doesn't apply) and having to ask how I could do it "better" while swallowing the screaming in my mind that said "Seriously?! This is what's so important?!!"
I was the youngest member of the team by 6 years at the company I started my career[1]. I was treated like a kid (often called a whiz-kid, but not in a flattering way). I worked with sysadmins, several of which had terrible attitudes and all of which were at least 5 years my senior. Three were outright bullies and made me hate a job I would otherwise love. A coworker told me "treat them with undeserved kindness" and quoted a bible verse about it being like "heaping hot coals over them". I wasn't a Christian so the bible didn't have the authority that it held for him, but after a long talk, I understood the usefulness and decided to run with it. It came down to "whether or not the abuse is deserved, you can't make the other guy do something different, you can only control yourself".
I became the guy who was kind to "the 3 jerks". I'd find things to do for them -- volunteering to swap tapes, noticing how coffee was taken and bringing an extra back when I refilled[2], twisting received backhanded compliments into compliments (with inappropriate thanks), and apologizing about things they complained to me (and about me others) seeking advice on how to do better[3]. My behavior toward "the jerks" spilled over to everyone else. One of the 3 bullies became my defender and friend (I got the impression he was a jerk to fit in at the time but such is not the case today).
I really liked the description of what happens to you when you decide to put this attitude in action. The more you do it the more comical grumpy, angry people become. The phrase "it must suck to be you" sarcastically rang through my head occasionally. The two remaining bullies, however, behaved how I've found most bully-types behave when I'd ceased to be a reliable target. "Heap hot coals" was a perfect description. They became bigger jerks and their behavior spread out to everyone. I was picked for projects over them because I was seen as kind/friendly while they were stereotyped as BOFH. Coworkers saw the undeserved abuse given me by "the jerks". On the same day I received a promotion, they were laid off (and I was told directly that it was due to their terrible attitude and the way myself and my advice giving coworker were treated). I became a much happier person in general. Thinking about it now, it's strange to think that happened because I chose to accept abuse and be kind, but it was.
[1] I was 19 doing sysadmin/infrastructure support for a telecom - most of my coworkers were over 25, many over 35.
[2] I remember grabbing myself a cup of coffee and filling up another cup for my coworker, prepared the way he always took it, and having him say "sucking up to me, now, are ya?" and then complaining that it had too much sugar. My boss was in the cube next to his at the time and overheard the conversation. He stopped by to apologize for this employee's abuse and asked me why I was being so nice to him. I don't remember my response.
[3] This was the only hard part - swallowing my ego. Experience has taught me that Sysadmins/Devs have strong opinions about things that are as important as the color of the bikeshed. I'd be denigrated for not following rules that were unwritten (and not followed by these individuals) and trivial (i.e. tabs vs spaces where "wall of pink" doesn't apply) and having to ask how I could do it "better" while swallowing the screaming in my mind that said "Seriously?! This is what's so important?!!"
Thank you for sharing your awesome story. I've learned a lot, and I agree that swallowing one's ego is probably the toughest part, especially in an environment where I tend to be the youngest/least experienced.
Yes, upon being insulted the best response is to avoid being insulted. The idea goes back a long way.
http://boingboing.net/2010/10/29/twenty-first-century-3.html
http://boingboing.net/2010/10/29/twenty-first-century-3.html
I use this approach and call it "killing with kindness".
Well I read that wrong at first glance.
Well the most important thing to remember is the Golden Rule. You should treat others as you would wish to be treated in their situation.
How do you want to be treated when you're being a dick to service workers for no reason?
Probably with respect?
Should I treat gratuitously unpleasant people with more respect than other people?
No, the same amount, but also try to spend less time interacting with them if possible.
I wouldn't want other people trying to spend less time with me.
Well the way the universe works is people can't spend time with everyone else concurrently.
I like the version from [0] more - "Do unto others 20% better than you would expect them to do unto you, to correct for subjective error."
[0] - http://blog.jaibot.com/
[0] - http://blog.jaibot.com/
Don't assume you necessarily have the highest standards, or that everyone's expectations are the same. You should treat others how they wish to be treated because your wishes might be far below their expectations.
In situations like this, if there is an aggressor (say the customer in this case) they expect a certain outcome. They envision how the interaction will go. "I'll be demanding. Employee will get upset, maybe a bit snippy. I'll yell at them and show them who's boss. Maybe even complain to the manager." But in turn they see a smile, complements ("Oh, what a beautiful Porsche you have!") and willingness to help. They are angry inside but it is hard to manifest it without appearing completely crazy.
I've heard of other stuff like this:
* In a dangerous part of town and see a bunch of shady people eye you up -- act crazy, mutter to yourself and maybe flail your arms. Friend liked to do this in a bad part of Chicago.
* Someone wants to pick an argument and is just contrarian no matter what you say. At first argue a bit, then immediately switch sides and argue against your old position (basically on their side). Also to make it fun, be kind of aggressive and angry at your old position just like they were.
* An aggressive panhandler is verbally harassing you asking for money. "No thanks, I'm good. Talk to you on Wednesday". Say it, as matter of fact as possible. Their mind will stop for a bit trying to process that, and it gives you enough time to walk away far enough.