There is even a more general technique -- do the unexpected, to break the expected social protocol.
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.
I wonder what would happen if someone tries to rob you and you put your finger against your inner earlobe, look down at an angle, and say to yourself "he's in position, MOVE MOVE MOVE"
Trying to outwit a panhandler is really stupid. Such a situation isn't hacker news, trying to look smarter than everyone else isn't going to win you any points.
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.
In a "bad" part of town, maybe think of the people there as real people, and don't come across as obviously fearful. This has worked pretty well for me (although there are certainly other factors involved).
Maybe, and maybe get mugged. But I don't want to get mugged.
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 appearing obviously fearful is enough to significantly increase the chances of people hassling you it's a pretty good indicator that you're in a bad part of town.
Oh they are certainly real people. Real people who will beat and rob you for $3. That's just how people can be at their basest level. Communication and charity doesn't go very far on that plane of interaction. Of course if you are in that part of town as a "customer" than it's different....
I'll probably get flamed for this, but this story reminds me of good ol' Proverbs 25:21,22!
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.
I quoted the exact same verse in my response and was similarly concerned how it would be taken in this forum (having been the guy who generally rolled my eyes when people quoted the bible). Regardless of ones opinion of the bible, that verse is one that I started living by 20 years ago. Nothing is 100% reliable, and this bit of wisdom is no exception, but when applied properly the results have continually surprised me.
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.
"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.
I'd rather just give him water & food while otherwise ignoring his attitude, simply because it is a logical way to defuse the situatuon. I see no need for heaping coals on his head or the promise of someone rewarding me.
Regardless of my misinterpretation, I enjoy the passage. :)
What you've stated in your first sentence is a perfect interpretation IMHO.
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)".
No need for flames. Even those of us who don't believe ought to be able to accept wise words and parables.
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.
"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."
Have used this approach years ago when I worked retail and it works really well (as an aside working retail for at least a year will give you a sound grasp of customer service and introduce you to the 10/80/10 split, 10% are lovely to deal with, 80% are somewhere in between but fine and 10% are jerks).
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.
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.
Yes, I do believe everyone growing up should work in retail for at least a year. It's a valuable experience (my experience was working for a year in a Toys R Us).
Absolutely true. I wasn't a jerk to people in retail before I worked a crappy job as an ice cream server, but I didn't really care about how they were treated. One summer dealing with customer bullshit changed that real quick.
Worked retail to pay for my BsCpe. I would definitely suggest working retail to anyone who has the opportunity. You'll never whine about another job again.
You can empathize with their feelings regardless the reason for them. If they are frustrated, you understand feeling frustrated, so empathize. If they are angry, you understand feeling angry, so empathize. The precise reason doesn't matter.
There's a beautiful illustration of this principle from the NFL, of all places. When quarterback Andrew Luck gets sacked, he enthusiastically compliments his tackler for a great play. It completely messes up the opponent's psyche, at least according to this darkly funny Wall Street Journal story:
This is unfortunately rewarding poor behavior with extra attention- it's teaching people that they get better service when they are rude.
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.
Honestly, when somebody who isn't a subordinate, friend, or direct charge acts like a jerk, I don't think it's worth taking this kind of pedagogical role with regard to etiquette (probably not a good idea in the friends case a lot of time as well). If somebody wants to be a jerk, there are enough providers of goods and services that they'll find one that responds favorably to that. Not to mention that they'll probably rationalize turning them away as the provider being a jerk rather than learning something from it. As DarkTree points out, the provider's response to that behavior is more about managing the provider's quality of life than about shaping customers for the greater good.
Indeed, there should be a dichotomy between real life and the web when using this strategy, but again, I think this strategy is more about increasing your own happiness then it is to diminish theirs.
The principle I think you're hinting at here is one of reinforcing good behaviour and extinguishing bad behaviour, à la Skinner. However, this can only be done over time, with repeated interactions.
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.
Sometimes it's not possible to just avoid people, even on the web - I worked online customer support for a while and we had to respond to every request. This tactic works well for those types of situations.
David Burns (in the book "Feeling Good") wrote about the "disarming technique" which is "find some truth in what the other person is saying, even if it seems totally unreasonable or unfair".
Readit News
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.
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.
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.
* 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.
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.
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.
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.
Dead Comment
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)".
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
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.
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.
Dead Comment
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.
Dead Comment
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.