Bill Eddy's Blog

Dealing with High Conflict People and their irate communications can leave you at a loss for words.  

The BIFF Response® Method helps you get your thoughts organized and under control so you can respond effectively. 

To be most effective, we suggest you explore the method in our 20-minute Online Course, 20-minute dvd or in the BIFF Response book to give you the method essentials. Then we tell people to practice, practice, practice!

When you want to utilize The BIFF Response® Method, you may find yourself staring at a blank screen wondering, “What do I say?”   The answer will vary from case-to-case, but let’s review the ground rules and then go over a few examples.

Rule #1 is always to ask:  “Do I need to reply to this at all?”  

Pause.  Take a deep breath. Then read the email/ text with a critical eye:   Is there anything that really requires a reply? (A deadline, an appointment, a PTA conference, a needed decision). Look for valid matters and ignore the barbs.  A decision on an appointment time is valid. An accusation that you never communicate is invalid. Asking what time to pick up a child is valid.  Saying everybody is mad at you/blaming you is not valid. Additionally, a decision needed for a concrete issue is only valid if it’s new.  Further demands to discuss the same matter are not valid and need no reply, or a shorter version- one time - of what you said last time. Don’t take the bait when the next re-worded email with the same demand comes along.  

If you need to reply, then follow BIFF:

Brief: Keep it brief. Long explanations and arguments trigger upsets for HCPs.

Informative: Focus on straight information, not arguments, opinions, emotions or defending yourself (you don’t need to)

Friendly: Have a friendly greeting (such as “Thanks for responding to my request”); close with a friendly comment (such as “Have a good weekend”).

Firm: Have your response end the conversation. Or give two choices on an issue and ask for a reply by a certain date.

Leave out the 3 A’s

An entire chapter is dedicated to this in the BIFF Response Book, but the highlights of what to avoid are:

Advice. Are you telling the other person what to do, how to behave, or how to feel? If so, you can expect a defensive reaction and more email/texts. It’s better to avoid unsolicited advice such as “You just need to do X.” Make a proposal instead.

Admonishments. Telling a defensive or upset person what they do wrong and how to fix it will just make them more defensive and earn you another accusatory reply. Things like “You’re overreacting” or “You should be ashamed” are not going to help them hear you.

Apologies. Most of us apologize sometimes, but it easily backfires with HCPs. “Sorry I was late” is OK as a social nicety. “I’m sorry my email upset you” is accepting responsibility for the other person’s emotions. It’s almost guaranteed to be taken as an admission of guilt, which an HCP will use against you to place blame and defend their actions.

A Family Member Example:

Bob’s email:

“Thanks for nothing. My boss threatened to fire me today. Some sister you are! I TOLD YOU I COULDN'T BE LATE AGAIN. You know I've been meaning to get the car checked. I can't control when it breaks down. BUT YOU COULDN'T BE BOTHERED WITH HELPING ME GET THERE, COULD YOU???? You and your FANCY JOB. You don't have to worry about unreasonable bosses. You could have taken time off to help YOUR OWN BROTHER!!! Mom's mad at you too. I hope you're happy!”

Sue’s Response:

“Hi Bob, I'm glad you were able to make it and that you still have your job. As I said this morning, I couldn't miss my meeting. I can make time to help you drop off your car for repairs on Saturday or Tuesday. Let me know by 11:00 tomorrow what day and time you need to go since I must give advance notice to my work. If I don't hear by then, I'll just assume you won't need my help with it. Have fun at the baseball game tonight. --Sue.”

A Divorce Example:

Text from the Ex:

"I got a new lawyer today. Boy, are you in trouble. All the BS you say about me is going to get you hammered in court. You'll NEVER get any custody because you're such a sack of s**t and you're going to have to give me a ton of money. Lots more than that crappy amount you pay now. I hate you and now you'll be sorry you filed for divorce."

Your reply:

Nothing. Sometimes the hardest part of a BIFF Response is not doing it at all. Choose to ignore this and you'll avoid spending the next few hours battling it out.

A Co-Parenting Example:

Text from Mom:

"Thanks for nothing you pile of crap. Those clothes you bought for his birthday are junk. I'll be asking the judge for more money so I can get him something decent to wear when he does things like go to his doctor appointment on Thursday. Drop dead."

Dad says:

"Thanks for letting me know about his doctor appointment. I'll check in after to hear what the doc said."

A workplace Example:

Team member email:

“Who do you think you are? You're messing up the whole project and making me look bad!!!! You know we were supposed to turn in the figures yesterday, but noooo. You're so important you thought you could get away with a TWO-HOUR BREAK. I couldn't get it done and it's YOUR fault! You need to get your s**t together, EVERYONE thinks so!!!"

You:

“Hi Coworker A, I appreciate your concern for getting reports in on time. As I mentioned in my email to everyone last week, my meeting could not be rescheduled. I've attached a copy of the email for you. You'll see that Ms. Boss gave us an extension until Friday. I am available all afternoon. What time can you meet to finish the figures? Have a good morning. –Me”

A Public Accusation Example

Email cc’d to everyone in the office:

“In case you hadn’t noticed, we are all busy around here. Why is it that you spend your whole day checking your Facebook and watching YouTube?  I don’t think this is the best use of company time so on behalf of everyone here, I ask that you get back to work.”

You should respond with factual information when potentially damaging misinformation is sent to a wider audience and has the risk of doing some harm. You don’t want your supervisor believing you spend all day watching cat videos, so you write:

“Hello everyone, Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to address this.  I appreciate my coworkers’ attentiveness to the use of company time so I would like to clarify that I am doing assigned research for the new social media campaign and was asked to review how other companies use media platforms for trends and ideas. I’m sure we are all working hard to make the campaign successful. I wish you all a good day. –signed Coworker”

That’s just 5 examples we hope you found useful. If you know what to expect from an HCP, and you practice and prepare, giving a good BIFF Response® is a lot easier and will even start to come naturally over time. Of course, if you have a complicated situation that needs more help- please check out our Biff Response Coaching. We can work with you to craft a response that will ease the conflict.

RESOURCES:

Find out more about The BIFF Response® Method in our 20-minute video, personal coaching, or in the BIFF Response book.

_________________________

Excerpts originally posted by Bill Eddy LCSW, Esq. and Trissan Dicomes

 

In Part Two of this very special first ever two-part series, Rebecca Zung, Esq. and Susan Guthrie, Esq. continue their talk with world-renowned High Conflict Divorce Attorney and Author, Bill Eddy on the principles and advice contained in his best-selling book on dealing with High Conflict people with Personality Disorders, "The Five Types of People Who Can Ruin Your Life."

