I have a sibling who is constantly reminding me to 'appreciate the wins' and give myself credit for accomplishments. I need this reminder, because as soon as I complete a task these days, I immediately forget about it and begin compulsively obsessing over everything else that needs attention. My to-do list will never, ever be finished. I will never, ever be good enough. I see far more that is wrong/bad about my situation than what is right/good.
It wasn't always this way. I used to be able to bask in the glory of an achievement for at least a little while. But after going through some rough times, my mind has somehow been trained to be constantly looking ahead to the next problem, always fearing the worst. I'm not sure how to turn it off beyond heavy self medication and sleeping.
If you are currently living paycheck to paycheck this is understandable.
Something that helped me out was filling out a dedicated digital calendar with actions actually done. First entry each day is usually the hours i slept, for example. I'll lump things together to try to make entries fit at least half an hour, preferably an hour+, so im not tediously filling out a calendar all day.
A little backwards to how calendars usually get used, but being able to open it up and see where all my time went helped me feel better about the never ending to-do list. I started seeing the sea of to-dos as an opportunity landscape that I could mine in order to improve the things i see marked down on my "actual" calendar. when i make an entry i am proud of, i see it every time i make a new entry for a little bit. i am able to continue being productive with a clear head most of the time; while compounding that good feeling each time i make an entry; which is almost always between tasks and a good time to bask in it a little bit.
Is it disingenuous to tell kids sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me?
Or, what other people think of you doesn’t matter?
As the article points out it can be damaging at any age. Maybe a better approach is to tell them, yes it can hurt, but here are some ways to process that and work on resilience.
Where I grew up no one would actually say the sticks and stones line unless they were intentionally being sarcastic and provoking people to bully them (i.e. trolling). It was still a useful phrase to pass around though
I understood the lesson to mean "Dont let bullies control you with words". As in, be wary of people trying to manipulate you with hurtful words. The point is to not give your bully information on how they are hurting you because they can leverage it against you
Of course words can hurt. the saying wouldnt exist if that wasnt true. We dont go around saying "sticks and stones can break my bones but giving me thoughtful gifts will never hurt me". There is an understanding the bully is trying to hurt with words, because words can hurt, and the response is meant to deny them the emotional reaction they are looking for from you
If you are not familiar with the mantra, Knives are physical like sticks and stones.
"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me"
Harm from knives is physical and objective. Words can only hurt to the degree you care about them. You could call me a nasty name right now, and it would not hurt my feelings because I am not invested in your opinion of me. I have an independent sense of self worth. Understanding that you can change the level that you care about the opinions of others is a basic human skill.
There are several things wrong with this line of thinking. The first error is that telling someone that words don't hurt doesn't automatically create an independent sense of self worth in someone. Instead it teaches people to not share pain caused by words. To some people, this has the appearance of working - namely it isn't brought up again, but it does nothing to solve the problem of the experience of pain people feel.
The second is an error in generalization that may very well apply to people who do have this skill, but has disastrous consequences for those that don't. The people who experience live this way would do well to understand the type of person they are giving such advice to before they assume that everyone experiences the world as they do.
As someone at the receiving end of advice like this. It doesn't help. What ends up ensuing follows a similar pattern to all patterns based on individuating ideologies - the person isn't doing it right, or didn't try hard enough. People learn to not express their feelings instead.
Lastly, making a distinction between objective and subjective pain is trying to carve out phenomenological categories that simply don't exist.
Sticks and stones is not a full instruction set, but an introduction to the concept and a reminder. It is not, and should not be considered "one simple trick" to deal with hurtful words. This doesn't mean that it is useless or detrimental.
It is a reminder that self-esteem should not be based on the opinions of others. More clearly needs to be done to instill baseline self-esteem. That doesn't mean it's not a helpful reminder of the concept when one encounters derogatory feedback.
