#rudeness #anger #frustration #incivility #abuse
The sign said: “Attention! Our employees have the right to be treated with dignity and respect at all times. They should be able to do their jobs without being physically or verbally abused. Most people respect this. Thank you for being one of them.”
That sign was displayed at an office at Piedmont Hospital in Atlanta. Nedra Rhone, “Real Life” columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, saw that sign at a routine medical appointment. She’d never seen such a sign before.
It prompted her to discuss general rudeness in a column published June 8, 2023. She quotes Christine Porath, who has studied incivility for more than 20 years.
“This kind of incivility leads to negative outcomes not only for workers who experience it directly, but also those who witness it – all of which harms businesses and society,” Rhone quotes Porath’s Harvard Business Review article.
Porath found that 76 percent of respondents in 25 industries across the globe say they’ve experienced incivility at least once a month. Those levels have risen since 2012, poking holes in the theory that the epidemic of rudeness started with the pandemic, Rhone writes.
Stress, negative emotions, isolation, technology and lack of self-awareness are the main drivers of widespread rudeness, Rhone quotes Porath.
The problem has many consequences beyond hurt feelings. Some of the front-line workers who experience this rudeness usually are not the most highly compensated. In a way, it makes them easy targets for the frustrated.
Often, these folks have no ability to ease the frustration. But as they experience the abuse, the employees are less likely to stay in those jobs for very long. It is just not worth it to them.
The frustration and anger at usually something small – Rhone sites a hair colorist lambasted by a client because she didn’t like the color that was chosen – can follow a frustrated person home. That means the frustration, without a stranger to whom to release it, can be felt by family and other loved ones.
Therefore, the frustrated person takes it out on someone at home who had nothing to do with the problem. Over time, that can lead to family dysfunction, divorce, broken friendships etc.
Such frustration can be taken into the political arena. When one or more people are angry and frustrated, it’s hard for them to agree on anything. So, little gets done.
In the same political arena, fear and anger can overpower optimism and looking to the future. People become focused on what they perceive has been done to them, rather than what can be done for them hereafter.
How does one become a less frustrated, nicer person? For many, it takes work. It takes being thoughtful before speaking or acting. It takes realizing that the person on whom you may be taking out your frustration cannot help you solve your problem.
There are indeed rational, civil ways to address grievances in most cases. Don’t become the person who is not happy unless he or she is miserable, fearful and angry.
Think about what is good in your life. Think about whether the energy you spend in anger is worth affecting your health, your well-being as a person and/or your relationships.
People can be, and have been, wronged by others or other things. If you feel compelled to express that anger outwardly, don’t choose targets that cannot help you solve your problem.
Those targets will disappear eventually, and you’ll be much worse off for THAT, rather than the original cause of your anger.
Peter
Category Archives: Uncategorized
WHAT IS REAL CHOICE, OR FREEDOM?
#choice #freedom #FreedomofChoice #limitations #DiversityofThought
Whoever thought that the concept of choice would be so misunderstood?
Freedom is a second concept that seems misconstrued in today’s world.
Those combine for the misconception of the term Freedom of Choice.
Let’s start with choice. A person walks into a store, is confronted with an array of choices, decides and buys.
That simple concept has evolved into a case of having an array of choices in life, none of which is ideal. That means one has to decide on the lesser of evils. Some may feel that way as they, say, walk into a voting booth. Just because no choice is ideal doesn’t mean we should not make a choice. By all means, go to the polls and vote!
We have to evaluate in our minds which choice would be, for lack of a better term, less bad.
In terms of voting, sometimes one must use his or her vote to help prevent the worst of choices from getting elected.
In short, our lives revolve around choices. There may not be such things as the BEST choices, but, chances are, if the majority of one’s choices are BETTER, the better one’s life will turn out.
Freedom is another matter. Often, those who talk a lot about freedom do not want any of us to be free at all. THEY want to be free to make the rules, but they expect us to follow THEIR rules.
As a corollary, complete freedom for EVERY individual would lead to community chaos. Therefore, freedom has, and must have, its limits.