Don't forget to follow BREAKING FREE: A MODERN DIVORCE PODCAST on social media for updates and inside tips and information:

Facebook
Instagram
Twitter

If you want to see the video version of the podcast episodes they are available on YouTube.

Breaking Free Mediation:

For more information about BREAKING FREE MEDIATION, Rebecca and Susan's mediation centers which are the first in the country to offer traditional divorce mediation services along with a mindfulness track, please visit www.breakingfreemediation.com Breaking Free Mediation offers services both in person in Los Angeles, Chicago, Naples and Greenwich (More locations coming soon!) as well as nationwide via an online platform. 

Part 1 of a Two Part Series: Podcast with Bill Eddy LCSW, Esq. on 5 Types of People Who Can Ruin Your Life

 

Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq.

In Part One of this very special first ever two-part series, Rebecca Zung, Esq. and Susan Guthrie, Esq. talk with world-renowned High Conflict Divorce Attorney and Author, Bill Eddy on the principles and advice contained in his best-selling book on dealing with High Conflict people with Personality Disorders, "The Five Types of People Who Can Ruin Your Life."

Don't forget to follow BREAKING FREE: A MODERN DIVORCE PODCAST on social media for updates and inside tips and information:

Facebook
Instagram
Twitter

If you want to see the video version of the podcast episodes they are available on YouTube.

Breaking Free Mediation:

For more information about BREAKING FREE MEDIATION, Rebecca and Susan's mediation centers which are the first in the country to offer traditional divorce mediation services along with a mindfulness track, please visit www.breakingfreemediation.com Breaking Free Mediation offers services both in person in Los Angeles, Chicago, Naples and Greenwich (More locations coming soon!) as well as nationwide via an online platform. 

Dealing with Family Hostility at the Holiday Table?

Here are four simple tips:

Watch out! Uncle Joe’s coming to the holiday dinner. Oh, no! Sister-in-law Mary is bringing her newest pet. And look out: Your father wants to talk politics, again! Here are four tips for managing them.

How can you handle these potential family trouble-makers, who may thrive on stirring things up and disrupting your well-prepared family or friend event?

1. Prepare. Think seriously about who you want to invite or whose event you want to attend. Don’t let guilt be your guide. You may regret it afterward. If you have a high-conflict relative or friend, try to remember the last event they attended. Did they try to steal the show? Did they ruin it? Or were they manageable with some structure involved (see items below)?

It may help to post a small (or large) sign somewhere that says the following (or something like it): “Tis the holiday season. Let’s avoid hot topics that divide us and focus on discussions we can all enjoy. Thanks for making this a pleasant time for all.” This may remind people who otherwise might slip into arguing about diet, religious practices or politics. You can also simply point to the sign in a friendly way when someone brings up a controversial topic. That way you won’t seem to be offending them.

2. Don’t bother to argue. High-conflict people don’t change their mind after hearing what you—or anyone—has to say. They enjoy the conflict and use it to justify all kinds of behavior: yelling, storming out, blabbing your carefully-kept secrets, refusing to eat your food and otherwise causing a scene. Their whole point is to be the center of attention, not to have a logical discussion. They don’t care about your logic or research. Change their thinking about diet, religion, or politics? Nope!

3. Find a person-sitter. Pick someone to “hang out” with a potentially high-conflict person, so that the person gets plenty of attention and doesn’t feel like they have to start a fight or engage in other nasty behavior just to get attention. Ideally, this would be someone who knows the person and has some experience with managing them in social situations.

4. Change the subject. This goes along with number two above. If someone starts getting into a dangerous topic or an argument, gently and firmly say: “That’s enough, Uncle Joe.” Often, that’s all it takes. Just to be safe, then change the subject: “Can someone pass me the salad dressing.” Too long of a pause after a firm statement leaves room for the person to argue about being shut off.

The goal is to have a good time with reasonable people. Providing a structure to deal with high-conflict people may help them have a good time, too. (They behave better with structure.) Even though it’s the season of good cheer and sharing joy, being nice may not work with everyone. You may need to be assertive for the benefit of your own sanity and everyone else’s peace of mind.

Best wishes for the Holidays!

© 2018 Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq.

Photo: Alex Iby on Unsplash

____________________________

Bill Eddy is a lawyer, therapist, mediator and President of High Conflict Institute, which provides training and consultation for dealing with high-conflict people and situations. He is the author of the new book 5 Types of People Who Can Ruin Your Life: Identifying and Dealing with Narcissists, Sociopaths and Other High-Conflict Personalities which contains a longer explanation of the WEB Method℠ and many case examples. In addition, Bill has developed the following methods for managing high-conflict people in any situation: New Ways for Families®, New Ways for Mediation℠, New Ways for Work℠, The CARS Method℠ and BIFF Response®.

Narcissists,

Sociopaths: Similarities, Differences, Dangers

Both of these personalities present a false self, so we must be aware.

Narcissists, Sociopaths: Similarities, Differences, Dangers

©2018 By Bill Eddy, LCSW, ESQ.

According to a major study stated that almost 10% of the U.S. has either narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) or antisocial personality disorder (another term for sociopath). Many of these individuals have a co-morbid diagnoses of both disorders. This means that now, more than ever before, it is imperative for us to recognize the warning signs, and similarities and differences of these two personalities.

In my experience over several decades as a therapist, mediator, lawyer, and trainer with High Conflict Institute, I have seen that many people often miss the seriousness of the warning signs of NPD (“Oh, she’s just a little self-absorbed”) and totally miss the signs of ASPD (“Oh, he’s just a narcissist” when he’s really a sociopath or both). While I don’t want to over-generalize or frighten people—these personality disorders exist on a continuum of severity—I believe that all of us need awareness of these personalities in today’s world to avoid being misled and caught by surprise.

NARCISSISTS

Most people know that narcissists can be initially charming and exciting. They pay intense attention during the seduction process, lavishing praise and gifts, and making grandiose promises. (This applies equally in all settings, especially dating, hiring and electing leaders.) They exaggerate their abilities, their friends, their histories and their plans. They boost your self-esteem by telling you how wonderful you are—over and over again.

In dating, they want fast intimacy. In the workplace, they want the spotlight and lots of credit for minor (if any) accomplishments. In business and political leadership, they have the best grandiose plans for changing the world, with no basis for accomplishing them. Yet their belief in themselves can be blinding and contagious.