It is like saying:
"When someone says something that makes you feel bad, remember the conversations we had about how just because someone says something, it doesn't mean it is true. People will say things to try to hurt you, but they are just being mean and it isn't true. It reflects on them as a person, not you as a person. However, if someone physically hurts you, this is different."
In my mind, "sticks & stones" is the same thing, but shorter and more memorable.
I'm getting the sense that this is a conversation between a neurotypical person and a neurodivergent person and that is the source of the disconnect between our understandings.
Can you explain more of what you mean? Are you talking about my example of talking to a child or implying that I am neurodivergent.
If the former, It is an interesting thought. In many ways children can be seen as very similar neurodivergent adults.
In some cases this is because they simply lack basic information adults take for granted. In others, they simply don't have the "software" to process it yet.
I see, that makes more sense than is probably the more charitable reading I should have taken.
I agree that my perspective isn't Universal and therefore doesn't apply to everyone, but I don't think that is a prerequisite for being good advice in the general sense.
The concept of understanding and preempting emotional responses is a fundamental Concept in cognitive behavioral therapy and typical emotional growth.
Typical individuals have the ability to modify their emotional response with training and practice . The idea is not to suppress an emotion but not have the reaction in the first place.
For example, anger management might teach someone not to feel so angry when they encounter traffic. Instead of entering a escalating feedback loop of anger, they might rationalize it as impersonal and continue their Drive without the unpleasant emotions.
It does not portray self respect. It says that if you feel hurt by words you are in the wrong. The phrase makes it harder to actually truthfully talk about whatever is going on.
It’s a way of mockingly refuting an insult on the playground without responding in kind or escalating to a physical fight. (Or as a private internal mantra, a way of keeping your chin up while refusing to engage a bully, ignoring their negative attention so they go away.)
Good luck as a 7-year-old trying to “truthfully talk about” the harm you feel when other kids call you mean names.
I was referring to adult discussing the situation with kid, not kids among themselves.
But also, I really dont think this phrase works as mocking refutation. First, it is not mocking at all. Second, unless kid is super good confident actor, it will be clear the kid is uncomfortable and hurt.
And third, why do you see passivity as preferable over "responding in kind" in case of verbal abuse? Kids who react passively get mocked again and again and again. How exactly respond greatly depends on situation (that is why truthful discussion is necessary), but kids who dont listen to "be passive and polite" advice get verbally abused less often.
the question for you making that statement is whether children usually understand that to be the point. Or whether there are more effective approaches without harmful misunderstandings
The purpose of the sticks and stones saying is to prevent disproportionate physical responses to verbal insults.
You are justified in needing to use violence to stop someone from attacking you with sticks and stones because those cannot be mentally shrugged off, but it is better to walk away from words being said to you, since you can mentally shrug them off.
One has to be careful here. Sometimes physical violence is the only effective answer to stop bullying.
People often underestimate how much constant mobbing can hurt. Ignore? It gets worse. Fight back verbally? Usually doesn't work, since verbal harassers are much more versed at insulting and hurting mentally. You just can't be so good as someone who practices insults and mockery day in day out.
What choice do you have? Move the battle to the playground where, even if you can't win, you at least may have a chance to cause some harm to the enemy.
Kick the bastard with the fist? In most of the cases it works[1]. If the bully is physically weaker, he won't bully your child again. If the bully is stronger, he kicks too, there's a fight, but still, next time bully will think about consequences of insulting again.
[1] of course, physical force only in a very limited way. Overuse of physical force to actually injure someone, or use weapons and tools, is of course not a way to go.
EDIT: Physical violence doesn't always work. Frequently is not even a good, let alone the best option. But still, there are situations when it can be an adequate response, and this option shouldn't be a priori dismissed.
My experience has been, there's effective strategies against bullying that work if you have a single bully. Physical violence is one of them, you do some damage to that single bully, and they'll think better of using you as their punching bag.
