44 years ago I came across the "broken record" assertiveness technique/tactic.
From memory, the book was called:
"I'm Ok...
Your OK..."
-
Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
- Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral
How to tell someone off when they comment your behaviour?
- Thread starter vergil96
- Start date
From memory, the book was called:
"I'm Ok...
Your OK..."
This might be fun:
Say something in an imaginary foreign language, then just look at them quizicaly while they try to figure out how to respond.
Or, say "In my culture it is considered rude to look at someone's face when talking." Make sure you stare into their face intently while you speak so they wonder if you are insulting them.
Say something in an imaginary foreign language, then just look at them quizicaly while they try to figure out how to respond.
Or, say "In my culture it is considered rude to look at someone's face when talking." Make sure you stare into their face intently while you speak so they wonder if you are insulting them.
Au Naturel
Au Naturel
Look at me very closely. Do I look like I care what you think? Bug off.
vergil96
Well-Known Member
That's what I often do. No idea what to reply. It doesn't seem to always work, but it sometimes irritates someone who was mean a lot, because they do it for attention and nothing irritates them like being ignored.
If the question is not one that you want to answer, you can ignore it or lie. For example some people ask intrusive questions about health and it's none of their business and they have no advice to offer but they do offer simplistic advice such as "just exercise more" etc. Better to lie than argue with an idiot who just wants to take up your time, becausr they are overconfident in their skills and knowledge.
I learned it in therapy to deal with unsolicited advice from family.
What I learned was not to use any excuses in any way as it encourages a debate and use words that contain no emotional content. If you're polite and calm it's difficult for them to engage in an adversarial way.
I learned if you come across as resistant it only encourages them to be more forceful in trying to change your mind.
"I'll think about it. Thanks for your concern" is hard to argue with, isn't it
You're right about "too much honesty" being risky. There are people who make a living from taking advantage of that (including most sales staff).
I wrote something about how this works, but I've realized nobody reads that stuff (which is the same problem, but in reverse /lol).
Take a look at this:
Semantics - Wikipedia
NB: Semantics is a very big topic. Start small (or clear your calendar for a week
@vergil96
A general word of warning about "checking" others: don't, under any circumstances, go for "drama" until you've become quite skilled (by practicing, not reading).
There are techniques for this. It's worth figuring them out, or learning them (I don't know if they're on the web).
If you want to see the exact opposite (unproductive escalation), watch a few "Karen" videos.
Note that some are useless: e.g. "two Karens"; no Karens (just 2x poor negotiation skills); sometimes they get the roles mixed up (say the victim is the Karen and vice-versa); disproportionate use of force (popular, but often illegal); etc.
The ones with calm, professional police on one side are the best bet. There's also a fair chance of seeing good technique in those, but the OFC police have something you don't have: they can arrest people
A general word of warning about "checking" others: don't, under any circumstances, go for "drama" until you've become quite skilled (by practicing, not reading).
There are techniques for this. It's worth figuring them out, or learning them (I don't know if they're on the web).
If you want to see the exact opposite (unproductive escalation), watch a few "Karen" videos.
Note that some are useless: e.g. "two Karens"; no Karens (just 2x poor negotiation skills); sometimes they get the roles mixed up (say the victim is the Karen and vice-versa); disproportionate use of force (popular, but often illegal); etc.
The ones with calm, professional police on one side are the best bet. There's also a fair chance of seeing good technique in those, but the OFC police have something you don't have: they can arrest people
vergil96
Well-Known Member
Not my piece of cake at all, so be assured I won't do that.
Seladon
Active Member
Thank you for this signposting! A text that is really timely in my own journey. It's true what they say about synchronicity.
Yes, hard agree, this has absolutely been the experience for me and for many others I've known whom I either know or suspect are ASD. It's probably down to the wear and tear from years of social belittling, exclusion, etc. Tbh it's also worse for females, because we're aggressively socialised from birth to be agreeable, compromising, 'nice', to let others speak or take what they need first, etc. (not that this takes with everyone woman, mind!).
Seladon
Active Member
OP, it depends on the profile of the person who's doing this as to how it's best or most advantageous for you to respond.
However, a step-by-step to deal with people who don't respect a boundary is:
1. Have the polite "please stop" conversation with them ONCE.
2. Go through the chain of command (provided there is one) ONCE.
3. If they continue, and if it is safe for you to act (i.e. the person is not aggressive, unwell/psychotic, able to hurt you or your life), load the clip & let it rain--figuratively not literally! Tell them what's up.
4. Apply scorched earth policy i.e. avoid them and pretend they don't exist or you don't hear them.
5. Skip #1-2 if they persist or if those steps don't apply.
Good luck, this person you're dealing with sounds really rude and intrusive as well as unsettling.
However, a step-by-step to deal with people who don't respect a boundary is:
1. Have the polite "please stop" conversation with them ONCE.
2. Go through the chain of command (provided there is one) ONCE.
3. If they continue, and if it is safe for you to act (i.e. the person is not aggressive, unwell/psychotic, able to hurt you or your life), load the clip & let it rain--figuratively not literally! Tell them what's up.
4. Apply scorched earth policy i.e. avoid them and pretend they don't exist or you don't hear them.
5. Skip #1-2 if they persist or if those steps don't apply.
Good luck, this person you're dealing with sounds really rude and intrusive as well as unsettling.
@vergil96
Here's a complement to some of the other posts: a principle to apply in framing and wording a "check".
Note that there are many possible reasons for checking someone, from their making a mistake, to an aggressive attempt to assert control. The correct responses will vary a lot. This is something you never do in an "oppositional" situation. It's always used when talking about Narcs "DARVOing", but it has wider application:
The rule is "Don't JADE"
J: Justify
A: Argue
D: Deny
E: Explain
Clearly good for Narcs, but the same principles apply when you're just checking someone.
