Public Insult Endangers Even If You’re Not the Target

Insult has become a daily aspect of life.  It’s hard to read the newspaper or view screens without encountering it.   This is bad, not just for us, but for our future and our children’s future. 

Public insult damages more than its target. It erodes community by implanting destructive messages in all who witness it, eg:

• Human interaction is a battlefield;
• Being vicious, heartless, and cruel is acceptable in order to win;
• Feelings of others and values of trust, good relationships, tolerance, and dialogue simply don’t matter.

When insult is allowed to have the last word, when it succeeds in silencing or humiliating people, those messages are planted like seeds. Eventually the seeds become norms and people begin acting on them on a broad scale.  Then violence is just a stone’s throw away.

Respond to Insult without Being Insulting

Among the many things we can do to prevent this is learning, modeling, and teaching the art of responding constructively to insult, without using insult ourselves.  

Don’t fight fire with fire.  Fight fire with water.

Steve Jobs’ Skillful Response to Public Insult

In a 3 minute video clip in 1997, Steve Jobs offers one of the best examples of defusing insult I’ve seen. He had just returned from a humiliating absence at Apple where he had been forced out ten years earlier.  In a conference someone tells Jobs it’s clear he often doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  The speaker continues with a hostile question and adds a zinger at the end:  “And when you’re finished with that, perhaps you can tell us what you personally have been doing for the last seven years.”

In an insightful analysis of Job’s response, Justin Bariso nails why it was effective:

• He pauses, for a full 10 seconds, contemplating his response.  A pause not only gives time to control anger and prepare a thoughtful response, it sends a deeper message:  Let’s listen and think; let’s engage the issues, not just jump into combat.
• He acknowledges elements of truth in the challenger’s point.   
• He then reframes the discussion to the big picture, where there is more common ground.   The user had challenged Job’s work on a particular software.  Rather than respond directly and defensively, Jobs reframes the discussion to the issues and strategies that led to the development of that software.
• He displays vulnerability, admitting that he has made mistakes.

That’s high skill in communication on display there.  You probably can’t match Job’s grasp of the issues in his field.  But you can learn from and practice the poise he models in the face of insult.

Mastering the thoughtful pause is a great place to start.  What’s to lose?  At the very least you gain time to formulate an answer you won’t regret later.

Studies have shown (eg: Daniel O’Keefe, Communication Yearbook 22, 1999, pp. 209-249) that speakers who, in a balanced way, present both sides of an issue before asserting their own views are more persuasive than speakers who present only one side.  Pausing gives space to review the other side, in addition to the emotional timeout it obviously gives.   Jobs recognized an element of truth in his challenger’s question and came up with a response that turned the challenge into a conversation.

In the language of conflict styles, this is opting for a Cooperating response (committed both to self and the relationship) in a setting where a Directing response (committed to self but not to the relationship) would have been easy but polarizing.

I’ve learned from my own efforts at this:   1) The best replies often occur to me about twenty minutes too late to be of value!  2) Like any skill, the ability to reply to insult without adding to it grows with practice.  A conflict style inventory like the Thomas Kilmann or my Style Matters is a great place to get started.  Compare them here.