Can Words Really Hurt?

[Meg]

I’ve heard the expression “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me” many times. Turns out it ain’t true! They don’t just hurt our feelings, there is evidence that they cause physical pain and even damage the brain.

Here are some articles about how words can affect us and other people in our every day lives.

Sticks and Stones--Hurtful Words Damage the Brain
by R. Douglas Fields, Ph.D

Verbal abuse in childhood inflicts lasting physical effects on brain structure

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me... We all know how untrue that childhood incantation is. Words do hurt. Ridicule, disdain, humiliation, taunting, all cause injury, and when it is delivered in childhood from a child's peers, verbal abuse causes more than emotional trauma. It inflicts lasting physical effects on brain structure.

The remarkable thing about the human brain is that it develops after birth. Unlike most animals whose brains are cast at birth, the human brain is so underdeveloped at birth that we cannot even walk for months. Self awareness does not develop for years. Personality, cognitive abilities, and skills, take decades to develop, and these attributes develop differently in every person. This is because development and wiring of the human brain are guided by our experiences during childhood and adolescence. From a biological perspective, this increases the odds that an individual will compete and reproduce successfully in the environment the individual is born into, rather than the environment experienced by our cave-man ancestors and recorded in our genes through natural selection. Developing the human brain out of the womb cheats evolution, and this is the reason for the success of our species.

When that environment is hostile or socially unhealthy, development of the brain is affected, and often it is impaired. Early childhood sexual abuse, physical abuse, or even witnessing domestic violence, have been shown to cause abnormal physical changes in the brain of children, with lasting effects that predisposes the child to developing psychological disorders. This type of brain scarring is well established now by human brain imaging studies, but prior to the recent study by Martin Teicher and colleagues at Harvard Medical School, taunting and other verbal abuse experienced by middle school children from their peers was not thought to leave a structural imprint on the developing brain. But it does, according to their new study published on-line in advance of print in the American Journal of Psychiatry.

Young adults, ages 18-25, with no history of exposure to domestic violence, sexual abuse, or parental physical abuse, were asked to rate their childhood exposure to parental and peer verbal abuse when they were children, and then they were given a brain scan.

The results revealed that those individuals who reported experiencing verbal abuse from their peers during middle school years had underdeveloped connections between the left and right sides of their brain through the massive bundle of connecting fibers called the corpus callosum. Psychological tests given to all subjects in the study showed that this same group of individuals had higher levels of anxiety, depression, anger, hostility, dissociation, and drug abuse than others in the study.

Verbal abuse from peers during the middle school years had the greatest impact, presumably because this is a sensitive period when these brain connections are developing and becoming insulated with myelin. (Myelin is formed by non-neuronal cells, brain cells that are also known as "the other brain", or glia.)

The environment that children are raised in molds not only their mind, but also their brain. This is something many long suspected, but now we have scientific instruments that show us how dramatically childhood experience alters the physical structure of the brain, and how sensitive we are as children to these environmental effects. Words--verbal harassment--from peers (and, as a previous study from these researchers showed, verbal abuse from a child's parents) can cause far more than emotional harm.

Early childhood experience can either nourish or stifle brain development, and the consequences are physical, personal, and societal. Childhood taunting and verbal bullying have always been a problem, but many feel that civility, courtesy, polite social interactions, have declined markedly from the environment that today's adults experienced as children. Many schools are more hostile places than schools once were, and new technologies, such as the internet, offer more opportunities for taunting and humiliation of children. If this is true, modern conditions or attitudes that tolerate verbal abuse of children by their peers are an incubator for developing brains with abnormalities in the corpus callosum and an elevated risk of psychiatric problems. The critical concern for ridding our environment of neurotoxins must also include "neurotoxins" children are exposed to in their social environment.

_http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201010/sticks-and-stones-hurtful-words-damage-the-brain

How Words Hurt
By Bridget Webber

Words have the ability to tap into deep emotions, lifting someone to the highest of heights, or making them plummet to the depths of sadness. How we choose our words often has more to do with attempting to convey our own needs, rather than with thoughts of how they will affect the recipient whose ears they fall upon.

At the same time, we do understand the power of words. Why else would we bother with creative writing or use talking therapies to help people get through troubled times?

However, it is in our everyday speech that we are likely to profoundly affect others without meaning to. When we craft a piece of writing we have the power of intention behind our words. We usually have an understanding about the feelings our words will illicit in others.

In our day to day interactions with others we act spontaneously for much of the time, relying on instinct peppered with our views and opinions, to provide us with a base from which to choose our words. Much of the time though, our words tend to flow, rather than seeming as if they have actual thought behind them.