If you have a group of bullies, you're sunk. You can't fight everyone, they are going to maintain their "superiority" via unfair tactics if they can. You beat one of them in a fight, the rest are going to jump in and beat you down to maintain the status quo.
Going to administration is the best path. Document your complaints, establish a pattern of behavior. Find sympathetic adults and confide in them.
What's funny is, my experience has been that bullying is a phenomenon of smaller school size. Once I got to junior high, my grade school bullies all of a sudden just weren't interested anymore. Bullying in high school was almost unheard of. We had something like 2500 students in my high school.
I look at these teen dramas with high school bullies, and those schools look tiny, just a few hundred students. If anyone knows research into this area which explains the correlation, I'd love to read about it.
Like most clever sayings, there are parameters where it does not apply.
But for a children calling each other a mean name on the playground, or acute instances of verbal insult such as words exchange in a bar, the cost benefit analysis of the saying is accurate.
Repeated instances of bullying or communal insults and humiliation cross into the abuse realm, and are not addressed by the saying.
Which brings me to probably most misunderstood of Jesus teachings: "turning the other cheek". People usually interpret it as a call to pacifism - do not respond to violence with more violence. What people miss is that for Jesus contemporaries being slapped in the face hardly counted as violence (if it happens between two adult men it is really hard to cause any lasting damage this way). Instead, slap in the face would be considered an insult, and the meaning of "turn the other cheek" phrase is pretty similar to "stick and stones" saying - don't unnecessarily escalate from insult to violence.
I think it is disingenuous to tell kids that. Learning to disregard others’ opinions of you is a skill learned with time. The best way to teach that skill is to instill a sense of self worth and high self esteem in kids. Words very obviously do hurt kids, so to tell them that words don’t hurt is to disregard their feelings at best and call them a liar at worst. Understanding the complex web of emotions felt in response to stimuli is a central part of growing up and not something you can shortcut with platitudes.
The obvious intent is forward moving, not retrospective. Nothing can change the past hurt. However, you can control your future emotions. Sticks and stones is not a full instruction set, but an introduction to the concept.
If you tell a kid that words shouldn't hurt them, but words do hurt them, then what other conclusion can they come to other than that they're emotionally deficient? Kids trust their parents. If parents say the world works in a certain way, then kids will believe that. Kids can have trouble reconciling things when a their observations disagree with what a trusted parent has told them.
It's better to instill high self-esteem in a kid through positive reenforcement. When the kid is called stupid at school, the words don't hurt them because the kid knows they are, in fact, not stupid.
Like I said, it's not a full instruction set. It is a reminder that self-esteem should not be based on the opinions of others. More clearly needs to be done to instill self-esteem. That doesn't mean it's not a helpful reminder of the concept when one encounters derogatory feedback
You keep saying "it's a reminder not a full instruction set." But what is the difference between a reminder and an instruction set? You're not responding to the main issue, which is that this "reminder" is incongruous with how the kid feels.
Would you take the same concerns about telling a child:
"When someone says something that makes you feel bad, remember the conversations we about how just because someone says something, it doesn't mean it is true. People will say things to try to hurt you, but they are just being mean and it isn't true. It reflects on them as a person, not you as a person. However, if someone physically hurts you, this is different."
In my mind, "sticks & stones" is the same thing, but shorter and more memorable.
>what is the difference between a reminder and an instruction set?
Completeness.
Question: How to find the direction of magnetic field induced by a current.
Reminder: Use the right hand rule
Instruction: Detail on how to use the right hand rule and what it means.
Your longer explanation would be much more meaningful to a child. Using your analogy, telling a child to "use the right hand rule" before you've explained (and they've internalized) the relationship between current and a magnetic field will not be helpful.
There's a large difference between personal offence and genuine threat, and hence in optimal response. Please teach them that difference; we don't seem to be doing a good job at the moment.