As an example, one may want to paint his or her house bright purple. But, neighbors will find it an eyesore, affecting their property value. Therefore, Mr. or Ms. purple house need some sort of approval to paint.
Most of what we do, and decisions we make, affect others. Therefore, we are not completely free to do as we wish, in many instances. So, we must agree on limitations and abide by those agreements. It’s called compromise, which has become a dirty word among a few.
If absolute freedom and best choices are not available to us in practical terms, what exactly is Freedom of Choice?
Does the concept really exist? How do we reconcile confining choice and limiting freedom into what most would see as a good life?
It involves being free to choose one’s limitations. It involves coexisting in a community in which there are diverse ideas of limiting freedom and choosing better.
To quote a Rolling Stones lyric, “You can’t always get what you want. But, if you try, sometimes you get what you need.”
We live in a world of diverse ideas of freedom and choice. That’s not something to be feared. It’s something to be embraced.
We actually might not only learn from each other, but also might draw from others’ belief systems ideas that will improve our own.
We may not be free to choose everything. But we should be grateful that we are allowed to experience diversity of thought, lifestyle and ideas. We can all be better for that privilege.
Peter
FEELING SHAME CAN BE GOOD — OR BAD
#shame #ConstantShame #HealthyDosesOfShame #feelings #LackOfFeelings
Shame may be a terrible thing to feel.
But having no shame may be worse.
Michaela B. Swee and Susan Murray wrote an article for Psyche advising “How To Cope With Shame.”
“Do you feel perpetually bad, broken or unlovable?” the article begins.
Then, it proceeds to provide psychological “tools” with how to combat this feeling of shame.
Certainly, shame as a constant feeling may certainly be unhealthy.
But, healthy doses of shame, every so often, can be very healthy.
Otherwise, if you have no ability to feel shame, you will likely do evil things.
It’s easier to commit evil when there is no interference from your conscience.
The point is that shame, as a constant, is bad for the psyche. But one must find the happy medium so that he or she can feel shame when appropriate. That could prevent him or her from hurting others.
Some countries, or systems of belief, incorporate shame into their teachings. They want your feeling of shame to punish you if you do something wrong. In these cultures, the feeling of shame is the worst punishment imaginable – worse than a beating or imprisonment.
That indoctrination into feeling shame is a great deterrent to the commission of evil.
But to those who feel no shame, doing evil may be painless to them, perhaps even bring them joy. In many cases, the evil they commit on others enriches them. To them, ill-gotten gains are still gains. How they got them is of no matter to them.
We’ve undoubtedly, at some point in our lives, come across an evil doer, the commission of whose deeds would never cross your mind.
That probably means you would feel a healthy dose of shame should you do those things.
Healthy doses of shame – or the possibility of it — make people good, in many ways.
Shameless individuals, on the other hand, are probably not good people. They are untrustworthy, unreliable and, yes, potentially dangerous.
Those who feel constant shame – the folks the authors are addressing – could be potentially dangerous to themselves. The authors suggest things like knowing the cause of your constant shame, even writing a letter to yourself, showing yourself compassion.
It’s unclear whether people who feel constant shame would be a danger to others.
It’s very clear that those who feel no shame are a potential danger.
The authors also suggest that people who feel constant shame find “safe relationships,” meaning hanging with those who understand you.
For those with no shame, relationships are likely a means to an end.
In summary, healthy doses of shame are good. Constant shame is not. Having no shame may be the worst of all.
Peter
GRADUATION SEASON IS ONE OF GRATITUDE
#graduates #GraduationSeason #gratitude #AttitudeOfGratitude #HelpingOthers
Graduation season brings out the gratitude in all those mortarboard-clad hopefuls.
Graduates are grateful to those who helped make them who they are: parents, teachers, mentors, coaches, family and friends.
But can they sustain that gratitude to others who will influence their lives from here on?
Certainly, those who brought them along during their formative years will likely not be forgotten.
But as they (pick one: cruise, stumble, climb, fly) into adulthood, others will step in to influence what they do, who they are and what they will become.
The question for those grads will be: will they remember who helped them, advised them or worked with or for them etc., that made a difference in their outcomes?
Leaders and other good people understand that the road to success is not a solo venture. In fact, they learn that success comes not from just helping oneself, but by helping others.