Most of us have been on the receiving end of words that have hurt us. Some of the time it will have been our own interpretation of the words that has provided us with much of the pain, although the person speaking the words will have had a universal understanding of their meaning, and so should have been aware how they could make us feel.

We will have also, probably inadvertently, hurt others with words spoken in haste, or without good judgement on our part. Unless the results of our selfish spilling of words provided us with obvious results that were observable, we may have been left non the wiser.

If you are aware of the power of words and have occasionally been sorry about unwise choices with your own every now and then, chances are that you are sensitive enough not to hurt others in this way too often, and certainly not intentionally. However, if you feel that this has never happened to you, it is likely that you have your head in the clouds, and that you are unaware of how what you say can make others feel.

Perhaps the people who are affected by words that sting more dramatically than others are children. Without a sound knowledge base from which to judge whether adults are being unreasonable or are correct in their actions and speech, children have to believe what they are told by their caregivers.

What is said to you as a child can have a lasting affect on how you feel as an adult. A father who tells his daughter that she isn’t pretty, or a mother who tells her son that he is stupid, has let their children down by encumbering them with the burden of low self esteem. The words, which may have been spoken and then not given a second thought by parents, could sit in the minds of their children and surface whenever they are feeling a lapse in confidence, serving to drag their emotions down further.

We can’t prevent others from using words that hurt us, but we can make them aware of how their words have made us feel. Using our own words carefully, we can tell careless word users exactly how their choice of words has affected us, and ask them if this result was what they had hoped for.

In most cases this will stem the poison wordsmiths tirade as they contemplate their actions. In some cases it make even make them think twice before letting unkind words tumble in the future.

When it comes to ourselves, we can attempt to keep our own words in check. Thinking before we speak can give us time to craft what it is that we want to say, and to choose the right words to convey our message, remembering that words can be used for empowerment and other positive purposes. Kind, strong and courageous words of beauty have the power to heal, inspire and encourage. If we could all concentrate more on these types of words, the world of communication would be a happier place.

_http://www.sciences360.com/index.php/how-words-hurt-6-15385/

Hostile Venting - Mean Phrases that Scar Intimate Relationships
By Randi Gunther, Ph.D.

How Negative Words can Destroy Love

New lovers carefully watch their word choices even when they argue. They don't want to say anything that could deeply wound or distance their partners, and watch each other closely for signs of distress. They treasure their closeness and cannot bear being at odds for long.

Unfortunately, as relationships mature, partners too often forget how angry or hurtful words can damage their intimacy. The longer partners have been together, the more likely their negative phrases will resemble what they heard others utter when they were growing up. When their tempers flare and their frustrations build, they more often use destructive phrases from memories of long-forgotten events.

Most couples exhaust every attempt to get what they need from each other before they resort to hostile exchanges. They began as devoted friends and lovers, going out of their ways to be considerate, but lose that capacity to put each other first. From living in each other's hearts, they become verbal enemies, struggling to survive emotionally at the expense of the other.

As their exchanges become more heated, they begin to lose touch with the effect of their words. They rationalize their righteous venting with little remorse or need to apologize. Over time, they may escalate more quickly to hostile levels of attack. Winning becomes more important than maintaining trust or intimate connection, with each verbal blow leaving an invisible permanent scar.

How Scars Last

All intimate partners have two crucial relationship dimensions:

How much they scar their relationship.

How much the partners are able to grow beyond their current limitations.

Those partners who fight frequently but continue to learn from their mistakes can heal by leaving painful emotional scars behind them. Though their battles hurt at the time, they become more determined to treat each other better each time.

Those partners who frequently fight in hostile and uncaring ways but do not learn and evolve will eventually destroy their love, whether they stay together or end their relationship. The scars they create become more destructive as their love for each other diminishes.

Physical scar tissue loses its elasticity and its flexibility. Emotional scar tissue is painfully similar. Both lessen opportunities for new options. Those partners who continue to create scars without growing beyond them will eventually be unable to maintain their commitment to the relationship.

As partners slide from love to indifference, their caring comments also lessen. The percentage of phrases used to heal the relationship give way to those that are likely to destroy it. Even if they end the relationship in time to avoid further damage, their negative patterns may remain, and affect subsequent relationships.

New partners may not have the resiliency or desire to respond with understanding, and will be unlikely to tolerate the level of learned hostility. The person who has developed the bad habit of falling quickly into hostile venting may become more cynical with each new failed relationship.