But in reality, narcissists are self-absorbed and see themselves as superior to others—including those around them who they may have initially seduced with their charm.  At first, this seems irritating but tolerable. But these are also warning signs of potential danger ahead.

SOCIOPATHS

Sociopaths can also be extremely charming and seductive until they get what they want (money, sex, connections, sense of power over someone). Then, they may disappear, or stick around and become extremely cruel or manipulative. Those with antisocial personality disorder (an equivalent term for sociopath) may be extremely aggressive and reckless, may be skilled con artists, engage in criminal behavior, and lack all remorse.4 Some enjoy humiliating and hurting people.

Yet many are not involved in the criminal justice system and instead are active in business, politics, or even community leadership. When they are involved in romantic relationships, they can be very deceptive about where they’re going and what they’re doing when they’re away from their partners. This also can be true in the workplace, with endless excuses to supervisors and co-workers. They are repeatedly conning and lying, so that very little of what they say may be true. Words are just a tool they use to get what they want. Their theme is dominance.

DIFFERENCES

According to the diagnostic manual of mental disorders—currently the DSM-5—“narcissistic personality disorder does not include characteristics of impulsivity, aggression, and deceit,” which are instead characteristics of antisocial personality disorder.5 Therefore, if someone is highly aggressive and lies all the time they are more likely to be antisocial (sociopath) than narcissistic. These are predictive characteristics for more severe trouble ahead.

Narcissists are more likely to exaggerate, although occasionally they lie. Narcissists also care what other people think of them—primarily to admire them—as compared to sociopaths who don’t care at all what others think so long as they’re getting what they want. Likewise, narcissists may stick around longer in relationships, whereas sociopaths are more likely to just take off when things get inconvenient or difficult. Sociopaths seem to enjoy fighting and violence, whereas narcissists would prefer the fruits of superiority without having to fight for it.

SIMILARITIES

Both narcissists and sociopaths invest a lot of energy in creating a false image of themselves for others—and themselves—to see. Thus, the charm and persuasive skills they have are the best in the world. They both are essentially con artists: narcissists con people about who they are and their incredible abilities, whereas sociopaths con people by playing on their weaknesses and desires (through charm and intimidation) to get what they want.  They both have a lot of secrets and their words cannot be trusted. 

They both demand loyalty, while not giving it in return. Narcissists, from cases I have worked with, often pursue 2 or 3 romantic relationships at the same time. They have an excessive need for “narcissistic supply,” which often takes more than one partner. This pattern of behavior can be devastating for their primary partner and, despite numerous promises, may never go away.

Sociopaths, on the other hand, seem to have the most promiscuous personality, even more than most narcissists. They may be more sexually abusive and irresponsible.  According to the DSM-5: “They may have a history of many sexual partners and may never have sustained a monogamous relationship.”6 However, occasionally they do have long-term relationships, but mostly for convenience, such as being supported in a comfortable lifestyle.

DANGERS

Those with narcissistic personality disorder can seriously exploit others and lack empathy.7 This means that they are willing to invest a lot of energy in maintaining their superior image, even if it means repeatedly insulting you and putting you down, even in public. For more on narcissists and sociopaths in romantic relationships, see our book Dating Radar (co-authored with Megan Hunter).

In the workplace, they may become indifferent to your career or even use you as a Target of Blame to deflect from their inadequacies. Sometimes a narcissistic manager or academic adviser will give you a negative evaluation out of spite or try to harm your career because you didn’t kiss up to them enough or caused them a “narcissistic injury” (when they’re exposed for not being superior at all). For more on serious problems with narcissists in the workplace, see our book It’s All Your Fault at Work (co-authored with L. Georgi DiStefano).

In business and politics, narcissists are notorious for gaining allies through flattery, then abandoning them or walking on them to get to a higher position. Yet many of these allies don’t see it coming, because they think they are special to the narcissist, because of how they were charmed at the beginning. But their personality is based on being superior: they are a “winner” and eventually, everyone else will be a “loser.”

Sociopaths, on the other hand, may be much more likely to seek revenge or use violence or destruction of valued property to settle their perceived betrayals in romantic, business or political relationships. They invest a lot of energy and resources in keeping secret their abusive past behavior and may seriously harm those who try to expose them.

BOTH NARCISSIST AND SOCIOPATH

As mentioned above, a percentage of sociopaths (ASPDs) also have narcissistic personality disorder. This is equivalent to about 1% of the U.S. population.8 This combination and percentage fit the criteria for psychopaths, who have their own checklist of characteristics9 including pathological lying, criminal versatility and parasitic lifestyle, in addition to some of the traits of ASPD and NPD.

Likewise, this combination was identified over fifty years ago by Erich Fromm, who defined "malignant narcissism" as including this combination in powerful dictators, from the Egyptian Pharaohs and Roman Ceasars to Hitler and Stalin. He also said there were traits of increasing paranoia and sadism for malignant narcissists, who became increasingly dangerous the longer they stayed in power—thus, the term malignant meant expanding like a cancer.10

CONCLUSION

In today’s news, we often hear about people who are self-centered, lie a lot and have harmed others, including their own friends, family members and other people who thought they cared about them. Often people are very surprised. With personality awareness about narcissists and sociopaths, we should be more able to predict trouble and protect ourselves. We need to develop a healthy skepticism so that we look past the charming false images and recognize the personality patterns which indicate that serious behavior problems have been covered up and/or lie ahead.

About the Author:

Bill Eddy, LCSW, JD, is a lawyer and therapist, and a Senior Family Mediator at the National Conflict Resolution Center in San Diego. He is also the Training Director and co-founder of the High Conflict Institute, also in San Diego, which provides training for managing high-conflict disputes and high-conflict personalities. He has trained professionals in more than 30 states as well as several countries. He is on the part-time faculty at the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California, and a visiting lecturer at Monash University Law Chambers in Melbourne, Australia. Eddy is the author of many books including High Conflict People in Legal Disputes, 2nd Ed; Splitting: Protecting Yourself While Divorcing Someone with Borderline or Narcissistic Personality Disorder (with Randi Kreger); It’s All Your Fault at Work: Managing Narcissists and Other High-Conflict Personalities (with L. Georgi DiStefano); Dating Radar (with Megan Hunter); and 5 Types of People Who Can Ruin Your Life.

© 2018 Bill Eddy. All rights reserved.

References

1. Frederick Stinson, Deborah Dawson, Rise Goldstein, S. Patricia Chou, Boji Huang, Sharon Smith, W. June Ruan, Attila Pulay, Tulshi Saha, Roger Pickering and Bridget Grant, “Prevalence, correlates, disability, and comorbidity of DSM-IV narcissistic personality disorder: Results from the Wave 2 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions,” Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 69, no. 7 (July 2008):1033–45, 1036.

