How to fend off a jerk
davedelaney.me
davedelaney.me
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.
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.
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.
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.
* 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.
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.
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.
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.
Regardless of my misinterpretation, I enjoy the passage. :)
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)".
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.
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
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
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.
wff? if that's the endgame is I'm not giving anyone water ever again.
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.
>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.
"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.
define pity
pit·y
ˈpidē/
noun
noun: pity
1.
the feeling of sorrow and compassion caused by the suffering and misfortunes of others.
>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?
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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."
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.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/andrew-luck-the-nfls-most-perple...
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.
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.
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.
It was pretty painful, but the laughter the situation induced was a nice distraction.
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.
Edit: Please imagine me smiling broadly despite the downvotes.
The technique may work well with people whose only ambition is to be slightly irritating and who aren't particularly committed to that goal.
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.
Just change/add some little quirks to make it seem like you're happy. Example, instead of Regards, - Say Thanks!
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.
As noir_lord mentions, just don't take it personally.
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?"
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.
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
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?
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.
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?!!"
http://boingboing.net/2010/10/29/twenty-first-century-3.html
[0] - http://blog.jaibot.com/