Hostile remarks fall into the following six categories:

• Character assassinations
• Threats of abandonment
• Threats of exile
• Invalidations
• Challenges
• Preaching

Partners typically use phrases from more than one category in an argument, and can deliver them with sarcasm, rage, or tears. When hostile statements increase in depth and frequency, one or both partners will escalate their defenses and retaliations. After they have exhausted their angry fury, they often retreat into non-communicative disconnects.

Every one reacts differently when hurt or angry. After a hostile interaction, one partner may want to reconnect before the other is ready. That disparity can start another round of retaliatory arguments. Each round is more likely to create yet more scars and make healing less likely.

The Six Categories

Though exaggerated swear words often accompany hostile venting, I have not included only three examples in the following descriptions, using asterisks to fill in letters. If you routinely use profanity for extra shock value, you may find the succeeding examples milder than you are used to using or hearing when you and your partner are fighting.

There are only a few of those shock-intended words in every language and both partners have to agree that they are insulting or they would not have the capability to cause the insults they do. If you pay careful attention to where you may add them in your actual hostile interactions, you can explore what effect you are trying to have on your partner.

Character Assassinations

Character assassinations are wipe-out statements that partners use to define the other as someone who has always been, will always be, that bad. The phrases are intended to make the described partner as permanently and irrevocably doomed to be that way. Their intent is to hurt, deprecate, and demoralize.

For example, if you are complaining about your partner's behavior as temporarily distressful, you would use words like, "You're being really bitchy right now," or "You drive me crazy when you act like this." Those are descriptions of temporary behaviors that are only occurring in the moment. They tell your partner that you're angry at what he or she is doing, not who they are.

Character assassinations tell people that they are innately bad, incompetent, or valueless. When the accused partner takes them personally, they will cause damage that last longer and may leave emotional, indelible scars.

Here are some examples of wipe-out statements that attack a partner's basic character rather than his or her temporary behavior:

"You're just too much work."
"Why do I even try? You'll never get it."
"You're a b****h."
"You're an a*****e."
"You only care about yourself."
"Let's face it; you're not the sharpest tack on the board."
"You're completely irrational."
"I can't believe anything out of your mouth. You're a liar."
"You are a major screw-up."

Threats of Abandonment

There are two sets of hostile statements that arouse the most primitive fears in people of any age. The first is to make a threatening statement that implies permanent indifference or abandonment. You would use that kind of statement to make your partner feel worthless and no longer needed. You may only feel that way in the heat of the fight, but your partner may take that threat more seriously. If he or she does respond that way, you may not be able to take it back later.

If you recall one of your parents saying this to the other, you will probably also remember your other parent's response. Typically, it would have been to either plead for regained value, or a counter-attack with feigned indifference. Being a helpless child, you may have felt terrified that your life, as you knew it, would end.

Here are some examples of threats of abandonment:

"I don't care what you do anymore."
"You're too much trouble; I'm out of here."
"You disgust me. I don't even know why I stick around."
"I'm sick of this relationship. I need to find someone who knows how to love me."
"I don't need you anymore."
"You don't get it. I'm done."

Invalidations

Though similar in some ways to character assassinations, invalidations do not attack your partner's core self. They are, instead, meant to invalidate your partner's arguments and make them less convincing. By focusing on your partner's contradictions or weaknesses, you're attempting to neutralize his or her advantage, or to feel superior in the argument.

If you succeed, your partner will become defensive and less able to fight back. On the other hand, if your partner has a strong sense of self, you may be in for a counter-attack that invalidates your position.

Here are some examples of invalidations:

"Bull s**t."
"You just don't get it."
"That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard."
"Can't you ever get anything right?"
"Maybe if you ever made sense, I'd understand what you mean."
"You don't know what you're talking about."
"Don't bother trying to convince me; it won't work."
"You're not even worth listening to."

Threats of Exile

Exile is more threatening to most people than abandonment. It is one thing to say to your partner, "I'm not interested in you anymore." Threatening exile is more potent and terrifying. You are telling your partner to get out of your life. Even if you just mean it in the moment and would never want that person gone in a permanent way, you are taking the chance that you will be taken seriously.

If you threaten exile enough times, your partner will actually begin to believe you and no longer expect the relationship to continue. Unless you're sure you want out, you'll be smart to use different phrases if you feel this uninterested in staying connected.

Here are some examples of exile:

"Just get out."
"I don't need you anymore, and don't slam the door behind you."
"I want you out of my life."
"You're a pain. Get lost."
"You've worn out your welcome here."
"Find somewhere else to go."
"You don't have anything left to offer me. I don't want you anymore."
"Why don't you go back to your old girl-friend? You deserve each other."

