Talking Over, Gaslighting & Aggressive Posturing

This blog post could be all about Secretary of State Pompeo or President Trump, but it's not. Because the behavior that Pompeo recently exhibited in his interview with Mary Louise Kelly of NPR is all too common.

It's mostly found when one person is in a position of perceived power relative to another, but it's not exclusive to that dynamic.

One of the most common and most obvious tactic that is used is talking over the other person. Absent a personal attack or insult, it's just good manners to let the other person make their point, finish their thought, consider what they said, and only then is it time to answer, rebut or elaborate. By talking over someone who is still talking you have communicated that what the other person has to say is beneath notice and doesn't deserve to be heard. Rather than listening and considering, the interrupter impatiently jumps in, sure that what he has to say is so much more important that what the other person is saying. This doesn't always involve yelling. I have encountered people in my professional life who believe that they have the answer to my question before I have fully articulated it. Oftentimes they do have the answer, but sometimes being able to fully articulate the question is an important part of being able to understand the answer when it arrives.

The flip side to talking over, and a tactic that often flies below the radar, is when one person barely takes a breath in their rambling soliloquy, covering multiple subjects without allowing the other person to response, disagree, or participate other than as a passive listener. This is just as much a power play as talking over someone, except in this case your disdain for the other person is such that you don't allow them to say anything. When on the receiving end of  these marathons, any thoughts or contributions you may have for the "discussion" become irrelevant since what you had an opinion on may be four or five subjects and 45 minutes past before you can wedge your way into the verbal hurricane.

Gaslighting is a popular tool in the verbal bully's toolbox. We see a lot of gaslighting on the national level, but it's pretty common in interpersonal power plays. When someone is gaslighting you, they act so convinced about what they're saying, so sure about what you know to be the opposite of what really happened, that you begin to doubt your own sanity. Years ago I was the target of some pretty sustained gaslighting. Sometimes I would be told that something that had been said seconds ago had not been said, sometimes I would be told that something I said seconds ago had not been said. Conversations that I had participated in would be "remembered" completely differently the next day. Eventually I began to see through it, but the weirdest gaslighting attempt involved a stop light. There was a traffic light a little way down from the corner from where we lived. I was referring to it for some reason and I was told "there is no stop light at the corner". Flabbergasted, I tried to explain that  it wasn't actually at the corner, but about one house north of the intersection and that it was a school crossing light. Nope, I was told, there is no traffic light there. I was so messed up that I actually walked down the street to verify with my own eyes that there was a traffic light!

Although these power plays often are conducted in a soft, reasonable-sounding voice, there is also the potential for violence, or at least threatening behavior. One of the more common examples of threatening body language is the "lean in". We all have a "bubble" an area around us that we like to keep free of other people. Everyone has differing tolerances for people getting in their bubble, but a favorite power play move is to step into another's bubble and lean in, face to face. There is no interpretation where this is not an aggressive move.

Finally, when talking over, not shutting up, gaslighting and aggressive posturing have all run their course, there's belittling. It doesn't have to be overt, like calling someone stupid. It could involve snickering at someone's point of view, telling them that no one cares about what they are talking about or pointing out an area of perceived weakness. Pompeo tried and failed in this maneuver by pulling out an unlabeled map of Europe, not realizing that Kelly had a Masters Degree in European studies and had forgotten more about European politics than he'll ever know; he doubled down by implying that she misidentified Bangladesh as Ukraine.

Don't let these behaviors happen to you. When someone is talking over you, the tendency is to stop talking - don't. Finish what you were saying, don't be bullied into shutting up. When someone won't shut up, try some non-aggressive move, like raising your hand when it's obvious that they aren't going to take a breath. Don't put up with gaslighting, politely correct the gaslighter. It's natural for people to remember a conversation slightly differently, but recognize the distinction between a difference of opinion and outright fabrication. While being aware that threatening or aggressive posturing might turn into actual violence, don't put up with that either, and certainly don't accept being belittled.

The world is full of people who will try to get you to back down.

Don't.

Photography

Photo Credit Jay Douglass

Doing something creative is good for the soul. At least it is for me. Creative outlets in my life have included writing (poetry, short stories, political commentary) and photography. My output of poetry and prose has declined the last few years, crowded out by political commentary, but my photographic endeavors have expanded. I started out with a point-and-shoot about 12 years ago and have upgraded a few times - but it's really the eye of the photographer that makes a good photo. Good equipment and editing software helps, but you can have the world's most expensive camera and still take crappy pictures.