2. Bridget Grant, Deborah Hasin, Frederick Stinson, Deborah Dawson, S. Patricia Chou, W. June Ruan and Roger Pickering, “Prevalence, correlates, and disability of personality disorders in the United States: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions,” Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 65, no. 7 (July 2004): 948–58, 951.

3. Stinson, 1036.

4. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Arlington, VA, American Psychiatric Association, 2013, 659. (DSM-5)

5. DSM-5, 662.

6. DSM-5, 660-661.

7. DSM-5, 670.

8. Stinson, 1038.

9. Paul Babiak and Robert D. Hare. Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go To Work. (New York: HarperCollins ebooks. 2006).

10. Erich Fromm, The Heart of Man: It’s Genius for Good and Evil (Riverdale, NY: American Mental Health Foundation; First published by Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, 1964), loc. 998 of 2243, Kindle.

Politics and Divorce: 7 Parallels in Our “Winner Take All” Decision-making

Six years ago, my colleague Don Saposnek, Ph. D., and I wrote a book titled SPLITTING AMERICA. (1) The premise was that political polarization back then was increasingly like a high-conflict divorce. Looking back, the situation is even worse now, with the federal government shutting down this year with both sides blaming the other; anger (pro and con) over the Mueller investigation of the President’s campaign; and millions of dollars going into heated local special elections from both sides.

Here are some of the current comparisons:

1. Inexperienced Decision-Makers

Most reasonable people make their divorce decisions out of court in negotiations or mediation, but high-conflict divorces tend to end up in front of a judge. Family law judges are expected to have wisdom and a judicious temperament, but most do not start with experience in family law. In addition, two-thirds of judges do not start out with training in being a judge, although they have continuing education after they are on the bench. Likewise, most voters in political elections have no training in economics, criminology, business, management, government, leadership, knowledge of other countries, world history, etc.

2. Emotional He-Said-She-Said Decision-Making

In the absence of knowledge, simple emotional arguments about complex subjects and hard-to-prove private behavior become the focus of attention. The parties and their advocates (family lawyers or political advertisers) allege that the other party is the worst type of human being. In Family Court, high-conflict families line up against each other in what psychological researchers have long-termed “tribal warfare.”(2) In politics, researchers have found that once voters pick a political party, their viewpoints rarely change from those of their “political tribe.”(3) In both settings, the most extreme allegations are about inappropriate sexual behavior, which are sometimes true and sometimes false. But these usually increase the hostilities because the claims remain inconclusive. (However, this may be changing in politics with the full disclosures of the #MeToo movement).

3. There's No Consequence for Lying

I have never seen more lying than in Family Courts and in politics. In most of our daily lives this would not be tolerated, such as in families, in the workplace or in our communities. In Family Courts, the judge may weigh each party’s appearance of credibility in making decisions about parenting and finances, but very rarely makes a specific finding a party has lied and specifically punishes them for that. In politics, the voters may weigh each candidate’s appearance of credibility, but they just make their decisions and there’s no punishment for lying itself (and the side that “appears” most credible may be the side that lied the most).

4. Long, Drawn-Out Buildup to the Big Decisions

In Family Courts, trials often occur months or years after the parties separate, so that the buildup of anger, allegations and tug-of-war over the children just grows and grows. While there may be temporary decisions during this time, they are often made at very short hearings with little useful information. But these are public hearings, which escalate defensiveness and, therefore, increase the anger and allegations. In politics, the buildup to elections seems to be getting longer and longer, with months or years of campaign behavior in public with the 24-hour media, which escalates defensiveness and, therefore, increases the anger and allegations.

5. Big Decisions Make No Difference to Ongoing Polarization

In Family Courts, the big decisions (such as the day the divorce is granted) make no difference to the ongoing polarization in the family, as there can be ongoing court contests over parenting and support for months and years after the divorce. In politics, the actual election results make no difference to the ongoing polarization in the public, as elections can be contested or discredited, as new allegations are brought forth and the court of public opinion remains as divided as ever in the 24-hour news media.

6. Child Alienation and Voter Alienation

In Family Courts, as the case winds its way through the court process, parents become more and more afraid and angry, which spills over to the children who often cope by taking sides and learning to hate one of the parents and totally agree with the other parent. They refuse to see the rejected parent, as well as their grandparents on that side and even their pets at that parent’s house. In adulthood, many alienated children try to minimize contact with both parents after a high-conflict divorce. In politics, as the campaigns grind on, voters start to hate one of the candidates and everyone associated with them. In time, they may hate all politicians and many simply drop out of the electoral process and stop voting.

7. Adversarial Process (Winner Take All) Attracts Adversarial People (HCPs)

The common theme is a drawn-out, highly-adversarial, emotional process that potentially rewards the winner (often the most high-conflict person or “HCP”) with all the spoils. In Family Court, even though the judges and the law try to balance the outcome between the parties, in reality there is always the potential for one to win big or lose big regarding the children, support and property based on how bad each party can make the other look to the judge. Politics has a similar negative slant, with emotional decisions based primarily on expensive negative ads. Both processes increasingly attract those with high-conflict personalities, who have the endurance and skill for endlessly blaming others for months or years. As Don Saposnek and I wrote in 2012: “Thus, we have seen the shift from candidates who are skilled at politics, to candidates who are skilled at self-promotion and getting attention. In other words, bring on the narcissistic HCPs!” (4)

_____________

Bill Eddy, LCSW, JD, is a lawyer and therapist, and a Senior Family Mediator at the National Conflict Resolution Center in San Diego. He is also the Training Director and co-founder of the High Conflict Institute, also in San Diego, which provides training for managing high-conflict disputes and high-conflict personalities. He has trained professionals in more than 30 states as well as several countries. He is on the part-time faculty at the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California, and a visiting lecturer at Monash University Law Chambers in Melbourne, Australia. Eddy is the author of many books including High Conflict People in Legal Disputes, 2nd Ed; Splitting: Protecting Yourself While Divorcing Someone with Borderline or Narcissistic Personality Disorder (with Randi Kreger); It’s All Your Fault at Work: Managing Narcissists and Other High-Conflict Personalities (with L. Georgi DiStefano); Dating Radar (with Megan Hunter); and 5 Types of People Who Can Ruin Your Life.

© 2018 Bill Eddy. All rights reserved.