It’s a mantra a child can use to express to others and help steel themselves in the face of a verbal assault. Is it actually harmful? I don’t know but it could be harmful to some and helpful to others. I remember a moment when during lunch at elementary school someone retired insulting my mom. My response was to just ignore it because this taunt changed nothing in the world. The moment that sticks for me though is when the adult lunch monitor asked me why I wasn’t defending my mother.
I think it IS disingenuous and also lie. What people tell about you and to you affects your experience and possibilities a lot.
The above phrase is told to bullied kids so that they shut up and so that adults don't have to deal with situation. Teaching the kid how to defend from bullies, how to avoid them or addressing bullies themselves is much harder. If the kid is not pickes on but kid complains for wrong reasons, then explaining the situation to the kid is also harder.
I agree. If someone is feeling a certain way bascially telling them "you shouldn't care" doesn't make sense. Emotions are powerful and difficult to control, especially for young people
Surely an additional factor is that criticism is actionable, and praise is not? If someone tells me they like my shirt, it feels good, but there's nothing to be done about it. If someone tells me there's a hole in my shirt, then I actually have a new thing I need to deal with. Why would our brains remember comments that are not actionable over ones that are?
I'm not disagreeing with the article, but I suspect this multiplies with the psychological factor.
I'd disagree that's intrinsic to criticism or praise (the phrase "constructive criticism" is distinct from just normal criticism). Consider:
Constructive praise: "I like when you wear different t-shirt colours than you usually do."
Non-constructive criticism: "I don't like your shirt."
We might find the non-constructive criticism to have more force to effect change than the constructive praise. I know I would be more reactive to the latter comment even though there is less constructive detail in it. But I think that's just because we're hardwired to be more sensitive to criticism, as per the article.
I'm curious how this applies to employee performance reviews. Could feedback about what an employee needs to improve be perceived as criticism no matter how you try to frame it?
What I noticed is that, when I have to review someone in my team and I gather feedback from other members of the team, I rarely get any critical input, even if the feedback is anonymous. Many avoid giving what they perceive as negative feedback even if it's framed as an opportunity to help the other person improve.
I will always hesitate to give negative feedback in the format of an official review at work. These things are attached to someone's ability to keep a roof over their head, directly and indirectly.
I think that's a matter of trust between the manager and his team. If the team culture is set for continuous improvement this kind of feedback should be considered normal. If an employee is at risk for termination that won't be determined just by some peer feedback.
My experience so far is that this means permanent micromanagement because nobody can claim perfection. Might work for some people but I couldn't find a way to view it but as insidious. When I left myself open to essentially permanent criticism of not just my output but how I produce my output at further granularity it led to a frankly confusing role where my manager might as well have been pervertedly resting his hands upon mine and trying to help me type better.
> Uhh Jim what are you doing?
> I don't want to do this but your typing KPIs are in the toilet, I want to try something.
> This isn't funny Jim, we seriously need to talk about the requirements I'm getting.
> You don't understand the requirements? We need to get in a meeting.
> I haven't received feedback on the last round of contradictions I reported.
> Let's get in a meeting after we work on your typing.
My suggestion was to fire Jim but that process improvement was denied.
It really depends on the system. I agree that most companies tend to end up with a cesspool of middle-management political games but that's not something unavoidable.
I've seen examples where the objectives of the management and the teams are sufficiently aligned by the owners to create win-win situations.
this is equivalent to “not all men” type of argument
also bosses will never be truly aligned with workers unless it’s from power workers have taken. a wage doesn’t provide the class mobility that ownership and exploitation does.
I think it depends on what we mean be "negative". Constructive, easily actionable feedback can also be an opportunity for an employee to improve, which may help with next evaluation.
For one there might be a power structure, where employees feel they will harm their colleagues by revealing criticism. For example if performance is used to determine further compensation and job security. If instead there is a healthy error culture, while improvement and ownership is incentivized, then people might want to share more.