I started taking photos at The Zoo Bar sometime in 2008 at a Chris Duarte Group show. I had been a CDG regular for several years and had come across a Fan Club website that encouraged reviews and pictures from the various concerts. I sent in a review and was told by the site administrator that someone else had submitted some photos of the same show. I was impressed with the quality of the image, which inspired me to start taking my camera to shows and submitting pictures to the Fan Club. My initial attempts were pretty horrible. Initially I wasn't aware of the "no flash" guidelines, and have some old shots of musicians glaring at me as I blinded them. My first camera had a few settings like "night", "cloudy" etc, so once I was cured of using a flash, the only setting that would result in any kind of image was the "night" setting, which defaulted to a wide aperture and slow shutter speed. This often resulted in a blur caused by movement. This could look really cool, or really awful! Eventually I upgraded to a camera where I could tailor the settings to the ambient lighting and the quality of my photos began to improve.

The biggest thing that has helped me improve my technical skills has been shooting in the inconsistent lighting of The Zoo Bar. For years, one of the issues for photography there has been the lights. Often one of the spotlights would be burned out, causing one part of the stage to be in deep shadow while other parts were well lit. A new lighting system has recently been installed, with movable spotlights, lighting effects and variable colors. Unfortunately for me and other photographers, there are still dark spots on stage and red lighting gets used a lot. This may look cool to everyone else, but red lighting makes for really bad photos! Without getting into technical and editing fixes, suffice it to say that continually trying different settings and listening to advice from other, more experienced photographers has helped greatly. Specific feedback from people who knew what they were talking about has been the single greatest contributor to improvement.

While I don't limit my photography to The Zoo Bar, the photos that I have taken of the shows there and at the annual Zoofest in July have gotten the most attention. In addition to affording me an opportunity to get better, I have met a lot of great people over the years as a result of my Zoo photography, Zoo Bar patrons, as well as musicians from all over the country, many of whom I have stayed in contact with after meeting them on break or out back for an "alley shot". Since I usually keep to myself at shows, I get a kick out of someone asking "Are you Tom Joyce?" when they see me with my camera!

What I try to accomplish, whether at the bar, on a Lincoln street or out in the corn fields is not to just snap a generic picture that says "Look, I was at the Dave Alvin show", or "This is a sunrise", but to find something about the image that says "This is pretty cool". A friend of mine referred to it as "editorial photography". A lot of my band photos are close ups of a guitarist's face during a solo, or a black and white image partly in shadow. Shots from behind the stage are something that is easy to do at The Zoo, and of course there's the famous "alley shots".

Photography has been fun for me over the years. Thanks to all who have encouraged me and have given me feedback and helpful tips. I look forward to another year of broken down houses, alley shots, grain elevators, and fighting funky lighting!

What Evil Lurks...?

One tough thing that many of us have to deal with is how to deal with people that seem like nice people, but express hateful opinions. Sometimes these people are our relatives, sometimes they're our co-workers, sometimes they're our neighbors. I'm not talking about mere differences in opinion, even though some of those differences may have huge consequences.  There are many ways that we can disagree that don't involve dehumanizing others, or behaving hatefully. Often what separates opposing ways of looking at a problem is the intent behind the opinion.

Religion is overflowing with examples. It's one thing to believe that a certain religious belief or practice is what works best for you, it's quite another to advocate that those who don't hold your religious views be executed.

Wow, that was extreme.

We all know that those people exist, but what about believers who aren't on the fanatical end of the spectrum? How about those who, while not advocating death for the "unbeliever", nonetheless work toward enmeshing their religion and the law, effectively outlawing different beliefs? (or no beliefs) Some, but definitely not all, would agree that this is wrong. But how do you view someone, who is perfectly content to separate church and state, yet believes in her heart of hearts that you and people like you, are so detestable that you will be tortured eternally? That's what Hell is, people. According to the myths, Hell is not some afterlife haven for rebels where all the really cool people go when they die. No, Hell is a place of eternal torment and you deserve to go there for whatever reason your religious buddy thinks is his god's rules. And even if you're nominally of the same religion as Mr. Fire and Brimstone, you might, in his opinion still be damned for not being enough of a believer.

If I have to be around those people I'll deal with it, but I won't like it.

What about politics? A lot of people "aren't political". But there is a significant percentage of the nation who gladly and enthusiastically support "leaders" who spew hateful rhetoric and regularly demonize those who oppose them as "enemies", "scum" and a variety of other epithets. People who proudly parrot what their leaders say about their fellow Americans, their friends, family and neighbors.

How about sports? Think that's safe? I heard a co-worker defend a player who was accused of a crime, not by noting that he hadn't had his day in court yet, but because he was fast and was helping his team win games. Athletes in professional and college sports are regularly protected from the consequences of their actions solely due to their value to their franchises. And fans still pay to see them and cheer them on.