Challenges

Hostile challenges are questions or statements that are delivered with sarcasm or defiance, and are never true questions of inquiry. They don't go after the partner's innate personality characteristics or the validity of their statements, but rather their right to even make them.

If you are challenging your partner's basic rights to feel, think, or behave in certain ways, you will ask mean questions to "show" your partner how stupid or incompetent he or she is. Each time your partner tries to make a point, you will interrupt and push hard for your win by undermining whatever his or her reasons are for that opinion.

Here are some examples of mean challenges:

"Do you even know what you're talking about?"
"That is totally wrong. How can you possibly justify something so stupid?"
"You actually believe what you're saying?"
"How can you justify what you're saying? It's baseless."
"An idiot could come up with a better idea."
"Do you ever think about why you say the things you do? They're meaningless."
"I can't believe you'd think I'd fall for that."
"Where'd you come up with that dumb logic?"
"You're so biased; why would I ever listen to you?"

Preaching

When people feel hostile, they often pull the parental card. Pointing or wagging their finger, they quote authorities, absent friends, or previously established prejudices, in order to push home their point. If you use unchallengeable hierarchy to make your partner feel like a chastised child, you'll use information from an outside source to add weight to your argument.

This kind of hostile venting can have the most negative impact because it activates childhood guilt or embarrassment. It is particularly hurtful if you know your partner's history and use what vulnerable memories they've revealed to you to make your point.

Here are some examples of preaching:

"For a person who claims to be decent, you ought to know better than to do what you've done."
"You know, if you were a decent person, you wouldn't talk to me like this."
"Sorry isn't good enough when you act so infantile."
"Why do I have to keep telling you what you should already know?"
"You don't have any integrity, do you?"
"Do you even know what a good lover is?"
"Why don't you do what's right?"
"A person with any reasonable compassion would never do that to me."
"I've told you a million times; you just don't care."
"You're so immature."
"You're whining again."

Breaking Verbally Hostile Patterns

Instructions for Healing

There are five ways that hostile behavior can be understood and eventually stopped.

• Childhood Origins
• Virtual Videos
• Evaluation of Hostile Phrases
• Stopping Emotional Cascades
• Replacements

They are very simple to learn, difficult to practice, and very effective. In order for them to work, both partners must genuinely want to stop their negative patterns and understand that their relationship can otherwise be in jeopardy

Childhood Origins

Anyone can get angry. When people are frustrated, scared, hurt, rejected, or suppressed, they like their partners to know how they feel. Suitably expressing negative feelings is part of every successful compromise, but raging, hurtful, destructive venting is not healthy for any relationship.

People learn destructive anger in childhood. Their first exposure to dysfunctional outbursts of anger happens when they are small, whether directed at them or observed. When parents are mean to each other in front of their children, they teach those children to cower, to run away, or to react with their own hostility. If they are not taught successful conflict resolution or healthy coping responses, they will make the same mistakes in their adult relationships.

When adults display those unhealthy patterns, they often don't realize their own inner child is who is driving them to behave that way. Despite their being adults in their current interaction, inside they are all the ages they've ever been. If they were the targets of their parent's hostilities, or witness frequent verbal insults between their parents, they are likely to react to similar phrases as adults.

Each partner has different memories and different experiences. Neither partner can ever fully understand the depth and details of the other's feelings. In an argument, the person being attacked is the only one who can define whether a hostile phrase is abusive or not.

Childhood hurts re-experienced can feel as they did the first time they happened. When one partner issues a hostile phrase, he or she cannot guarantee that the other partner will experience it as it was intended. Each partner may feel differently about any chosen phrase, whether uttering it or experiencing it from the other.

As arguments escalate and partners forget their caring for each other, they will regress in to those childhood responses. They will begin to fight back as if their partners were their angry parents. They may feel more empowered to fight as an adult than they could have as a child, but nevertheless, respond as if they are still as vulnerable as they were then.

Virtual Videos

Once partners help each other identify anger patterns in their families of origin, they must then see where those same patterns play out in their adult lives. To do this effectively, they must let a part of their minds observe their hostile interactions from outside as they happen.

The most powerful tool a couple can use is their own mental virtual video. This exercise requires that both partners have agreed to help each other become alert to any childhood reactions they mutually activate as soon as they begin. They both stand outside themselves running the camera, objectively observing their hostile interactions while continuing to fight. They're looking for any signs that they may be regressing: raising voices, increasing tempo, interrupting, and changing postures or facial expressions. Their mental video will likely show them as young enemies, out to destroy each other as they grow desperate to hold their positions.

