Don't fence me in

It is a huge mistake ever to let somebody else define you. People try this on the Internet all the time. Someone on a message board will express an opinion, and another person, usually very hostile, will say, "You only say that because you're _______." The blank can be filled in by anything: an irrationalist, a conservative, a communist, a pagan, a fundamentalist, an ignoramus, a Luddite, a technocrat, a materialist, a loser, a failure.

This is, of course, an ad hominem attack, and as such it is a fallacy. But it's more than that. It's an attempt to impose a definition on you -- to fit you into the box of the critic's preconceptions and thereby render you neutralized, a nonperson. Anyone who engages in this tactic is on a power trip and is behaving like a bully.

Sadly, nearly all of us slip into this mode from time to time, but some people practice this style of intimidation consistently. They're what the self-help writer Jay Carter calls Invalidators -- people who seek to invalidate you as a person by denying your right to be who you are. In effect, the Invalidator says, "You don't really believe what you're saying" (you're lying) or "You can't possibly think that way" (you're delusional) or "You have no basis for feeling that way" (you're breaking the rules).

Look at antagonistic exchanges on the Web, and you will see many such messages being delivered, sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly. And the targets of these guided missiles of invective rarely know how to respond. That's a key point Jay Carter makes about Invalidators -- they are experts at throwing you off balance. It is very disconcerting to be told that you don't matter -- that an opinion you've just expressed "can't be taken seriously," or that "nobody could believe" what you said you believe. People who express these criticisms are saying that you can't be taken seriously and that you are a nobody. It's difficult for the average person to recover instantly from such an aggressive assault.

What's even worse is when Invalidators start telling you what you're "really" thinking or feeling. "You just believe that because ______."

Fill in the blank with any negative psychological diagnosis. Worst of all is when the Invalidator claims that you believe the exact opposite of what you're professing. This tactic is not uncommon and is doubly invalidating, since it not only identifies an ulterior motive for your statements, but discovers "evidence" of hypocrisy and deceit, as well.

There are a couple of ways to deal with Invalidators. One way is to avoid them. This is easy enough on the Net. If a particular message board is filled with nasty, sarcastic voices, why participate in it? Why be a masochist? Or if one or two people on the board are baiting you, why not ignore them? This will have the salutary effect of driving them crazy; Invalidators simply cannot stand to be ignored, since they are typically narcissists who require constant attention.

This is why I advise people to avoid debates with hard-line ultraskeptics. I have found that such people are typically Invalidators. There are, of course, exceptions, but in general the rule holds true. Even the well-known academic skeptic Ray Hyman has been quoted as  saying, "As a whole, parapsychologists are nice, honest people, while the critics are cynical, nasty people." There is no point in dealing with such people if you can avoid it.

The other approach to the Invalidator is to be as nondefensive as possible. The biggest mistake you can make -- and the most natural one -- is to try defending your position, your character, or your good name. This never works and merely gives the Invalidators more grist for their mill. When you defend yourself, you are presenting the Invalidators with additional vulnerabilities for them to prey on. Whatever you are proud of will be used against you.

Some years ago I saw a good example of this on an authors' online discussion group. It went something like this:

Author: I've always placed a high priority on plot mechanics.

Critic: So what you're really saying is, you're a hack.

Author: That's not what I'm saying at all.

Critic: No real writer would be so focused on mechanics.

Author: I am a real writer. I've published 12 books.

Critic: With what publisher?

Author: Ballantine.

Critic: Oh, Ballantine. That explains it.

Etc. I remember reading this exchange (and no, the author wasn't me; even back then I knew enough not to get into this kind of argument) and thinking that the poor author was only opening herself up to more assaults. First she has to defend herself against the claim that she was saying something different from what she said. Then she has to defend her status as a "real writer." Next she has to respond to an attack on her publisher -- presumably by defending Ballantine or by listing other companies she's worked for. No matter what strategy she follows, she cannot win this argument. If she says something like, "I've also been published by Knopf," a more prestigious publishing company, the critic will simply respond, "They must've been slumming that day." The Invalidator is not interested in a reasonable discussion; he wants to undercut his victim's sense of personal identity, and the more defensive his victim becomes, the easier it is to carve the ground out from under her feet.

So how to respond nondefensively? You have to take your ego out of the picture. This is easier said than done, because the instinctive reaction is to defend the ego. But if you can be aware of this instinct and rise above it, you can respond much more effectively. For instance, in response to the critic's line, "So what you're really saying is, you're a hack," you could try self-deprecating humor:

"Yes, but I'm a happy hack."

Or honest self appraisal:

"I think every commercial writer sometimes wonders if he or she is just a hack. I've come to the conclusion that I'm in the worst position to judge my own work, so I no longer worry about it."

Or a simple statement of principles:

"I've tried to improve in every aspect of my craft, because craftsmanship is the foundation of artistic creativity -- and plot mechanics are part of the craft."

But I think the best responsible (if you must respond) is a straightforward statement of your own feelings:

"I'm happy with the work I've done and the progress I've made. Regardless of how it stacks up against other people's work, it pleases me."

The great advantage of this last approach is that any statement about your own feelings is -- or should be -- unassailable. After all, no one but you knows how you feel. Of course, the determined Invalidator may stoop to lecturing you on how you "really" feel, but this technique is so transparent that it can be easily ignore it or laughed off. "I guess you know me better than I know myself!" would be one obvious riposte, maybe with a little :-) to complete the thought.

