On 12/29/11 a member was suspended from our group for the first time. Many of you may be confused about the line he crossed. The last thing we need is unarticulated anxiety that inhibits members from contributing, because they're unsure what Matt Rugar did wrong.

Groups need a safe emotional environment. When a member shares a painful personal experience, doubts, fears, or other personal vulnerabilities, he/she is giving all of us a precious gift. When another member uses that information to insult, ridicule, or attack the giving member, it's not just a betrayal of trust toward the individual. It's an attack on the group itself. If such betrayal goes unanswered, security shatters in the group. Members are reduced to superficialities, with no possibility for mutual validation. It sends a painful message, "nobody is safe here."

Matt Rugar didn't just attack Joan, when he said this, he betrayed the trust of the entire group.

Joan is still whinning about some thing that happened 4 decades ago and attacks who ever does not join her in her pity party. She goes from group to group to be martyerd.

So how does one give negative feedback without betraying trust and making others feel unsafe?

 

1. Qualify your criticism as your opinion or perception.

 

Example: (where X is an offending sexist remark)

Instead of saying "You're sexist." say,

            "That sounds sexist to me."

            "When he said X, I  heard a sexist remark."

            "To my ears that smacks of sexism." or

            "I perceive X as sexist."

 

By qualifying what we say as our judgment, we show respect for the person. We imply that he/she could do better. We present the behavior as a mistake. We imply that we too make mistakes, from time to time,  that we are equal adults. This is called making the person/behavior distinction.

When we label an offender, we imply that this bad behavior is a defining trait, that he/she is not capable of doing better, and that he/she is therefore inferior.

 

2. Avoid "Mind Reading", i.e. claiming to know the intent of others. Nobody knows what  goes on inside the head of other people. In the example above, Matt claimed to know what goes on in Joan's head. Here again, this is easily avoided by qualifying what you say as your interpretation, your reaction, your judgment. You can say you "feel as if", or "get the impression that."

Tags: criticizing

Views: 1260

Replies to This Discussion

I posted a Google Alert about humane treatment of animals and this popped up: 

Humane Treatment Of Animals

Videos:

http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/humane-treatment-of-animals

Ruth, I agree with your description of what happened and your decision. By the way, I have found a site where I can rant and my rants are mild, but at least it is rant-friendly. 

I like knowing this is a place where ideas can be discussed, debated, and with civility. I feel welcome here. With respect, Joan

You are a great asset here, Joan!

Thanks for all your wisdom ... and you cute smilies. 

Let's have a safe and fun place to hang out and be with people of like mind, without the mind games. Keep the mind games where they belong - in the theistic memes!

The best advice is still; if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

So glad to see the mods patrolling and keeping the board safe for everyone.

Victoria, I hate to admit this, but I have written some pretty dumb things here and others don't let me get away with it. By challenging, nudging, teasing, teaching, and offering good examples, I am learning to think more clearly, write with more skill, and participate as an equal. These people are real gifts to me and I am sure you will find them true treasures. 

Sometimes there are challenges and yet we thrive. 

Thank you all for voicing your opinions. Besides Steven, who has been suspended, everyone who spoke up was in favor of policy prohibiting mind games here. I will close offending discussions and change the group description accordingly.

Just a note. When I looked for the offending discussions to close them (but not to delete them), I found Steven had removed all of the discussions he'd started here. Anyone who takes the initiative to start a discussion gets the option to eliminate his or her discussion. He apparently exercised that option. It was his right, but now every reply everyone else made has also been sent to the garbage bin. Oh well. We'll be fine.

I added this to the group description:

Nobody here is into mind games. A discussion started with a loaded guilt-throwing question will be deleted.

Do you think this is clear enough? I didn't want to get too technical. Suggestions for better wording are welcome.

Wonderfully put, Ruth. I am going to paraphrase this and explain it to my supervisor. Maybe he will learn something about the way he talks to me.

I hope everything works out for you Liz.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service