References:

1, 4. Eddy, B., & Saposnek, D. (2012). Splitting America: How Politicians, Super PACs and the News Media Mirror High Conflict Divorce. Scottsdale, AZ: High Conflict Institute Press.

2. Johnston, J., & Campbell, L. (1988). Impasses of Divorce: The Dynamics and Resolution of Family Conflict. New York, NY: The Free Press, 47.

3. Brooks, D. (2011). The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character and Achievement. New York, NY: Random House, 303.

Using the CARS Method to Deal with High Conflict People

Have you noticed that high-conflict people (HCPs) and high-conflict behavior are rapidly increasing in today’s interconnected world? They can pop up anywhere as upset family members, violent partners, angry co-workers, bullying managers, arrogant business owners and dangerous politicians. HCPs can look and act great when you get to know them, but sooner or later their hostility, mood swings and blaming behavior can be targeted on you—you become their 'Target of Blame'. They may or may not have personality disorders. But they lack insight and rarely change. Unfortunately, the skills that help us deal with ordinary people rely on reason and self-control, two areas where HCPs have a great deal of difficulty. We need to use different skills for managing our relationships with them, or avoiding them.

If you are dealing with an HCP or helping someone else who is, one method for handling the four biggest problem areas of HCPs is called the CARS Method®. It consists of four skill areas: Connecting with empathy, attention and respect; Analyzing your options; Responding to hostility or misinformation; and Setting Limits on high-conflict behavior. Such a method is often the opposite of what you feel like doing, but we have found that it works over and over again in calming HCPs, focusing them on their future choices (rather than arguing about the past), matter-of-factly correcting their frequent misinformation and setting limits because HCPs don’t stop themselves.

1. Connecting with EAR Statements®:  This involves giving HCPs (or any upset person) a statement showing that you have empathy for them (“I can see your frustration and want to help”), I will pay attention to their concerns (“Tell me more so I can understand the problem”) and/or give the person your respect (“I can see how hard you’ve worked to solve this problem” or “that was a good presentation you gave last week”).  These types of statements tend to calm people and help them feel connected to you in a non-threatening way, so that you can focus on problem-solving. Of course, sometimes you just need to get away from them.

2. Analyzing Options: After trying to connect with the person, then it often helps to look at your own choices. For example, if you are dealing with Fred, your HCP/supervisor at work, you might make a list of options for yourself that includes: considering quitting right now, quitting later, looking for another position in the same organization, starting your own business, telling H.R. that you’re being bullied or harassed, telling Fred to slow down so you can really hear what he’s saying, etc. If you’re dealing with an HCP in your family who always leans on you, you can briefly tell him or her: “That situation sounds frustrating. Now, let’s look at your choices.” This keeps you away from getting stuck in his or her complaints about the past, and also helps you avoid becoming responsible for solving his/her problem. You never want to do that. Just “assist” with solving the problem, then change topics or say you have to go.

3. Responding to Hostility or Misinformation: HCPs are especially evident in their hostile emails and social media blasts. They also seriously distort information, even though they usually don’t know they are doing that. Rather than get into arguments with them about their distortions and hostility, it helps to just give them a response that’s Brief, Informative, Friendly and Firm (a BIFF Response®). Just straight accurate information, without defensiveness, emotions, opinions or counter-attacks. There’s a lot to explain about the BIFF Response®), so I’ll save that for another blog, or you can see my website for more on this. It’s a non-hostile way of responding that tends to immediately defuse high conflict correspondence while leaving you feeling good about yourself by not getting down in the mud with the HCP.

4. Setting Limits on High-Conflict Behavior: In many cases, setting limits is the most important and most difficult step in handling high-conflict people. HCPs generally have less self-control, are more impulsive, and are less aware of the impact of their behavior on others. Further, they often don’t care if their behavior bothers or hurts anyone else or even themselves. In brief, it helps to tell them that there is an external reason to your relationship for them to behave in a certain way. For example: “Our organization has a policy that forbids me to fulfill that request.” Or: “State law requires us to turn in this paperwork.” This avoids making it personal. This is really important, because HCPs tend to take a lot personally, then they want to get revenge. It also helps to set limits by saying what you yourself can and can’t do. “If you don’t turn this in by Friday, I’m not going to be able to get you that new project you wanted next week.” You can’t control an HCP, but you can control your responses to an HCP and possibly some consequences for the HCP.  But of course, set limits and impose your consequences with empathy, attention and respect statements.

Conclusion

Dealing with high-conflict people can be hard. But most of them can be managed by some combination of the above techniques. You don’t have to do them in order, or even do all of them. Generally, they will help make your life much easier than getting stuck talking down to them or arguing about their past bad behavior and your past good behavior. Just fuhgedaboudit!

And for more information on HCPs, see my Psychology Today blogs, my website at High Conflict Institute and my new book which applies the CARS Method® to numerous examples. You’re going to need this knowledge, as we seem to be facing more high-conflict situations everywhere. Yet the right skills can give you a sense of confidence and calmness, so you know what to expect and how to respond. 

_____________

Bill Eddy, LCSW, JD, is a lawyer and therapist, and a Senior Family Mediator at the National Conflict Resolution Center in San Diego. He is also the Training Director and co-founder of the High Conflict Institute, also in San Diego, which provides training for managing high-conflict disputes and high-conflict personalities. He has trained professionals in more than 30 states as well as several countries. He is on the part-time faculty at the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California, and a visiting lecturer at Monash University Law Chambers in Melbourne, Australia. Eddy is the author of many books including High Conflict People in Legal Disputes, 2nd Ed; Splitting: Protecting Yourself While Divorcing Someone with Borderline or Narcissistic Personality Disorder (with Randi Kreger); It’s All Your Fault at Work: Managing Narcissists and Other High-Conflict Personalities (with L. Georgi DiStefano); Dating Radar (with Megan Hunter); and 5 Types of People Who Can Ruin Your Life.

© 2018 Bill Eddy.  All rights reserved.

Calming Upset People Fast with EAR Statements®

EAR Statements® show Empathy, Attention, and Respect. This is especially helpful when you are dealing with someone who is really upset – possibly they are angry with you or someone else or they are sad, feeling helpless, or frightened.

EAR Statements touch people where they need to be touched when they are extremely emotional. These are especially effective with people who have high-conflict personalities because they are often terribly afraid or terribly angry. They can help you connect with such a person, so that you can then shift to problem-solving.

What’s An EAR Statement®?