The other good thing about this or any other nondefensive approach is that it immediately establishes you as the more secure person. Believe me, people can tell. The more strident the Invalidator gets, the more he blusters and rails, the more sarcastic his invective -- the worse he looks to nearly everyone (except his fellow Invalidators, perhaps). The more you repulse his attacks with effortless humility and poise, the better you look. You will come across as centered, self-aware, and self-possessed, while the critic will seem like a blustering blowhard -- what I call a SLAP (Silly Little Angry Person). SLAPs are everywhere on the Web, and almost anyone can recognize them.

So don't let the critics define you. Don't let the Invalidators undercut you. Either ignore them (a wise policy when at all possible) or answer them without ego, without defensiveness, without posturing and justifying. Remember, there's only one person who knows what you're "really" saying or how you "really" feel or who you "really" are -- and that person is you.

Comments

[The Major]

I followed that link to your old blog and saw the comment left on that poor father's website. How can someone say something so mean with so much glee? I just don't understand it.

I understand people who take a cautious view to anything. It's those who take such delight in 'informing' others that they're going to cease to exist at some point that strikes me as odd.

I agree with what you said about replying to people who converse in such a way. As long as you remain clear headed and never stoop to their level, well, you might not 'win' but at least you won't 'lose'.

[Tony M]

Michael, you don't really mean that.

Kidding! My favorite tactic is to just agree with them. They get completely disarmed and you can then actually sneak in a point into the conversation.

But the best advice is what I tell my kids when they are upset by something some one said. Typically it goes like this:

Daughter: She called me an idiot!

Me: Are you an idiot?

Daughter: No!

Me: Can her calling you an idiot make you an idiot?

Daughter: No.

Me: So if you're not an idiot, and she can't make you an idiot, do you think her calling you one tells you something about yourself, or something about her.

Daughter: {pause} About her.

There is no need to respond to invalidators. Except as sport.

[No one of consequence]

I've been guilty of being a small time invalidator but I never really meant to make someone feel bad. I was just trying to make myself feel better. Thats probably true for a lot of ultra-skeptics. They just want their world-view re-affirmed. Thats why you shouldn't identify yourself with your views.

[Nate]

Great post, thanks Michael!

[Alex]

Is this a takeoff on the Sam Harris speech about the label "atheism" or something?

[Steve]

Your blog has helped me very much, thanks for saving me from some very bad things!

[Barbara]

Nasty behavior like this seems more rampant on the Web, where people aren't face to face. A lot of it does seem to involve using labels and categorizations, combined with judgments about them. It's the reason I don't like labels, when debating anything, although when used passively they can be convenient ways to define us and help us find those who share our interests. The trouble there is when we have different definitions.

But those kinds of attacks really don't warrant a response. After all, if that's someone's only argument, then they have no argument.

[Leo MacDonald]

Michael excellent post. I was wondering what are your thoughts on brain split patients some scientists says it creates two separate minds like splitting the soul in two in order to debunk substance dualism. I heard though that this maybe what is not happening that perhaps the right brain and left brain still has to be in unison.

[william]

Invalidators: what a wonderful new word I have learned. This one hit the nail on the head. The atheists and the ultra skeptics have this one down pat.

As far as being on blogs where no one agrees with you I find I get a chance to express myself to a hostile audience and they often call my attention to a contradiction I have stated. More often than not they invalidate me as one stated recently that I have a puny brain. It appears to me at least that Atheists as a whole feel intellectually superior to the general population.

If we only blog with those that agree with us and never challenge our cherished beliefs do we stifle ourselves. I have noticed that like attracts like here on earth. We love being around people that think like us and agree with us. This may validate our beliefs and us, maybe we are just a walking bundle of beliefs, and those beliefs give us a persona.

[Leo]

Titus Rivas a couple of years ago made a remark on Split brain experiments http://www.geocities.com/athanasiafoundation/Dualismlives.htm

[MarkL]

I have known some people who's only pleasure is the pain of others. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadenfreude . I sometimes wonder if they get some kind of psychic "nourishment" from the anger and pain they cause.

[Chris]

This is one reason I absolutely loath debating people on forums. Over ninety percent of it consists of ad hominems and generalized attacks, as well as assumptions by naive individuals who clearly haven't spent the time to research one's position.

[Michael Prescott]

>Is this a takeoff on the Sam Harris speech about the label "atheism" or something?

I haven't read anything by Sam Harris, although I do know that he is somewhat open to psi and has drawn some heat for it.

[Alex]

"I haven't read anything by Sam Harris, although I do know that he is somewhat open to psi and has drawn some heat for it."

Basically, he wrote the same thing:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html

[Ryan]

This is a great post Michael. Along similar lines, something has been bothering me for a while. Where is the line between being a deeply self-secure person who tries to rise above pettiness, spoiltness and triviality – and being an egotistical solipsistic Invalidator? Where is the line between being a SLAP and an outraged bastion values, in a crazy world?

I have tried all my life not to get caught up in the BS, and plough my own path. But I can be very dismissive of others views, and only accept criticism from people I respect and feel are on my wavelength. If someone tries to force their opinions on me, I do tend to Invalidate their whole existence, in my own head if not to their face. It is such a difficult thing to get right.

[Ryan]

PS - I know this is really pedantic but can somebody put me right on my grammar; |others views| should be |others' views|, right? (Wikipedia says so). I know that certain possessive pronouns don't require an apostrophe.

[Piers]

Ryan, "others' views" is correct.

[Ryan]

Thanks Piers. I do feel silly about that. ;)

[floridasuzie]

MP,
>They're what the self-help writer Jay Carter calls Invalidators<
Hat Tip: Me
(tooting my own horn because I've never been given a hat tip and always wanted one heh)
Suzie

[Michael Prescott]

Suzie,

That's true. I should have given you a HT, since you recommended Jay Carter's book to me!