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
That phrase's famous usage is as a way to portray self-respect and non-violent defense of oneself after being verbally attacked.
In that context, it still has value and is not disingenuous to provide to children.