The CLARA Method of De-Escalation

His example was a tailor of very high-end clothes, think tuxedos that cost as much as most folks' cars, custom women's jackets for formal events, etc. A customer comes in, angry that a button is sewed on with an incorrect thread pattern. Something to fix if you're paying $10,000 for a jacket but not exactly something reasonable to get angry about. The customer comes in, throws the jacket on the counter and demands that it be fixed. Rather than trying to de-escalate their anger, be absolutely outraged that one of your employees would do this. Assure the customer that you will find out who did something so inconceivably stupid, and that you will most certainly fire them on the spot. The expected response will generally be something like "well, it's not that big of a deal I mean if we just fix the threading..."

I'm sure there have been exceptions for other folks but every time I've used this tactic (generally reserved for the most egregiously ridiculous displays of anger) it's worked almost immediately.

I've definitely had this experience. I have at least one friend who never learned to control her displays of anger at all, and who regards failing to be as angry as her as proof that you're not listening or taking her seriously. The weird result is that dealing with her displays calmly just convinces her you're a patronizing ass.

I just think it's important to iterate that. At the beginning of your comment it seems like you're offering a different general approach to the general approach given in the article.

So you diagnosed multiple of your friends as having personality disorders? I'm guessing your not a psychologist.

> match their energy level

This is the exact opposite of what you should be doing. You are always to stay below their level to diffuse the situation. If their energy level goes down, you lower yours further.

You literally diagnosed your friends and badgered them to the point of crying.

If you have to still do this with adults, it means the adults haven't learned to regulate their emotions well enough to listen to a rational argument even while they're upset. It's gotten so bad that some adults never listen to things they don't emotionally agree with, even when they're not initially upset (hearing contrary facts makes them upset). That is a catastrophe for rational thought and discourse.

If an adult or an adolescent routinely requires being engaged on an emotional level before they'll listen to your rational argument, then once you do engage them emotionally they will listen to anything you say, whether it's logic or pseudologic or rhetorical, semantically-null bullshit.

To elaborate a little bit...

Of course humans have all sorts of rational deficits. I never meant to imply they could be turned into Vulcans.

Putting too much emphasis on emotionally positive engagement over rational engagement leads to even worse emotional fragility and dependence than humans normally have. That leads to a constant preoccupation with the emotional side of interactions. And that indirectly atrophies their ability to evaluate incoming communication rationally, because they're constantly thinking about their own emotional state, or even worse the group emotional consensus of whatever groups they primarily identify as. That emotional evaluation interrupts rational evaluation.

I'm not advising people to eschew emotional engagement if they're in the business of persuasion, or in the business of keeping peace, or if keeping peace is a priority in a specific situation. I agree that that is sometimes needed, but I think it needs to be more limited in its application, and not the default approach for handling all disagreements. I don't think it works to create lasting rationally-based changes to concepts in someone's mind; when emotional evaluation (mostly) replaces rational evaluation, anyone who makes the listener feel good can get them to believe anything. All the valid rational arguments you use today can be undone tomorrow by someone else who has no rational arguments but can keep the listener engaged.

Cases in point: ecommerce retailer offers next day shipping, but nothing arrives. I chase. “Oh it’s out of stock”. “It said in stock on your site... i’ll have X instead”. A week later, still nothing. “Oh it’s in the post”. A week later, still nothing, still “in the post”. I ask for a refund. “Our policy forbids it.”

So I find the email addresses of the company directors and send them a blistering email full of threats and insults. I get a refund 20 minutes later.

Other case: company installs satellite dish on roof. Stops working very next day. Ask them to come back. “Thursday.”. Three months on they’re still saying “Thursday”, so I threaten court action in a blindingly rude phone call in which I call him names and belittle him. He turns up an hour later and fixes it, apologises.

When I ran my own business, I would always end up giving the shoutiest nastiest motherfuckers the most attention, to the detriment of the people who asked nicely - the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and most people will act to avoid conflict. I certainly do. I’m just as guilty.

I loathe this aspect of human nature, as it just generates unnecessary grief for all parties involved.

A society that refuses the carrot is doomed to the rod.

Interesting what's the bug?

I have fallen for some of Ryanair's evil design tricks which have costed me money, but if there's a __bug__, wonder what is it.

It's extremely stressful for me as an introvert, but I quietly and patiently explain concepts like due process and open-hearings when I have the opportunity. I stress that everything we do is open to public scrutiny and public comment. I explain that we can't engage on Facebook because it's not an official public forum. I invite people to attend our meetings or read our meeting minutes, but they never do.

Real government is incredibly boring and complicated. Its much more fun to rant and rave about conspiracies on social media.

Disagree with the generalisation. Most yes, but not all. I used to be like it, as well, but consciously changed. I still feel mostly superior, though, but I am still open for reconsidering every one of my points, as I still remember really silly points of views I once had and considered superior.

Plus, I also found out, that if I am in fact superior - meaning I really understand the other person's (flawed) point of view even though he maybe communicates it poorly, I am usually able to get important points through if worded and timed right ...

But in general I believe the main problem is, that most people just never learned to communicate properly.

edit: but yes, when people are really angry, they don't listen, so what works sometimes, to ask them, if they also want to listen to my reply ... so that makes them thinking a bit. In one instance I remember getting a plain no. So I told him I go away as this is no communication anymore. And I did and later he came to and said, now he wants to listen - and we calmly sorted everything out, what would have otherwise potentially evolved into a violent fight.

Well, obviously: using one-process-fits-all without appreciating local context is a recipe for disaster, isn't it?

"Could you please transfer me to [name] as they were helping me out previously with this issue?"

When he's angry about a major issue in the kernel, he uses curse words to bring the spotlight to where he needs it. He's angry because, in his view, top-tier devs are doing sub-par work on an important problem.

He's not blinded by emotion, he's just being forceful.