If they can imagine that they will be playing back that video for anyone they would want to impress, they might be more able to change the nature of their interactions to hold them within boundaries they both respect. This technique works best if both partners consciously attempt to move the camera to focus on different parts of the scene, zooming close in to each of them and then moving away to encapsulate the whole picture.

Within a short time of repeating this exercise, both partners will see how deeply embarrassed they would be were their hostile actions to be observed. Watching themselves recreate the negative patterns they were taught as children will help them revisit their childhood experiences and can help motivate them to break the inter-generational patterns.

Evaluation of Hostile Phrases

Whichever of the six hostile patterns you may use, you will be more likely to break your patterns if you face them courageously. Begin by writing down the mean phrases each of you uses most often. Then ask yourself where you learned them and what you mean when you say them.

Do not do this during a fight, but as soon as possible afterwards. Put your phrases in each category, or add a new category if needed. If your partner will do this exercise with you, you will both move more quickly toward healing your negative interactions.

After you have helped each other identify those hostile phrases and their origins, share the feelings you had as children when you first heard them. Tell each other why you still use them, what you feel when say them, and how it affects you when you hear them. Talk to each other about what you want when you are upset, and if there would be anything else you or your partner could do instead of escalating into these destructive patterns.

Stopping Emotional Cascades

Once you have identified where you learned your hostile phrases, watched them from your virtual videos, and evaluated them together, you're ready for the next step. Anytime you want to lessen damaging behaviors, you will find it easier to prevent them before an argument begins than to stop them once they start.

Sometimes your feelings of anger, hurt, or need to retaliate begin slowly. At other times, you may find yourself erupting instantaneously, especially after many fights have ended without resolution. How quickly you react to conflict typically follows your history of past destructive interactions, but some partners are sensitive to any conflict and move to a defensive position immediately. Exhaustion, overload, or illness can also lower frustration tolerance.

Try to note where feelings of hostility begin in your body as soon as you become aware of them. What are your symptoms? Many people feel anger in their lower bellies building as it rises to the top of their heads. Others feel it as a pit in their stomachs or in their throats. You can expect accompanying symptoms of rapid breathing, clenched hands, a higher-pitched and louder voice, and more rapid verbal exchanges. You may anticipate losing something important, or of being unfairly condemned.

As those physical symptoms arise, most people stop experiencing their partner's actual presence, and perceive them like hurtful people from their past. The verbal attacks escalate and formerly loving partners become temporary enemies until the hostile interactions end. Then they must do damage control and try to reinstate the love they felt before.

Once you recognize the symptoms of building hostility, the next step is to pay attention to how you felt before the cascade began. Ask yourself these following questions:

What did your partner say that got you going?
What did you hear?
What reactions did you feel?
Why were those words so painful?
What were you afraid of losing?
What could you have done to stop your negative reaction?
Are you staying accountable to your own behavior?

Replacements

Once you and your partner have helped each other understand the impact of your hostile words, you are ready to change how you handle yourself in succeeding arguments. Take each hostile phrase you have examined together, and tell your partner how he or she could have expressed those same feelings in ways you could have accepted.

When you are doing the exercises together, you may come up with examples that more accurately fit your personal relationship. Partners who are willing to do the work can undo the negative spiral. It takes time and patience, but the end result will be well worth the effort.

_http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rediscovering-love/201107/hostile-venting-mean-phrases-scar-intimate-relationships

 

[Meg]

Words easily trigger painful memories

Watch out, it'll hurt for a second." Not only children but also many adults get uneasy when they hear those words from their doctor. And, as soon as the needle touches their skin the piercing pain can be felt very clearly. "After such an experience it is enough to simply imagine a needle at the next vaccination appointment to activate our pain memory," knows Prof. Dr. Thomas Weiss from the Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.

As the scientist and his team from the Dept. of Biological and Clinical Psychology could show in a study for the first time it is not only the painful memories and associations that set our pain memory on the alert. "Even verbal stimuli lead to reactions in certain areas of the brain," claims Prof. Weiss. As soon as we hear words like "tormenting," "gruelling" or "plaguing," exactly those areas in the brain are being activated which process the corresponding pain. The psychologists from Jena University were able to examine this phenomenon using functional magnetic resonance tomography (fMRT). In their study they investigated how healthy subjects process words associated with experiencing pain. In order to prevent reactions based on a plain negative affect the subjects were also confronted with negatively connotated words like "terrifying," "horrible" or "disgusting" besides the proper pain words.