Sometimes I hear people say things, or read comments on social media and wonder: "What's wrong with this person?"

I'm not so un-self-aware that I think every moral person in the world adheres to the same ethical standards that I do, or that those who hold differing opinions are necessarily evil, or stupid, or deplorable, but sometimes I just recoil in horror at what lurks in the hearts of my fellow humans.

More Christian Than the Christians?

Periodically you see someone saying that some one who isn't a Christian is more Christian than actual Christians. This is usually in the context of politics and is meant to point out hypocrisy among some groups of Christians. While I certainly understand the point that is being made, there is a fundamental problem with that kind of comparison. The problem is assuming that Christianity is the yardstick by which we measure morality and that any goodness among non-Christians is due to them living according to Christian principles. I disagree with that assumption.

This isn't because I necessarily believe that New Testament-based morality is wrong, but that it isn't unique. An obvious example is that of the "Golden Rule", usually quoted as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". (Do unto others what you want them to do to you - Matthew 7:12) This same "rule" can be documented as far back as 550 B.C. in Confucian China; The Code of Hammurabi contains similar wording another 1200 years earlier. Many of the world religions contain a concept virtually identical concept: Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and Zoroastrianism all have their versions.

All religions have as part of their ethical core guidelines for getting along with others and for the smooth operation of society. Setting aside dietary and ritual considerations, religious systems codify a commonsense system for people to interact with others with minimal friction. Don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, be nice to those weaker than you, respect those in authority over you, share your bounty when you are able, do your duty, follow through on your commitments, etc. You can expand on any or all of these and come up with a workable moral foundation. At the root, these moral standards are simply a framework to avoid societal chaos.

While pairing these behavioral expectations with worship of a deity or with ritual observances is common, there is no reason for it to be necessary. Most religious adherents, or even non-adherents, i.e. atheists, would have strong motivation to live harmoniously within society. It doesn't take belief in gods to understand that lying and cheating eventually result in lack of trust by others; that stealing is going to result in some kind of retaliation; that anarchy in government or business is unproductive and dangerous; basically that you act in such a way that you would want to be treated and hope it all works out.

This isn't to suggest that everyone will naturally act ethically without the influence of religion any more than everyone who is a religious person will automatically act ethically. No, I'm just suggesting that telling a non-Christian that they are a good Christian ignores and denigrates their own ethical and moral choices.

Balance

Where does your obligation to others end? When does your need for self care outweigh your consideration for others? Is family really the most important thing? How does forgiveness fit into the picture?

Before launching into my own opinions, I want to state that there is no one answer for everyone. No two people, even those within the same family, have the same life experiences. As with most things, we have to construct our own standards and be content to live with them.

My own viewpoint is, of course, colored by my own experiences. I grew up in close contact with my extended family. My four siblings and I lived in a two-family home that we shared with six cousins who lived upstairs. Cousins and cousins of cousins frequently got together for family events. We regularly visited my two grandmothers and had them over for holidays. My parents and grandparents siblings were part of our extended family. There was occasional friction. My paternal grandmother was famously hard to get along with, and one of my mother's sisters could be counted upon to cause problems at times. Despite these issues, we never cut anyone off from family contact and even someone that we didn't always get along with was welcome in our home. Of course there was more to it than what we saw. Both my father and mother had cousins who, for one reason or another, we never had contact with, except for funerals...maybe. My maternal grandfather, who I was allowed to believe was dead, had been living in upstate New York, where he had no contact with any of his children or grandchildren. It wasn't until he really did die that I accidentally found out about him. Even though, going into adulthood, I knew about these "others", I considered them the exception to the happy families rule. I fully expected that when I started my own family that the same apparent closeness would prevail.

Then I got divorced.

That's a long and painful story, but the relevant chapter is that my ex-wife, convinced to the core that I was evil, convinced our children to break off all contact with me. Some of them may have actually believed what she was telling them, some of them may have just been trying to keep the peace, since she made clear that she strongly disapproved of them having any kind of relationship with me. For several years only one of my six children would have any contact with me. Eventually, as they got older and were less under their mother's day to day influence, they each reestablished contact with me. I envisioned recreating what I perceived as the perfect family dynamic, and for a while it seemed that my idyllic vision had been achieved. But I had not factored in a flaw in my thinking.

The flaw was looking only at what I wanted.

I was so enamored of the concept of "family dinners" that I never considered that my family might not find them quite so wonderful. That they might have perfectly reasonable and acceptable reasons for opting out of these gatherings - some of the time or all of the time. It took me a few years to realize that I am not obligated to host these gatherings and no one is obligated to attend. I have the option to invite family to my home and they have the option to accept the invitation.