As they proceed to help others succeed, they cultivate a deep gratitude not only for the privilege of helping others, but also for the honor of being helped by others.
So, if you are a graduate this year, don’t let the season just be a symbol of gratitude. Let it be a foundation for the gratitude you will hone throughout your life.
This is not to say that self-confidence is not a virtue. In fact, it’s difficult to appreciate those who believe(d) in you if you do not believe in yourself.
You will face many decisions that will be completely yours. You may indeed have strong beliefs on how to proceed. Still, don’t hesitate to ask someone you trust whether they believe you are making the right choice(s) before you decide. You may discover something of which you’d never thought.
Also, you will face choices to do what benefits you most, or what may benefit others most. Choosing the former may work in some employment situations. Very likely, however, choosing the latter in more whole-life circumstances will be better.
Also, remember it is always better to serve than be served, regardless of what position or status you reach.
Serving is the ultimate form of gratitude for your success.
Success by serving others is the truest form of achievement. As you help others succeed, success generally follows you.
You will run across some for whom success comes at the expense of others. That may work in some sports competitions, but generally does not in other aspects of life. Success at the expense of others is the opposite of gratitude.
So, as you proceed to your next step, tread with gratitude, not only for those who’ve already helped you, but also for those who will help you. Return that favor by helping others.
Flying solo in life can get you off-course, can send you adrift and can be very lonely.
Taking others along for the ride will make the trip more pleasant, more fun and more rewarding.
Always be grateful.
Peter
STAY IN YOUR LANE, OR GET OUT OF YOUR COMFORT ZONE?
#ComfortZone #StayInYourLane #competition #art #music #jobs #employment
The age-old question constantly arises: should one stay in his or her lane, or should one get outside of his or her comfort zone?
Perhaps it depends on the circumstance. There are certainly benefits for a person to do what he or she knows, and do it well.
But, there are other circumstances in which a person should challenge himself, or herself, to do something he or she may have never done, or thought he or she would never do.
As an example of the former, country music singer Blake Shelton, the outgoing coach on the TV singing competition “The Voice,” in the past has advised members of his team, such as some country singers, to stay in their lane.
These singers may be competing with singers who can more easily extend their voices athletically to do things the country singers may be less willing, or perhaps unable to do. But Shelton understands that many of the show’s fans, who ultimately vote for the winners each season, like country music.
So, Shelton may advise those singers to do what they do best, because the fans like that, and will vote for them.
In the latter case, it’s tough to get noticed in the workplace if you are pigeon-holed into a job that limits what you are allowed to do.
Certainly, employers may like workers who are “self-starters” that need little supervision. But if you aspire to bigger and better things, you may have to go outside of your designated area to show what you can do.
In other words, you may be very comfortable performing the assigned tasks you are given. But, you may perform those tasks in obscurity, which may hinder your career progress.
That begs another question: how does one know when to stay in one’s lane, or to get out of one’s comfort zone?
The answer may come down to one’s gut feeling. It may also come down to one’s ambition. In the case of “The Voice” singers, one’s ambition can help them to win the competition. Because it is a competition, one may want to extend his or her talent to the fullest to win. But, because vocal competitions are an art form, rather than an athletic battle, it may be best to do what one does best, to the best of one’s ability.
On the other hand, if you are stuck in a comfortable job but know you have the ability to go further up the ladder, you may have to extend yourself.
You may have to look for things – perhaps extra things – to impress those who have a say in promotions. These extra things may not be easy to find. But, perhaps one must get out of his or her comfort zone to find them.
The fact that a person left his or her comfort zone to do something extra will impress those who need to be impressed.
By doing so, one becomes not only a “self-starter,” but also is motivated to take risks to show his or her talent that may not be obvious from his or her “comfortable” work.
Circumstances dictate how one operates in life. Comfort may be nice, and appropriate in some instances, but sometimes going the extra mile is necessary to impress.
If you don’t have the ambition to get out of your comfort zone, you may have to cultivate it. If you don’t, what’s comfortable now may become stifling in the future.