"Subject performed two tasks," explains Maria Richter, doctoral candidate in Weiss's team. "In a first task, subjects were supposed to imagine situations which correspond to the words," the Jena psychologist says. In a second task, subjects were also reading the words but they were distracted by a brain-teaser. "In both cases we could observe a clear activation of the pain matrix in the brain by pain-associated words," Maria Richter states. Other negatively connotated words, however, do not activate those regions. Neither for neutrally nor for positively connotated words comparable activity patterns could be examined.

Can words intensify chronic pain?

"These findings show that words alone are capable of activating our pain matrix," underlines Prof. Weiss. To save painful experiences is of biological advantage since it allows us to avoid painful situations in the future which might be dangerous for our lives. "However, our results suggest as well that verbal stimuli have a more important meaning than we have thought so far." For the Jena psychologist the question remains open which role the verbal confrontation with pain plays for chronic pain patients. "They tend to speak a lot about their experiencing of pain to their physician or physiotherapist," Maria Richter says. It is possible that those conversations intensify the activity of the pain matrix in the brain and therefore intensify the pain experience. This is what the Jena psychologists want to clarify in another study.

And so far it won't do any harm not to talk too much about pain. Maybe then the next injection will be only half as painful.

_http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100330122706.htm

Sticks and Stones Can Break Your Bones But Names Can Really Hurt You: Justifying the Use of Force as a Defense Against 'Mere Words'
By Leslie Yalof Garfield (Pace University – School of Law)

Abstract:
Words hurt! Beginning in the 1950's, courts have recognized that words, by their very utterance, can inflict injury and harm. The law redresses those who suffer injury from harmful speech through a series of seemingly innocuous remedies including financial remuneration or retribution through minimal criminal penalties. The law stops, however, at granting individuals the right to use any type of force to prevent against the use of harmful words. In other words, legislatures and courts have been unwilling to elevate an actor's use of harmful words, or a victim's defense against them, to the same jurisprudential echelon as they do the use of physical force. But new scientific studies confirm that a word or some types of emotional harm can inflict as much pain as a punch. Biological and neurochemical studies are rapidly advancing our understanding of human behavior. New knowledge supports the conclusion that one can experience physical pain in response to a tone or particular words. The law's failure to excuse those defending against harmful words is unjustified in light of these recent neuroscience findings. This paper will propose that the criminal law should extend the self-defense doctrine to permit one to protect him or her self from an imminent threat of bodily harm even if that bodily harm is inflicted through verbal or psychic abuse.

Complete PDF is here.

This one comes at it more from a public policy and legal angle.

Do Offensive Words Harm People?
By Timothy Jay (Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts)

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
2009, Vol. 15, No. 2, 81–101
© 2009 American Psychological Association

Do Offensive Words Harm People?

Summary:
The harm thesis—the assumption that words harm people—is a defining feature of sexual harassment, hate speech, verbal abuse, and obscene telephone call (OTC) offenses. This thesis ignores the possibility that swearing can be advantageous, cathartic, or an acceptable substitute for physical aggression. Observational data, courtroom evidence and verbal abuse research reviewed here produce conflicting conclusions on the question of harm. The best evidence of harm resides in harassment and OTC studies, but verbal abuse research is indeterminate because of flawed research methodology. Public swearing research reveals that swearing is a common conversational practice resulting in no obvious harm. “Common sense” (folk psychology) views of swearing are mistaken and inadequate for some decisions regarding harm. Meanwhile, efforts to restrict speech in media and instructional settings continue, despite the lack of a convincing need to do so. Harm from offensive speech is contextually determined; therefore attempts to restrict speech on a universal basis are misguided. Psychologists’ research needs to be informed by public policy and courtroom practices, and public policy and litigation need to be better informed by psychologists’ research.

There is offensive language in this one:
_http://www.mcla.edu/Undergraduate/uploads/textWidget/1457.00018/documents/DoWordsHarm.pdf

A couple of books:

When Words Hurt: How to Keep Criticism from Undermining Your Self-Esteem.

_http://www.amazon.com/When-Words-Hurt-Undermining-Self-Esteem/dp/0345358937/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403622078&sr=1-4&keywords=words+hurt

Whether you're on the job, at home, or with a friend, this understanding book will teach you how to minimize the negative effects of criticism and understand how and why it undermines your self-esteem. Learn to take control of your responses to criticism, analyze the motive and intent of your critic, deal with your responses, and much more.

