Why Insults Bring People Together

Insult

It’s such a truism that wherever you go in life, whatever you achieve, you will invariably meet a few people who are callous and sour, who seem to want to insult others for no good reason. Whether you’re in the dregs or the gods, someone is usually liable to start lobbing vitriol without cause.

I’m not referring simply to a lack of social tact, but to those who speak with the obvious intention of hurting another; that special brand of human that evidently derives pleasure from seeing another become upset.

In conversations relating to social interactions, one of the most difficult things to discuss without bias are these types of abusive people. It’s so easy to turn into a bitching session, because the easiest (and most satisfying) way to look at them and their comments is to simply demonize them.

Because, really, just how difficult is it to follow The Golden Rule? Yes, it’s a cliche but one that remains self-evident: Isn’t it just… easier to be good and polite to people? In a purely practical sense, doesn’t it lessen the burden of social responsibility, of being mindful of others? Doesn’t it make life simpler and more carefree?

Maybe these traits are just habits of thinking, or maybe there’s something more to it. When I discussed this with others, we found ourselves referring to those who have made kindness and compassion a habit as having “figured it out”. It’s not something that necessarily comes with age, either. I know teenagers who seem to have it “figured out” and people of middle-age and older who are very difficult to deal with.

So then, what is the point of putting someone down? Something happened recently that gave me a little perspective on it. Anyone who keeps an eye on the news will know that the world is going through a huge economic crisis. My native country, Ireland, which had been until recently been experiencing an unprecedented financial boom, is now officially entering a recession.

Hearing about this on the news, it does bring a sense of despondence; things are going to get a bit rough.

Recession

But at the same time, I found myself experiencing a definite feeling of satisfaction; a sense of, “Well, it’s about bloody time we copped on to ourselves and stopped wasting so much money”.

I realized that this thought was not so much an objective view; rather, it was a feeling that all these politicians and property tycoons who had spent so much money, all those people who had borrowed ridiculous amounts of cash to purchase huge new houses and cars, were getting their just desserts. I couldn’t help but feel vindicated that those of us who had had financial responsibility drilled into our heads since childhood had come up trumps.

And yet, that’s still a generous description. Because basically, all it boils down to is that satisfying feeling that more people have been brought to your level, that your social status is somehow more justified because more are now there with you.

And isn’t that type of thinking basically a more abstract version of insulting someone outright? It just remains contained rather than spoken. It’s still taking someone down a notch; not because you actually dislike them and feel that they deserve it, but because your own ego needs validation. It’s basically insecurity, and insecurity is very lonely. It causes us to seek out company. And which is the faster method of getting it – – working on oneself in order to remove any neuroses and foibles, or throwing a terrible insult at someone in order to make them feel insecure and lonely too? The personal development could take years, the insult, seconds.

So the person who casts that mean-spirited jibe is actually trying to bring the victim closer to themselves; Misery loves company. It can often be painful to witness the success or happiness of someone who was once in the same boat as you, while you’re still stuck in that boat. That’s why it’s often difficult to see someone you know get a promotion, go on a long trip abroad etc. It’s not because it affects you directly, though your ego may tell you so, but rather because the relationship between yourself and the person leaving has changed. And it’s always easier to leave than to be left behind.

If you look at any Internet chatroom that relates to a psychological condition, such as anxiety, bulimia etc, you will find that they are peopled almost entirely by people who seem to have the condition perpetually, rather than any who have recovered and want to offer help. Is this because people don’t want to help others once they’ve recuperated? No. It’s because the misery of these groups feed off themselves, love the company, and loathe the one who makes the move to leave the nest.

Those who say they are recovered are not immediately praised; in fact, they are regularly vilified and regarded as pariahs in the community. That person no longer meets the standards of sickness and misery necessary for acceptance, and are now considered a dangerous interloper.

Sponge

Indeed, the drive to surround oneself with peers with whom one feels equal is a basic animalistic trait; it even occurs on a cellular level. In his book The Lucifer Principle, author Howard Bloom describes how, when you run an aquatic sponge through a sieve, it will liquify into a muddy substance before its cells regroup . Run two of them into a bucket, and the cells from each will manage to recognise their own kind and reconstitute themselves into their original forms.

Similarly, if a person, dissatisfied with their selves or circumstances, finds themselves in amiable, happy company, they may feel desperately out of place. But who would up and leave their social stratum to seek out unhappier contemporaries? No; since they cannot recognise their kind around them, the abuse they hurl and misery they induce are an attempt to create their own kind.

Yes, it’s true that throwing insults at someone could be construed as little more than a socio-Darwinistic attempt to weaken others and drive them out of the social circle, gene pool, etc. But then, why do these exchanges happen so frequently between couples, siblings, people who should have no interest in gaining an evolutionary one-up on the other? Because to slight someone can have an alternate purpose. If the insulter feels troubled and insecure, the insult can create a similar state in the victim. In spite of all the drama and tears, at least both are back in the same boat.

It’s warped, but the most cutting aspersion can actually bring people together. And if disparity is so often the reason for the discharge of unwarranted malice, then, hopefully, maintaining one’s awareness of this fact can defuse its power completely.

f

Should We Ignore Or Help Difficult People?