Peter
MANY COUPLES DON’T WANT CHILDREN
#childfree #parents #children #ChildbirthDecisions #MarriedCouples
Traditionally, a person grows up, gets married and has children.
That person becomes a part of the typical American family.
But a Michigan study has discovered that many adults don’t want to be parents.
An article on the study, written by Zachary P. Neal, associate professor of psychology at Michigan State University, and Jennifer Watling Neal, psychology professor at Michigan State, was published Aug. 17, 2022, in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
The article says many people decide relatively early in life whether they want to be parents.
In fact, the article quotes the study, 21.64 of adults studied say they do not want children.
The study determined that a person was “childfree” if they answered “no” to whether they have ever had children (biological, adopted or step-children), whether they plan to have children in any of the three categories and whether they wished they had, or could have, children.
The study also breaks down the types of people in the category: “Childfree” people don’t want children; “childless” people want children, but can’t have them; “not-yet-parents” want children in the future; “undecided” people aren’t sure whether they want children; and “ambivalent” people aren’t sure they would have wanted children.
The study also says that under-population is not a problem. Despite the relatively high percentage of people in the Michigan study who don’t want children, the global population will continue to grow, the article says.
Having children is, and should be, an option for everyone. Parents of previous generations urged their children to at least “replace themselves” with children of their own.
For certain people, that may not be an option, physically. For others, it may be a decision based on other burdens in life. Still, for others, it may just be a matter of personal choice.
These people should not be criticized for their decisions. Very often, critics of such people have no idea what that person, or that couple, may be dealing with.
The article points out that workplace policies on work-life balance also favor parents. “We believe the needs of (the childfree group) warrant more attention from policymakers,” the authors write.
Having children should not be considered an obligation. Many parents of past decades lay guilt trips on their children for not producing grandchildren for THEM.
Of course, grandparents may love grandchildren, but they get to send them home, in most cases.
In short, children should be sent home with parents who WANT them, and are willing to put in the necessary work to raise them.
The article also points out that people who don’t want children are told they may change their minds down the road. That appears unlikely, the article says.
So, have children only if you want. If you do, have only as many as you want. But, if you don’t want to, that’s OK, too.
Peter
WHAT IS DECEIT, AND WHO IS DECEIVING YOU?
#truth #deceit #4CornersOfDeceit #debate #facts #conspiracies
The “Four Corners of Deceit”: government, science, academia and the media.
The late radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh coined this term several years ago, as he claimed climate change was a hoax.
Contrary to that theory, former Vice President Al Gore called climate change “An Inconvenient Truth” in his book.
This is not just a simple debate. This “dispute” creates parallel universes of “truth.” One is smart to treat everything one reads or hears, purported as fact, with a skeptic’s ear.
But to take on our origins of knowledge without any basis of fact is reckless, even dangerous.
It has led to debates about what children should learn in school. Do we want our kids to learn only what we want them to know, or hear? Or, do we want them to learn the truth and follow the facts wherever they lead? We shouldn’t want them to believe things just because we want them to believe them. We should want them to be thoughtful, mindful and diligent about discerning truth from conspiracy, then making up their own minds about what to believe.
For example, certain types of discrimination are carefully taught in some households. But, as children go out into the world, they often find that what they were taught to hate cannot, and should not, be hated.
They may come across people whose behaviors they do not understand. But they learn that that is no reason to hate them.
Limbaugh may have found those institutions to be deceitful because they exposed things that were contrary to HIS version of the truth.
Certainly, one knows that not everything that comes out of those four corners is true. One can also ascertain that government, or some forms of media, can and do create narratives intended to make people believe what those institutions want them to believe.
But academia’s and science’s sole purpose is, or should be, to find the truth, teach the truth and not dress the truth in something that might make it look like something it is not.
By labeling our institutions as pillars of deceit does a disservice to our way of life. It does a disservice to our ability to advance our society, progress with new inventions and find ways to live even better lives.
Facts can be pesky things. They can get in the way of a good story. But, they can also expose REAL deceit among people and entities.
We’ve morphed into a society that, when someone doesn’t like something, he or she feels free to make up something different. We’ve come to believe that if someone with a big megaphone says something loud enough, often enough and unwaveringly enough, at least some – enough? — people will presume it is true, even if it isn’t.