Two reviews:

This book not only prevents your hurting other people with your words, but it also teaches you how to consider the motivation behind words directed at you from other people. When you learn how and why people use words to manipulate your feelings, you can alter your reaction to protect yourself from hurt.

Not sure why but for the past 2-3 years I found myself dealing with some very difficult people. I knew all along that my skills in the area of communicating was lacking. I searched and searched for a book that would give me help, purchased this book and that one and came up short. Then one day I came across this book by Mary Heldmann. Read it through and knew that I had found 'the' book. I'm now on my 4th or 5th reading and still love it. This time I'm doing a study on it. If your having difficulties with people, this is the book for you.

Here's another called Emotional Abuse: Words Can Hurt by Marla Brassard

_http://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Abuse-Words-Can-Hurt/dp/0937906530/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403622514&sr=1-6&keywords=words+hurt+abuse

There aren't any reviews for this one on Amazon or Abe Books.

 

[Meg]

Sticks, Stones, and Hurtful Words: Relative Effects of Various Forms of Childhood Maltreatment
by Martin H. Teicher, M.D., Ph.D., Jacqueline A. Samson, Ph.D., Ann Polcari, R.N., C.S., Ph.D., Cynthia E. McGreenery

Objective:

Childhood maltreatment is an important psychiatric risk factor. Research has focused primarily on the effects of physical abuse, sexual abuse, or witnessing domestic violence. Parental verbal aggression has received little attention as a specific form of abuse. This study was designed to delineate the impact of parental verbal aggression, witnessing domestic violence, physical abuse, and sexual abuse, by themselves and in combination, on psychiatric symptoms.

Method:

Symptoms and exposure ratings were collected from 554 subjects 18–22 years of age (68% female) who responded to advertisements. The Verbal Abuse Questionnaire was used to assess exposure to parental verbal aggression. Outcome measures included dissociation and symptoms of “limbic irritability,” depression, anxiety, and anger-hostility. Comparisons were made by using effect sizes.

Results:

Verbal aggression was associated with moderate to large effects, comparable to those associated with witnessing domestic violence or nonfamilial sexual abuse and larger than those associated with familial physical abuse. Exposure to multiple forms of maltreatment had an effect size that was often greater than the component sum. Combined exposure to verbal abuse and witnessing domestic violence had a greater negative effect on some measures than exposure to familial sexual abuse.

Conclusions:

Parental verbal aggression was a potent form of maltreatment. Exposure to multiple forms of abuse was associated with very large effect sizes. Most maltreated children had been exposed to multiple types of abuse, and the number of different types is a critically important factor.

Discussion:

Childhood exposure to parental verbal aggression was associated, by itself, with moderate to large effects on measures of dissociation, limbic irritability, depression, and anger-hostility. Exposure to verbal aggression was associated with numerically larger effects on scores on the Limbic System Checklist-33 and Kellner Symptom Questionnaire than was exposure to domestic violence, although these differences could have occurred by chance. Combined exposure to verbal abuse and witnessing of do mestic violence was associated with extraordinarily large adverse effects, particularly on dissociation. This finding is consonant with studies that suggest that emotional abuse may be a more important precursor of dissociation than is sexual abuse (18).

These findings raise the possibility that exposure to verbal aggression may be a stressor that affects the development of certain vulnerable brain regions in susceptible individuals, resulting in psychiatric sequelae (1). Alternatively, exposure to verbal aggression in childhood may put into force a powerful negative model for interpersonal communication, which is then incorporated as a behavioral response in future relationships. Toth and Cicchetti (19) proposed a cascade of interpersonal events in maltreated children that begins with insecure attachment relationships, moves to negative representational models of the self and of the self in relation to others, and eventuates in impaired perceived competence, poorer social functioning, and lowered self-esteem. Similarly, Crittenden (20) found that exposure to
abuse and neglect affects attachment patterns and coping strategies. These possibilities are not mutually exclusive, and each could contribute in important ways.

In the present study group, with our definitions of abuse it appeared that emotional maltreatment was more closely associated with psychiatric sequelae than was physical abuse. It is possible that we would have observed a more deleterious effect of physical abuse if we had adopted a stricter definition. We are conducting further studies with
additional measures to test this possibility.

Combined exposure to different categories of abusive experiences often equaled or exceeded the impact of exposure to familial sexual abuse. This is of great importance as it suggests that combined exposure to less blatant forms of abuse may be just as deleterious as the most egregious acts we confront. Fifty-nine percent of the subjects in the present study with a history of maltreatment had been exposed to more than one type of abuse.