Essentially, an EAR Statement includes words and body language that show empathy, attention and/or respect for the listener. Ideally, these are done in-person or over the phone, but they can be put in writing as well. Here’s an example. Let’s pretend you’re talking to Cathy, who could be a family member, a friend, a co-worker, a client, or a customer:

“I can see how frustrated you are by this situation, Cathy, and I want to help. Let’s talk about it so that I can really understand what’s happening. I have a lot of respect for the efforts you have made to deal with this problem.”

Let’s break this down:

Empathy     

“I can see how frustrated you are by this situation, Cathy, and I want to help.” This shows that you are connecting with the feeling that the person might be having, and also that you want to help. This shows empathy: caring and support, which high-conflict people especially are looking for. With high-conflict people, you need to go beyond reflective listening (repeating back the essence of what you heard) and give them something of yourself, such as your interest in helping them. You want to create a sense of “us” working together on a problem, rather than seeming to dispassionately distance yourself from the other person.   

Attention

“Let’s talk about it, so that I can really understand what’s happening.” By indicating that you are willing to pay attention to them and the problem, most people immediately calm down because they don’t need to persuade you to pay attention. This may be the opposite of what you feel like doing, but the more interested you are, the less amount of time this usually takes. Of course, this is where your body language comes in. You need to look interested, perhaps leaning in, nodding your head slightly while you listen, keeping good eye contact and having relaxed (rather than tense or angry) arms and body. When we do this in our training for High Conflict Institute, the feedback we get is that the listener’s full attention is felt more because of their body language and tone of voice, than by the actual words they say.

Respect

“I have a lot of respect for the efforts you have made to deal with this problem.” For a lot of people, this is what they really want: to be respected as a person and to be taken seriously when they have a problem. Whether you are a customer service representative, a friend or a stranger in a tough situation with an upset person, communicating your respect is often the key to moving forward to solve the problem. This can be really powerful if the person is upset with you, such as with high-conflict people who often attack those closest to them.    

Any of these Three

A good EAR Statement doesn’t even need to communicate all three of these. Just empathy is enough sometimes. Just paying attention often calms people down. Sometimes just giving a statement that shows respect is sufficient. Mostly, try one or more of these three types of statements (Empathy, Attention and/or Respect) and see how it comes across. From our experience, 90 percent of people calm down within 30 seconds of hearing an EAR Statement. Of course, this often takes some practice, but for many people, it works right away.

Some Words of Caution

Of course, this doesn’t work for everyone. Some people just want to stay angry and others are so overwhelmed it takes them several minutes of empathetic statements, concentrated listening and lots of respect to calm down. You can move on to using other methods if this one doesn’t work.

EAR Statements also don’t mean that you believe the person or agree with them. Some high-conflict people won’t let go until you say you believe them or agree with them. Don’t say that unless you really do. Otherwise, you will forever be held accountable for once saying you believed them or agreed with them. And they will tell the world that you are on their side, when this may be totally untrue. So, just say something like this: “I wasn’t there, so I’ll never know what exactly happened. What I do know is that I want to help you, so let’s see what we can do now.”

If you are in a dangerous situation, such as domestic violence or workplace bullying or sexual harassment, it may be best for you to just walk away and not even try an EAR Statement. Just get away! Safety first!

Conclusion

From parenting, to coaching, to leadership, using a simple EAR Statement can usually calm an upset person enough to talk about solving a problem or help an upset person feel better. You can use it when setting limits on misbehavior or a difficult conversation. You may have to use these statements more than once in a difficult conversation, but they can become quick and easy. They make your life easier. We have had success with EAR Statements for over a dozen years in several different countries and cultures. It’s a very human way of connecting.

An EAR Statement can be very brief and doesn’t cost you anything. It can help you connect with almost anyone. It’s even helpful when delivering bad news, such as a parent, a manager or a judge. You can use one in a business meeting, while managing a difficult relative, or when ending a relationship. It can be used to keep situations from escalating in the workplace or in the neighborhood. If more people would regularly use EAR Statements—even in response to hostility—it might just make the world a better place for all of us.  

--------------------------------

Bill Eddy is a lawyer, therapist, mediator and is the Training Director and Co-Founder of High Conflict Institute, which provides training and consultation for dealing with high-conflict people and situations. He is the author of the new book 5 Types of People Who Can Ruin Your Life: Identifying and Dealing with Narcissists, Sociopaths and Other High-Conflict Personalities, and co-author of Dating Radar as well as many others.  In addition, Bill has developed the following methods for managing high-conflict people in any situation: New Ways for Families®, New Ways for Mediation℠, New Ways for Work℠, The WEB Method®, The CARS Method℠ and BIFF Response®. To learn more about our training, coaching, consultation and videos, visit us at www.HighConflictInstitute.com.

Photo by Bryan Minear on Unsplash

IMPROVING CONFLICT MANAGEMENT SKILLS WILL STRENGTHEN SOBRIETY

© 2018 L. Georgi DiStefano, LCSW

In my new book, Paradigm Change: The Collective Wisdom of Recovery, I discuss the importance of improving our conflict management skills in order to strengthen and enhance quality sobriety. Self-regulation is a key step in the recovery process. Individuals who focus on utilizing self-regulation strategies and techniques will create new coping mechanisms for managing their daily lives.

I frequently encourage my clients who are new in recovery, to learn the EAR℠ techniques and to practice EAR Statements℠ in their interactions with others. This approach is a valuable tool for individuals in recovery and an effective method of communication with anyone. My frequent co-author and esteemed colleague, Bill Eddy, conceptualized the EAR Statement and it is currently being taught in a host of settings including corporate workplaces. For those in recovery this technique is particularly valuable.

The E stands for empathy. By demonstrating empathy for the other person, you are seeing a situation from their perspective and appreciating the problems or issues associated with their situation. Active alcohol and drug abuse often promote a self-absorbed set of responses to others. In early recovery, individuals need to learn to truly hear others and respond with empathy when appropriate. In the A.A. program members often make “Amends” as part of their healing process. It is virtually impossible to make amends to someone if you cannot deeply understand the injury you have created. It is the growth of empathy that fosters the ability to make true amends.

The A stands for attention. By demonstrating attention, you are giving the person your full concentration, which will help to increase your thorough comprehension of the issues. People who have engaged in chronic alcohol and drug abuse are often reactive. They frequently respond with anger or heightened emotions without having all the facts or appreciating the nuances of a situation. By focusing on active listening the individual is much more likely to have a better understanding of a situation. Many people in recovery will tell you that it is often a great challenge to manage responses differently. Paying attention by actively listening to others is an important component of recovery.