Such a society is not a good place to raise and educate children. Children must learn how their ancestors created the world, and the tactics they used. Some of those tactics need teaching so the next generation will behave differently, and for the better.
No one is perfect. No one acts perfectly all the time. We make mistakes. But we, or those who come after us, must acknowledge those mistakes for what they are, so they will not be repeated.
Challenging certain truths can do real damage to the world we so carefully want to preserve.
Peter
ARE SOME TOO QUICK TO USE A GUN?
#guns #shootings #intruders #visitors
Shoot first; ask questions later.
That mantra may have applied in long-ago wars.
But it seems to have been revived in modern-day America.
A black teen-ager rings a doorbell at the wrong address when he went to pick up his younger brothers.
The house’s occupant, with a storm door between him and the young man, shoots the teen through the door.
By most accounts, no words were exchanged before the gun was fired.
Normally, when someone rings one’s doorbell, the first instinct, if the resident does not know the person, would be to ask, “may I help you?”
If that Kansas City resident had just asked that question prior to using his gun, a young man with a promising future likely would have responded that he was looking for his younger brothers.
Further conversation undoubtedly would have cleared up the fact that the young man needed to go to a different house with a similar address not too far away.
Similarly, a young woman was killed when the car she was in accidently turned into the wrong driveway in Upstate New York.
Since then, two cheerleaders were shot in Texas when they accidentally got into the wrong car. And, a 6-year-old girl and her father were shot by a neighbor upset that a loose ball had rolled onto his yard.
These incidents reveal not only a fear of the unknown, but also the impulse to deal with that fear by using a gun. They also reveal that inadvertent mistakes can be very costly – but they shouldn’t be.
Certainly, one has the right to protect his or her home, life and belongings from intruders.
But, shouldn’t one ensure, to the best of one’s ability, that visitors, even ones who may be lost or have mistaken a destination, are not intruders who intend to harm or rob, before using lethal force?
It could be argued that other factors may have contributed to the reactions. It also could be argued that if one does not act first, and the (perhaps mistaken) visitor is indeed an intruder, that the resident is more likely to be the innocent victim.
Perhaps it may come down to the type of person one is, or the views of the outside world that a person holds.
But it still rests on assumption of the worst without necessarily having a reason for such an assumption.
One could ask what might have happened had the resident not owned a gun, or not had his gun readily accessible to take to the door.
But few would dispute one’s right to protect his home.
But that right of self-protection does not give the person the right to shoot someone for no apparent reason, because he or she made a mistake and went to the wrong place.
One could ask the shooter whether he or she had ever made such a mistake, and what kind of reception he or she would expect from a stranger for making that mistake.
The lesson here may be to ask before shooting. Or, at least, tell the person to keep his distance until the purpose of the visit is ascertained. If the person refuses, or otherwise threatens, then all bets are off.
A few simple words – “may I help you?” – can prevent a lot of tragedy.
Peter
ARE YOU ‘QUIET QUITTING’ AT YOUR JOB?
#QuietQuitting #jobs, #employers #employees #GiveItYourAll
The phenomenon is called “quiet quitting.”
Workers do the minimum at their jobs so they can pursue other things outside of work.
Michael Smerconish featured at segment on this on his CNN show Aug. 20, 2022.
He interviewed a young engineer who was doing this at her job, so she could pursue an entrepreneurial side hustle outside of work.
Smerconish asked her the obvious question, to paraphrase: if your side hustle doesn’t work out, how do you think your current, or future, employer will feel about you?
Though it’s advertised as something relatively new in the workplace, it’s very likely that others have done this in the past.
It’s been said that if a job were not work, they wouldn’t pay you. It’s also been said that a worker, particularly a young worker, should not expend the entirety of his or her energy at a job. Instead, he or she should do what he or she needs to do at work, and save energy for activities at home, hobbies or, yes, even side hustles.
To be fair, some jobs pile more stress on workers than the compensation covers. Some employees resent that, but stay in the job anyway, for whatever reason.
On the other hand, as an employee, you should feel enough dedication to your work, and, yes, to your employer, that you give that employer your all – within reason.