One of the qualities that I tried to inculcate in my children was independence. That even though I would support them in their endeavors, and refrain from negative judgement, that I would not function as their safety net once they achieved adulthood. If I could have afforded to send my children to college I would have done it, but other than that, I did not see myself as obligated to pay their bills or protect them from the consequences of their actions. I realize, of course, that many would disagree with this mindset. I'm not advocating that there is only one way to approach this question. There have been a small number of times when I have paid a bill or intervened to help out one of my children, but in each case they haven't asked and it was not a precedent. The other side of the independence coin, one which it took me years to see, was that as a corollary to taking responsibility for their own lives, they weren't taking responsibility for mine. In this example, I still occasionally host family get-togethers, but am fully accepting of the schedules and needs of the family members and am prepared for just me and Susie to attend!

This brings us back to my initial questions: Where does your obligation to others end? When does your need for self care outweigh your consideration for others? I've written a lot of words about one of my own situations, but it comes down to balance. We would indeed be pitiful excuses for human beings if we never considered the needs of others, but what kind of life would we have if we always prioritized others above our own needs? There has to be a balance; and that balance is going to look differently for different people.

For me the balance is connected with a particular view of forgiveness. There's a difference between taking action that incidentally hurts someone's feelings, yet is done with pure motive and something that is done intentionally to injure or of selfish motive. For me, forgiveness is twofold. First, it's refusing to assume that another's actions are intentionally hurtful. This is not particularly easy for me - I am naturally cynical and have to make an effort of will to ignore what seems like the obviously "evil" motive. It's difficult, but not impossible. Secondly, I don't expect to much in order to forgive. I don't even look for an apology. All that I want is for the person that needs the forgiveness to stop doing the things that require forgiving! Change the behavior and let's move on!

That doesn't mean that I continue to allow people to take advantage of or otherwise injure me. If you've stolen from me, I may reestablish our relationship, but I probably won't leave my wallet or any valuables out.

So what's the answer? Facebook has a "relationship status" called "It's Complicated". And that's the answer - it's complicated. Ask yourself whether staying angry at your sister or cousin or parent is worth burying that relationship forever. On the other hand, ask yourself whether maintaining that relationship is worth the damage to your own peace of mind and sanity. 

Find the balance.

Cults & Brainwashing

No, not the Blue Öyster variety, with, or without umlauts.

Last night I watched a documentary about Bikram Choudury, the yoga teacher. Long before they got to the parts about him raping his students, I turned to Susie and said "Wow, not too much of a cult". I recognized the signs right away. Sometime soon I will be posting my own history with a cult, but suffice it to say that I know what I'm talking about, at least experientially.

One of the words that come up frequently when discussing cults and their influence and abuses is "brainwashing". There are several competing definitions of brainwashing; here's one: "The concept that the human mind can be altered or controlled by certain psychological techniques". According to this definition, brainwashing, or mind control, is said to reduce its subjects ability to think critically or independently, to allow the introduction of new, unwanted thoughts and ideas into the subject's mind, as well as to change his or her attitudes, values and beliefs. I will steer clear of government-sponsored efforts that involve torture or chemical means to affect these changes, and look primarily at groups that people initially join voluntarily but end up unable to leave, even when actions take place that are abusive or otherwise harmful.

Looking specifically at Bikram's organization, the outer circle is fairly innocuous. People generally first come in contact by attending a Bikram-affiliated yoga studio in their own neighborhood. The yoga teacher is local (usually a woman) who may be known in the community as an all-around nice person. She drives her kids to school, is a volunteer at the PTA, pays her taxes and shovels the snow off the sidewalk in the winter. New participants may or may not feel like it's worth their time. Those who don't, drop out. Those who do stick around and begin to invest time and money in the program. That's the first step, and that's where the hook first starts to sink in.

Most people do not understand the economic concept of Sunk Cost. That's the idea that any money that you have invested or spent is gone. If you spent $20,000 on a new car in 2010 and sell it for $10,000 in 2019, you haven't lost anything. You got 9 years of use out of the car and its value decreased. Selling it for $10,000 means that, in terms of the here and now, you just made $10,000. But let's say you insist on waiting for someone to pay you $20,000 (or more). You're then making zero dollars. I used to run into this as a retail grocery manager. Each department had a goal for how much of a profit margin they should make on average in their department. Let's say your goal in the Dairy Department was 20%. But let's further imagine that you have a slow-moving yogurt, or you bought way too much for that ad. You can mark it down to a 10%, 5% or even sell it for less than cost. You may be taking a loss on paper, but in reality you're taking in some money, rather than throwing all the excess in the trash. I worked with a lot of people who couldn't understand that taking a paper loss, or a reduced margin, meant you were still coming out ahead - better than taking in no dollars.