You don't have to help them understand why you don't like what they did. It's ok to tell a normal (non-Narc) person if they ask, but it's not a responsibility, so don't lead with it.
So the core of your phrasing is "I don't want you to do X again".
It's not "I'm sorry but ....", nor "What you did makes me feel bad, so .....", nor "You may not have done X deliberately but, ....", etc.
BTW - a lot of the earlier responses used very different phrasing to convey a similar message. That's fine - I just went for the simplest unambiguous form I could think of to make the "No JADE" point.
Note that if there's any ambiguity, you may be required to ask a "control question" ("Did you mean X?").
Some people use that plus special phrasing and tone of voice as a check, but you should use two separate stages.
Where you're confident the person has made a mistake, IMO it doesn't really count as a check. Those cases are exceptions, and a softer "JADE" opening like the ones above is ok.
Note that the full version isn't "Don't do that again", though "Please don't ..." is fine.
That's to avoid irrelevant pushback, which is much more likely if you phrase something as an order.
BTW that's actually a more general rule: Only give an order if you have the power to ensure it's followed.
"Please XXX" avoids that without clouding the meaning, so it's fine. Ditto "I don't want you to XXX" as above.
Here's a complement to some of the other posts: a principle to apply in framing and wording a "check".
Note that there are many possible reasons for checking someone, from their making a mistake, to an aggressive attempt to assert control. The correct responses will vary a lot. This is something you never do in an "oppositional" situation. It's always used when talking about Narcs "DARVOing", but it has wider application:
The rule is "Don't JADE"
J: Justify
A: Argue
D: Deny
E: Explain
Clearly good for Narcs, but the same principles apply when you're just checking someone.
You don't have to help them understand why you don't like what they did. It's ok to tell a normal (non-Narc) person if they ask, but it's not a responsibility, so don't lead with it.
So the core of your phrasing is "I don't want you to do X again".
It's not "I'm sorry but ....", nor "What you did makes me feel bad, so .....", nor "You may not have done X deliberately but, ....", etc.
BTW - a lot of the earlier responses used very different phrasing to convey a similar message. That's fine - I just went for the simplest unambiguous form I could think of to make the "No JADE" point.
Note that if there's any ambiguity, you may be required to ask a "control question" ("Did you mean X?").
Some people use that plus special phrasing and tone of voice as a check, but you should use two separate stages.
Where you're confident the person has made a mistake, IMO it doesn't really count as a check. Those cases are exceptions, and a softer "JADE" opening like the ones above is ok.
Note that the full version isn't "Don't do that again", though "Please don't ..." is fine.
That's to avoid irrelevant pushback, which is much more likely if you phrase something as an order.
BTW that's actually a more general rule: Only give an order if you have the power to ensure it's followed.
"Please XXX" avoids that without clouding the meaning, so it's fine. Ditto "I don't want you to XXX" as above.
Last edited:
Me telling off someone in my mind: "Why do you care what I do? Don't you have anything better to comment on or worry about? I'll do what I want!"
Me telling off someone in reality: *be self-conscious, whimper something deflecting, scurries off at first opportunity, vows to never have any social interaction again*
Me telling off someone in reality: *be self-conscious, whimper something deflecting, scurries off at first opportunity, vows to never have any social interaction again*
I had never seen that put in to words before, but that's a lesson I had to learn at a very young age. Never try to make excuses or apologise to a bully, that's the behaviour of a Victim. Do it even once and you'll find yourself doing it forever.
I disagree with comments above about not making waves, not rocking the boat. Honesty really is the best policy in these situations. Most of us don't like to be seen as impolite and we don't like offending others, but save that for people you like and respect.
Belittling others is the power tool of the control freak. Getting others to back down, especially if it's done in front of their friends, gives them a dopamine hit. As long as they get enjoyment out of it they'll keep doing it, and just like any drug addict they'll keep going for bigger and bigger doses.
You'll find a lot of these people working in middle management, they got there by being a bully. They never get any further than middle management because they're actually completely bloody useless at controlling people, they turn a few weak willed souls in to their little lackeys but alienate anyone who's confident in their own abilities.
In one place I was working they had hired a 16 year old kid and I took him under my wing. He was a good kid, easy to get along with, he worked hard, he never made the same mistake twice. Then out of the blue the supervisor came over and started abusing him about having a bad attitude. This is the standard bully power play, get someone stammering and apologising and then they're so much easier to control.
I intervened with the short sharp words that us Aussies are well known for and essentially told the supervisor to go bugger himself. As the supervisor walked away the kid asked me what he'd done wrong. I deliberately let my voice boom, I wanted everyone on the floor and management upstairs to hear me, and they did.
"You did nothing wrong. The reason he picks on other people is because that's the only way he can feel good about himself. If he doesn't get to push someone around during the day then when he gets home he can't get a hard on and his wife is going to leave him."
After that that supervisor no longer had any power over anyone. Everyone saw him for the bad joke that he was and he earned the nickname Limpy.
Shades of Jordan Peterson and his Alpha Lobster analogy.
Oi! That's MY nickname! 
John, so you're saying we should organise our society along the lines of the lobsters?
It works for crustacea.John, so you're saying we should organise our society along the lines of the lobsters?
I'm crusty enough!It works for crustacea.
I don't think you are old enough to be a "crusty", according to Seladon.
New Threads
-
-
-
The problem I have with DSM-5-TR's diagnostic criteria for ASD
- Started by Oz67
- Replies: 16
-
-
-
-
-
Anybody view the PBS network, 'Understanding Autism?'- Started by MROSS
- Replies: 1
-