Secondly it is bad form to criticize others indirectly, good form to own up your own mistakes or to personally and directly ask for criticism. If there is a middleman, then providing criticism can come off as weak and finger pointing. It might be easier and more healthy to give people an opportunity to ask others about their opinion.
Third, they might be many other social reasons like being timid or not thinking all too much about other people's performance. They might just like each other, be indifferent or afraid or what have you. Some might not even know very well how to give constructive, useful criticism. To get people to care and share their opinions freely you need regular practice. Face to face. And again, it should typically start with self-criticism, because that invites ownership and openness instead of a you vs me kind of deal.
I’d add: what possible good could come from criticizing someone to their boss? If I have feedback for someone that’s substantive enough to bring up, then I’ll just tell them. If the relationship isn’t strong enough to just tell them directly, then it’s probably not going to be improved by criticism, even anonymously (however constructive & well meaning).
My view is that feedback, especially negative feedback, should be timely.
If an employee 'discovers' negative feedback at performance review time it is not good, and the person may get the additional feeling that their manager withheld telling them in time only to 'frame' them on record at review time (I say that because I was on the receiving end once).
So I think that negative feedback in formal performance reviews is particularly sensitive.
I completely agree. From my perspective there's the day to day operational kind of feedback: "X, your latest change broke production the 2nd time this week, let's see what we can do to prevent that". This needs to be addressed as part of the daily work. Business as usual for someone leading/managing a team.
And then there is the periodic performance review were we want to take a high-level look at changes in impact, outcomes, behavior over longer periods of time.
I never give negative feedback unless I think (1) it's necessary, and (2) the other person is open to hearing it. If either of those elements is missing, I'm wasting my time and potentially harming myself later.
There is usually good reason for an employee to believe that anonymous feedback is not truly anonymous. Assuming it actually is anonymous would be all downside and no upside for the employee.
The way I'm sharing it with the person being reviewed is: "This is all the feedback you got from people you work with", without attaching names to it.
If I have reasons to think the person will take it personally or the way it's written is too negative I refrain from sharing it raw and I prepare a tl;dr.
What's important is to extract the main points from the feedback.
> Assuming it actually is anonymous would be all downside and no upside for the employee.
Interesting. I have given frank feedback in case a team member is just coasting for long time and not doing their share. In fact many places I worked people feel free to offer their feedback even without being asked.
Most places here have a ritual to "say something bad and say something good", which mostly brings out a half-assed response from one side or even both sides.
Criticizing others or even just things has been stamped out during upbringing due to it generally being a really bad move socially, whereas praising others is much easier. I'd extrapolate that and say most people don't think of things that could be criticized too much as a result, and don't have enough experience criticizing, which in turn creates little critical feedback.
Light spoilers, but there is a memorable section in The Stanley Parable: Ultra Deluxe about criticism outweighing praise. The creator actually put negative Steam reviews for his previous game into Ultra Deluxe.
The game's narrator, speaking for the creator, briefly acknowledges overwhelmingly positive legacy of his previous work. He then devolves into an extremely long and funny rant about random Steam reviewers who "didn't get it." The creator knows he should not give this much thought to specks of negativity in a sea of praise, but he cannot help it. He knows they are wrong. It's funny, but also fascinating to see an artist grapple with his audience.
Highly recommend Ultra Deluxe, even if you've never played the original Stanley Parable.
I think people change though. I've been online so long I know not to take downvotes personally. I can now recognize sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes I'm not clear, sometimes I'm in an echo chamber.
One thing that the article doesn't appear to discuss is how small issues can escalate quickly if they keep happening over and over. That is, I think a lot of severe criticism happens because communication over the minor issues was never resolved in the first place.
It wasn't always this way. I used to be able to bask in the glory of an achievement for at least a little while. But after going through some rough times, my mind has somehow been trained to be constantly looking ahead to the next problem, always fearing the worst. I'm not sure how to turn it off beyond heavy self medication and sleeping.