People who have invested time and money in something are loathe to admit that they wasted their time. The longer they're involved, the more determined they are to get something out of it. Maybe they've spent $500 on membership fees, and figure, "what the hell, I might as well keep attending, even if I don't like it all that much". They have talked themselves into the first phase of believing in "the thing".

The second hook is peer pressure. In Bikram, it was the yoga veterans who constantly talked about how Bikram Yoga had helped them, even changed their lives. In the documentary you heard about people who had lost weight, or had been cured of various maladies, or just became more confident people, all due to Bikram. In religious cults you'll hear about various "miracles" and "healings", always unverified, but the principle is the same. For those who have already decided that they were "all in", the peer pressure to start seeing those miraculous and life changing  experiences cause one to desire to be in that inner circle. Any real benefits are magnified and emphasized. And that's a key to understanding cult behavior - there has to be some real benefits, even if the benefits are later exaggerated. Sometimes the benefits  are tangible like better health and stamina; sometimes it's a matter of belonging, or receiving praise, the feeling of family. That's the next hook.

In some groups the concept of family is taken to the extreme, and leaders advocate shunning the actual family, but in others it's just another level of belonging, with the members spending most of their time together to the exclusion of outside interests. Once this family dynamic is established, what's more natural than a relationship with the group's "father"?

By the time someone is actually in the presence of Bikram for one of his "Teachers' Classes", a student has a tremendous amount of time, effort and resources invested. They have already internalized the teachings and are convinced of the benefits. They have been recommended by someone in their home area that they like and trust and feel that they are ready to advance. They feel at once proud and humbled that they have been chosen. They don't need much convincing that Bikram knows what he's doing. And if they aren't 100% convinced, Bikram let's them know that he knows what he's doing. He tolerates no slackers, no arguments, it's his way or the highway. Everyone there has been primed to look to Bikram as a wise teacher who can virtually do no wrong. He is presented (and he presents himself) as not only an authority in his brand of yoga, but simply an authority...period. He can do no wrong.

Until he does.

What happens when he rapes young women who attend his classes? Some are so stunned that they can't believe it happened. Some keep quiet because they have wrapped their livelihood up with Bikram Yoga and try to, as one person put it "separate the man from the program". Those who did come forward were reviled by those who still supported Bikram. It is likely that there were some who convinced themselves that they weren't raped, or that they had somehow caused it. It is probable to the point of virtual certainty that many more women were targets of rape, sexual abuse, or groping. Why do people persist in following a person like this?

Not all cult leaders engage in physical abuse. But all have brought their followers, step by step, to the point where they have their own selves invested in believing that he (it's almost always a "he") can do no wrong. Sometimes there's still some personal benefit to be derived from following the cult leader, sometimes their own experience doesn't conform to the negative experiences of others, sometimes people just don't want to admit that they're wrong.

Cult leaders, whether with an organization like Bikram's, or a religious sect, or even a political figure target people with a specific need - to belong, to become fit, to put down the "other", and tailor their message to bring those people into the fold. A cult doesn't have to have "a compound" or empty your bank account, all it has to do is get you to forsake rational thought for the dogma of the cult. It doesn't take "brainwashing", some ephemeral method of mind control, no one "takes away" ones ability to think critically, individuals choose to abdicate their thinking skills to instant gratification;  it takes individuals believing successive lies, because the perceived benefit of believing the lie is greater than the hard work of rational, logical, skeptical reasoning.

Been there, done that.

Being On Time

There are situations when "being on time" is not an issue. There are, however, situations where it is critical that you start at a predetermined time. It's important to know the difference. In my view, the deciding factors are what you have agreed to do and what the consequences are for not being punctual.  

As a wedding officiant, I push really hard for starting on time. If the ceremony is supposed to start at 5:00PM, and there are 150 people waiting for things to begin, those people are going to get awfully cranky if we don't start until 5:30. On the other hand, if you're a guest and running late, no one is going to care, or even notice. About ten years ago I ran customer service training for the company that I worked for. The session lasted about 90 minutes and I always started on time. I frequently didn't know how many people were supposed to be there, so there was no question of "waiting for that last person to show up". I usually checked the parking lot right about start time to see if there was anyone getting out of their car at the last minute. Once I started, no one was allowed in. Why? Because if I let someone in ten minutes late, I was admitting that whatever I was saying for those ten minutes was not important.

If there's an agreed-upon time, it's simple courtesy to show up at that time