Some jobs with narrow descriptions often expand into other duties, and an employee might resent that. “It’s not my job, man.”
Still, employees should feel enough dedication – not obligation – to their employers to do what needs to be done, if they have the ability, even if the duties are not spelled out in a job description.
Make no mistake: some employers will sense such dedication and take advantage of it.
The solution seems to be an employer-employee relationship in which both parties are not just satisfied, but enthusiastic. The employee will do what is asked, expected and more, while the employer happily compensates them well. That compensation may not be entirely financial. It can include creating a work environment in which the employees feel not just appreciated, but cherished. The employer-employee relationship should be less transactional, and more of a bond.
Such environments don’t exist everywhere. In fact, some may say such environments are rare.
Today’s tight labor market makes it incumbent on employers to make their workplaces such that people want to come and stay. And, while they are there, the employees WANT to give it all they have.
But, employees have a part to play. They have to create their own happiness at work. In some places, that is not possible. But, if the employer is making the effort to create a good culture, the employee has to make the effort to embrace it.
There is nothing wrong with side hustles, or having cherished activities outside of work. But, if you have a job, give it your all – again, within reason.
Another lesson here may be that if you are a “quiet quitter,” don’t advertise it to the world.
Peter
PROTESTS, LEGISLATURES AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
#NashvilleProtests #StateLegislatures #guns #SchoolShootings #AssaultWeapons #LegislatorsExpelled
Recently, thousands of students walked out of schools in Nashville, Tenn., and elsewhere to protest the Tennessee legislature’s lack of action to deter school shootings.
The previous week, six people – three adults and three 9-year-olds – were killed in a shooting at Covenant School in Nashville.
The capitol steps were overwhelmed with students, parents and others calling for mitigation measures to deter gun violence.
As Maureen Downey, education columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution points out, there are more school shootings by far in the U.S. than in any other country.
Yet, as Downey writes, some legislatures seem to value the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution over second-graders’ lives.
In fact, two Tennessee state legislators were expelled from the House of Representatives, and a third survived expulsion by a single vote, for joining in the protests.
But the legislatures nationwide can learn from the Nashville protests.
First, the legislatures’ agendas may not be the same as those of some parents, students etc. Some of these protesting students will succeed the current occupants of legislatures one day, and their vision of a safe society may be very different from that displayed by some legislatures today.
Therefore, legislators of today can either begin taking measures to mitigate gun violence and gun possession among those that should not possess them, or they can leave it to the next generation to start to fix the problem. By waiting, there is no telling how many more children will get shot.
Better security in schools is a great idea, but given the power and availability of sophisticated and deadly weapons today, potential assailants can just shoot their way past security. Therefore, more security may save some lives, but not all.
The framers of the Second Amendment could not have had any idea that such killing machines would be created, and how certain members of the public would cherish possessing them as their “right.” Back then, it was all about defense against colonial tyranny, and the sophisticated weapon of the day was a one-shot-at-a-time musket.
Downey points out that there are more guns than people in the U.S. The more guns we have, the more likely it is that some, if not many, will end up in the wrong hands.
Also, some life happenstance can quickly turn some law-abiding gun owners into people who are no longer law-abiding.
If a law-abiding gun owner loses a job, loses a business, loses a loved one or has something else happen to him or her, does he or she suddenly feel so helpless that he or she may be tempted to take revenge, even against people who may have never wronged him or her?
In summary, as may have been demonstrated in Nashville, the next generation will have had a different experience with deadly weapons from that of their current elders. They may not be so easily swayed by those whose interest is in selling more guns.
When that generation takes over the political arena, attitudes likely will be very different. We, as the current generation, can do those children a big favor and begin to act now. Very few object to gun ownership for recreational, even self-defense purposes in some cases.
But the weapons that can expend multiple bullets very quickly are neither recreational nor defensive. They are mass killing machines. What purposes, other than evil, does it serve for so many of these weapons to be in the hands of a wide civilian population?
We can either begin to fix the problem now, or, certainly, the next generation – some of whom would have heard or witnessed gunfire in their schools as children – very likely will.
Peter