The R stands for respect. By demonstrating respect for the other person in a communication, you are supporting their self-esteem, acknowledging their value, and facilitating a positive connection with them. People who have engaged in alcohol and drug abuse, often are focused in obtaining what they want with little regard for the feelings of others. Respectful interaction is an essential ingredient to a healthy recovery process. Individuals who participate in the SMART Recovery Program, a self-help organization, are provided many opportunities to engage in respectful interactions.

An important element of EAR is that you do not have to agree with content. Nevertheless, by learning to respond with empathy, attention, and respect, situations frequently de-escalate. Perhaps more importantly, as I point out in my Paradigm Change book, the EAR method provides the recovering person a standard of communication designed to keep emotions managed and responses appropriate. Many of my clients have adopted EAR as a recovery routine, in that it becomes their go-to process in communications with others. Many clients have commented to me that it is also an easy technique to remember when emotions begin to escalate.

In our book, It’s All Your Fault At Work, and in our New Ways For Work Coaching Manual, Bill Eddy and I present a cognitive-behavioral method designed to help individuals reduce their conflict at work or at home and improve their  overall self-regulation. We focus on four skill areas of self-regulation that are exceptionally useful and appropriate for individuals to work on in early recovery.

The first skill area is “Flexible Thinking.” One of the biggest barriers to successful problem solving is all or nothing thinking. Individuals with all or nothing thinking tend to view situations in the extremes. There are few gray areas, only black and white. This type of thinking impairs effective problem solving. Such extremes in thinking frequently lead to heightened and often upset emotions. Individuals in early sobriety are very susceptible to rigid and extreme thinking. A.A. has many expressions designed to help individuals manage their thinking and emotional responses such as “easy does it,” “one day at a time,” or “It’s progress, not perfection.” A number of my clients have adopted the process of asking themselves “what options do I have using my flexible thinking?” Over time, they recognize when they are being reactive and learn to self-correct and challenge their thinking and initial responses.

Another important skill area of self-regulation is “Managed Emotions.” Being unable to manage our negative emotions can distract us from achieving our goals and often will create new and worse problems for us. Learning to manage our emotions can make a big difference in being able to remain clean and sober. As I discuss in my book Paradigm Change: The Collective Wisdom of Recovery, if emotions escalate it often leads to extreme behaviors that frequently are regrettable. In early sobriety, individuals often spend a lot of time trying to fix the damage caused by their extreme emotional outbursts. Utilizing strategies and techniques such as EAR and Flexible Thinking options will go a long way in helping an individual gain mastery over their emotional responses.

A third skill area very essential to successful recovery is learning to “Moderate Behavior.” An individual can manage their emotions more easily once thinking becomes flexible. This helps create behavior that is moderate and not extreme. Moderate behavior can lead to collaboration, compromise, and other positive outcomes. Extreme behavior often results in heightened conflict, name-calling, bullying, regrettable decision-making, and frequently, relapse.

A key factor in facilitating a process of flexible thinking, managed emotions, and moderate behavior is the final skill “Checking Yourself.” This last piece of the New Ways method is designed to encourage individuals to reflect on their emotional responses, and recognize where they have been successful and what needs to be improved. This is a valuable tool for self-regulation. Working with a therapist, counselor, or coach on self-regulation tools, provides a consistent opportunity to reflect on and expose patterns that can be limiting or damaging. It also provides an opportunity to identify and reinforce positive changes in thinking, emotions and behavior.

In conclusion, I would encourage individuals engaged in recovery to focus on the conflict management skills I have outlined. Sobriety is enhanced and strengthened as individuals grow in their capacity to self-regulate and manage conflict.   

L. Georgi DiStefano is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker with extensive experience in the management of substance abuse programs and employee assistance programs, as well as a popular speaker on workplace conflict resolution. She is a therapist, Employee Assistance Professional and workplace trainer in conflict resolution. She is the co-author of It’s All Your Fault at Work! Managing Narcissists and Other High-Conflict People  and New Ways for Work℠: Personal Skills for Productive Relationships – Coaching Manual and Workbook.

Student Vigil for Parkland School Shooting*

Splitting America Redux:
Implications for Keeping our Kids Safe

© 2018  Donald T. Saposnek, Ph.D.

The Problem

After 911, our lives changed, and our innocence was tainted. Individual freedoms which we previously took for granted were hijacked from us; we were scanned and patted-down at airports— eventually our belts and shoes had to come off. We felt afraid and lost our trust that we could be safe in our own country. Because of the absence of any obvious solutions that would quell our fear, we increasingly took hard-line political positions. Gradually, our elected officials began to turn on each other, hardening in polarized positions on many issues. As our citizens tried to manage this rupture of our basic safety, their own views and relationships became increasingly polarized. Some bought guns in an illusionary attempt to make them feel safe; some isolated themselves from others who might be potential threats. Gradually, the guns began shooting, triggered by disenfranchised citizens—both youth and adults. Mass shootings steadily increased—in schools, cinemas, churches, nightclubs, malls, restaurants, military installations, public and private offices, and other random places.

No longer a safe, secure, innocent society, Americans have come to a tipping point of these massacres, leaving us living in communities regularly visited by conflict, violence, and life-threatening risks. The discord is fueled on many levels—the personal, interpersonal, community, and national—all complexly interconnected and reciprocally influencing each other. When a complex system functions well, all the levels and parts benefit; when it is in dysfunction, all the levels and parts harm each other, as the functions of the system continue to spiral up or spiral down.

Solutions to complex social problems require some degree of harmony and cooperation, and these are hard to come by in our current political climate. These solutions must be structural— they must come from the top—generated by our elected officials crafting and implementing reasonable legislation that creates order, consistency, and fairness. When reasonable solutions are achieved, chaos and conflict subside, and people begin to behave more reasonably. This is as true of government systems as it is of family systems.

In 2012, just before the presidential election, my colleague Bill Eddy and I published a book titled, “Splitting America: How Politicians, Super PACs and the News Media Mirror High Conflict Divorce.” In that book, we drew parallels between the polarizations in politics that were rampant prior to and throughout that election cycle, and high conflict divorce. We presciently predicted that, given the degree of polarization in politics and its 24/7 reflection in the media, and given what we knew about high-conflict divorce, the rampant polarization in politics would lead to further public chaos and further discord, and that we would wind up electing government officials who would continue the polarization, and continue to escalate higher conflict within government and within the public—similar to how high-conflict divorces tend to result in long-term, on-going family discord.