In my last article, “The Secret: Fact Or Fiction?”, I  said that “It is certainly flawed in places, and offers rather simplistic views of, for example, why bad events sometimes befall people (they draw it upon themselves, apparently).” Some people have argued that “The Secret” implies a  shunning of these people, that negative thoughts are contagious and that you must not draw them – or the people who think them – upon yourself.

I have wondered about this for a long time; what are you supposed to do with people who are just, well, negative?

A few years back, I suffered from panic attacks and an obsessive thought disorder known as depersonalization. Despite my initial enthusiasm for the Internet as a research tool, I found that using it as such in this case was extremely dangerous. Why? Because almost all of the forums in which you would expect to find support were actually inhabited by people who had no intention of getting better. It’s a horrible thing to say, but it’s true. People logged in day after day, broadcasting their self-pity on a digital soapbox. These posts usually amounted to little more than reassurance of the grimness of everyone’s situation, which is particularly demoralising to an individual with an obsessive thinking disorder. According to these people, nobody ever gets better from these conditions, and most people who logged on to say they had were branded a liar (I was one of them).

After my recovery, I wrote and began selling a guide on how to deal with obsessive thinking; one of the golden rules of that book was to never, ever go into a forum again. I have told everybody, and I mean hundreds of buyers, everyone who has read the book – to never speak to the people in the forums again, to have nothing to do with them. Because they will drag you down, they will infect you via emotional osmosis and make your own recovery that much more difficult. It happened to me many, many times before I noticed the pattern and stopped it.

And that’s the dilemma. Is it our duty to help and be kind to people who are, on the surface at least, cruel and hurtful? Or, to be exact, is it our duty to do this continually for that person?

I have been blessed with a wonderful family, with whom I get on very well; but I know people who have had to practically cut relatives out of their lives, purely for the sake of ease. Again, it sounds terrible, but if that person’s mood and demeanour affects yours (as it almost always must), how do you deal with a regular barrage of pessimism and ignorance that sucks the energy and vitality from yourself? And let me be clear; I am not talking about depression or sadness in a person. Of course, these absolutely must be dealt with, thoroughly and attentively. But in this case I am talking about negativity, insults, put-downs, bullying, manipulation and exploitation.

I had the experience of spending a good deal of time with one individual who had been “cut off” by another close member of their family, simply because the latter was totally unable to deal with the irresponsible behaviour of the former. Despite my initial scepticism towards this way of dealing with the situation, I had to eventually conclude that it was the only practical way of doing so. The assumption, however hopeful, would be that the person in question would in the future, find a level of maturity on their own to allow for a reconciliation.

But until then, is there really any other alternative? Talking things out is not always a viable option. Often, when someone is confronted with what they perceive to be an assault on their ego, they can respond with tears, shouts or even violence. Indeed, arguing one worldview versus another is generally a exercise in futility. For example, take your average college debate. Let’s say that one side comes up with a long list of trump reasonings for their argument, while the other side fails to respond with anything remotely cohesive. Do you think that at any point, any member of the latter team will stand up and say “You know what? You’re right”, and join the other side?

Of course not. Why? Because most of us have developed this silly idea that our viewpoint is somehow connected to our ego, that changing one’s mind is somehow evidence of defeat, of not having thought things through. A healthier stance would be that changing one’s mind is evidence of adaptability, of willingness to change and evolve.

That’s why confronting someone who you believe to be mistreating others or acting in an ignorant manner can be so dangerous; because you are criticizing their behaviour, the way they interact with the world – and deep offence can be taken.

On the other hand, let’s consider the audience of the debate. These people are prone to great variances in opinion between the beginning and end of the verbal contest. In an excellent, ongoing series of podcasts, the moderators measure the listeners’ attitudes before and after the debate, which often produces huge differences. Why does this happen to the audience and not the debaters? Because the audience are spectators; they have no immediate social investment in the belief being contested. Not only that, but they are part of a gathering where the adaptation of thought is accepted and even encouraged.

They weigh up the evidence, and decide for themselves. And that’s a great microcosm for one’s personal ascent to maturity. Telling someone to change won’t make them change; demonstrating the value of change will allow them to make the decision for themselves. The famous therapeutic hypnotist Milton Erickson accomplished this brilliantly: For example, he had a rule of never telling his patients what not to do (i.e., “Don’t laugh”, “Don’t worry”). Also, he used techniques such as metaphorical stories to insinuate that the patient could get better. The bottom line was that everything was accomplished on the patient’s terms, a revolutionary approach that allowed for full recoveries in astonishingly short periods of time. Why? Because the patient figured out for themselves that they could do just that, for themselves.

It’s like the Buddhist saying, “When the student is ready, the lesson presents itself.” And the Desiderata says, “Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexations to the spirit.” If we take these sayings together, we might conclude that sometimes, it’s necessary to just leave some people alone and hope that they figure certain things out for themselves. This can be very tough, especially if that person is or has been close to you.

r

But if the student isn’t ready, maybe there is little you can do but wait and hope for the best.

r