The net result from such high conflict in divorce is children with emotional and behavioral problems (acting out), with levels of anxiety and depression (learned helplessness) that warrant professional intervention. The parallel, net result of on-going high-conflict behavior in government is general discord, anxiety, and depression (learned helplessness) among the populous, with (acting out) threats to the public by disenfranchised fringe groups, mass shootings by alienated youth and adults, and overall angst and alienation in the voting public. These children, and citizens, lose confidence in their leaders (parents, and politicians) upon whom they should be able to count to keep them safe and thriving.

Looking for Solutions

With the most recent of a long stream of mass shootings—the Parkland, Florida school-shooting—America’s response went into a quick split: those citizens who saw the problem primarily as a “gun control” issue, versus those who saw the problem primarily as a “mental health” issue. Each issue went into a further split: the gun control issue split into those who believed the solution should be raising the age for gun purchases from 18 to 21, versus those who believed the solution to lie in making assault weapons illegal to buy.  The “mental health” issue split further into those who believed we need to profile, interrogate and then hospitalize or incarcerate potentially violent kids, versus those who believed we need to connect better with those socially-isolated kids and help them feel included, rather than excluded.

As Congress attempted to respond to this most recent tragedy, the usual polarizations among and between the Republicans and the Democrats kicked into high gear; some members of Congress went silent; some members spouted out expected Second Amendment Rights clichés, directly from the playbook of the powerful National Rifle Association, fearing their loss of support were they to go against this group; and some bravely, boldly, and finally, took a stance for gun-control. Some supported raising the purchase age for guns from 18 to 21; some supported strengthening background checks; and some supported increased funding for mental health.

While many members of congress responded, in some fashion, the responses were not coordinated into an overall, effective plan of action. A main contributor to this action-paralysis is the same factor that we wrote about in Splitting America, that members of congress no longer talk with each other—the essential element for coming to compromise resolutions. Whereas, members of congress used to eat lunch together in their lunchroom, they no longer do that. Absent a forum for casual, friendship-building discussions, they tend to hold firm to their positions, with the net effect being that nothing gets decided or implemented. Deep splits within and between the Republican and Democratic Parties, fueled further by daily, erratic, inconsistent, and high-conflict tweets from the President, have kept constructive, comprise resolutions from arising.

If we approach our political situation in the way that mediators approach high-conflict divorces, our first intervention would be to observe the “positions” that the parties are taking. Then, we would look for the actual, underlying “interests” that the parties have. For example, both parents in a divorce typically love their children, want the best for their children, and want to resolve their differences in a way that minimizes their emotional distress and the wasting of their financial resources when fighting and litigating. By exploring these common interests, mediators often are able to move the parties off their “positions” (“I want 50/50 custody!”) to their actual interests (“I want to maintain my relationship with my children and be significantly involved in their lives”). Through constructive, structured conversations, their disputes turn into agreements and positive actions that enhance their children’s lives, rather than tear them apart.

How might such an approach be used in our government for dealing with the many, significant problems that we face?  Considering a very current and pressing example, how are we to keep our kids safe from more school shootings, in this climate of high-conflict, polarization, and inaction?

If we reframe the politically rhetorical “positions” into their underlying interests, the following are likely to be accepted values by both sides:

We are all Americans;We all love our children; we all want to keep ourselves and our children safe;We all want to get along with one another, take care of business, and get things done.Need for Compromise

Essential to any effective conflict resolution is the need for compromise. When parties are polarized, for each party to achieve something important, each must be willing to give up something, even if only temporarily.

To protect our kids from further gun violence and mass shootings, both political sides must give up something; we all are in deep need of “Corrective Action” in which the norms must be temporarily yielded in order to accomplish something bigger and more important. This requires us to re-adjust the balance between competing value positions in order to achieve common interests. Specifically, there is a dynamic balance between:

Gun control vs. second amendment rightsPublic safety needs vs. privacy needsGovernment intervention vs. individual rightsAdjusting Our Priorities to Keep Kids Safe

If we truly value our children, then each of us also needs to adjust our priorities, make compromises, and move away from political or personal “positions” to our shared “interests.” Minimally, we must do this by enacting all of the following “corrective actions:”

We need to be able to reduce the number of assault weapons available to the public while still respecting individuals’ rights to “bear arms;”We need to be able to respond quickly and effectively to individuals who manifest violent messages, conveyed in writing (home diaries/social media), orally (bragging, threatening), and in actions (brandishing weapons, assaulting people and animals), while protecting the individual rights of non-threatening people;We need to require extensive and enhanced background checks, and long cooling-off periods, prior to selling any guns to individuals (who must be over 21 years of age), while allowing non-threatening gun-enthusiasts to enjoy their sport;We need to highly prioritize the allocation of necessary funding for schools (from local, state, and federal resources) to use for preventative and defensive security equipment, training, and protocols for active school-shooting situations, while adjusting all budgets for other needed services, accordingly.

While these “corrective actions” may turn out to be just temporary, it would be ideal if such actions would shift the values in our country from just giving lip-service about “caring for our children” and wanting to protect and nourish them, to actually demonstrating real caring, through pro-active, constructive actions on the personal level, and bi-lateral actions on the political level. It has been said that “love” is not a feeling, but an action; when you truly love someone, you “act lovingly towards them” and make sacrifices for them.  How would it look if our nation really cherished its children, and showed it by actually taking action on their behalf?  We simply would not allow them to periodically be shot to death in our schools; we would take any and all reasonable actions to protect them. There would be consistency across our stated values, our allotment of resources for them, and the compromises and sacrifices we would endure to make such protective actions result in real change!

It is imperative that we move from the ordinary expressions of our values and business-as-usual, to the extraordinary state of coming together to keep our children safe. We can no longer allow high-conflict politics and its resulting paralytic inaction to prevail. The students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School are leading the way, and quite possibly, they will change the paradigm of values and methods for how we keep kids safe. Please support them and their mission. It will benefit us all, and keep our kids safe.

T he views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the High Conflict Institute or anyone listed on www.highconflictinstitute.com.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

DONALD T. SAPOSNEK, Ph.D. is a clinical-child psychologist, child custody mediator, and family therapist in private practice for over 40 years. He is the author of the classic 1983 book, Mediating Child Custody Disputes: A Systematic Guide for Family Therapists, Court Counselors, Attorneys, and Judges and the revised 1998 book, Mediating Child Custody Disputes: A Strategic Approach and co-author of the 2012 book, Splitting America: How Politicians, Super PACs and the News Media Mirror High Conflict Divorce. As director of Family Mediation Service of Santa Cruz, he managed the family court services for 17 years and has … CONTINUE READING

 

*Photo Credit: Fabrice Florin [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/...)], via Wikimedia Commons