These findings are concordant with the results of a large-scale epidemiological study designed to assess the prevalence and health impact of early trauma experiences, the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study (21). All of the
publications resulting from this work point to a relationship between self-reported early exposure to adversity and
subsequent problems, including depression (9), attempted suicide (10), substance abuse, and an array of medical
disorders. A dose-response relationship was observed such that the greater the number of childhood adverse experiences, the greater the risk for a negative health outcome in adulthood. Macfie et al. (22) also reported that exposure to multiple forms of trauma, along with severity and chronicity, was predictive of subsequent psychopathology.

The mechanisms underlying the additive or synergistic effects of exposure to different types of abuse are unknown. It is possible that an additive or greater effect may emerge because abuse at home could prevent a child from seeking help or reassurance from his or her parents when confronted with abuse outside the home. Alternatively, in dividuals exposed to different types of abuse may experience them at different developmental stages, which would increase the likelihood that abuse occurred during key sensitive periods. A third hypothesis is that exposure to multiple types of abuse increases the frequency of exposure and that, in addition to genetic factors, a certain minimal number of exposures is necessary for the development of an adverse outcome (23).

The present study is limited by our reliance on self-reports. How do we know if the participants’ abuse histories are valid? We are sensitized to this issue by the debate surrounding false or repressed memories. However, the issue of repressed memories is unlikely to be a significant factor in this research protocol as the events reported were current memories and the study provided no incentive for the subjects to fabricate a history of abuse, as they were never informed of our screening criteria. While we are concerned about potential fabrications, research suggests that the overall bias is in the opposite direction—individuals are more likely to minimize or deny their adverse child hood experiences (24). Positive reports of maltreatment can be corroborated (25). While retrospective self-report studies constitute the vast bulk of the literature on the effects of early abuse on adults, prospective studies that confirm its impact are emerging (23, 26).

We cannot exclude the possibility that individuals who have a relatively high degree of current psychiatric symptoms may report aspects of their childhood in a more negative light than do individuals who are free of such symptoms (27). It is also possible that exposure to familial emotional, physical, or sexual abuse is highest in families with mental illness, and thus, genetic factors could contribute to the higher symptom scores we observed in our subjects with exposure to familial abuse. Studies of twins discordant for childhood sexual abuse provide a potentially powerful means of assessing the respective contribution of childhood sexual abuse while controlling for genetic vulnerabilities and shared environment. Kendler et al. (28) reported that the twins with childhood sexual abuse had an overall increased risk for major depression and a substantially increased sensitivity to the depressogenic effects of other stressful life events.

We have used the term “association” to describe the relationship between symptom ratings and retrospective self-reports of abuse. While we hypothesize that there may be a causal relationship, there are other legitimate ways to interpret the data. Indeed, it may be the case that the relationship between abuse reports and symptoms is due to a combination of direct effects of early stress, recall bias, and increased genetic load.

Another limitation is that our probe question for exposure to domestic violence was very broad, and so the definition of domestic violence may not be comparable to definitions in studies that specifically focused on observations of mothers being battered. We know from more detailed assessment of 54 individuals (16 men and 38 women, mean age=20.8 years, SD=1.1) who responded positively to this general probe question on the witnessing of serious domestic violence that 65% had witnessed their mothers being threatened or assaulted, 43% had witnessed siblings being threatened or assaulted, and 17% had witnessed threats or assaults of their fathers. Further, 24% had witnessed the severe beating of the person involved. The effect of exposure to domestic violence might have been greater had we used a more specific and limited definition.

Finally, representative sampling techniques were not used. This means that the impact of maltreatment observed may not generalize to other groups. Sixty-five subjects from the group were recruited for additional studies and went through structured diagnostic interviews, neuropsychological testing, and imaging protocols. They had an average Hollingshead two-factor socioeconomic status of 4.0 (SD=0.8) (upper middle class).

In all likelihood, the overall degree of psychopathology was probably lower in our healthy, predominantly collegiate study group than would be found in a representative sample, although the relative effects of exposure to different forms of abuse should generalize to other populations.

Verbal abuse was associated with effect sizes that were numerically greater than those associated with witnessing domestic violence or familial physical abuse. However, witnessing domestic violence and physical abuse can qualify as a category A(1) traumatic event necessary for the DSM-IV diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), while exposure to verbal abuse cannot. We wonder, particularly in children, if threats to one’s mental integrity and sense of self can also be traumatizing. Bremner et al. (29) made an interesting observation: “Surprisingly, emotional abuse items, such as being often shouted at, appeared to have severe consequences in terms of risk for PTSD.” The specific role of verbal abuse in the development of PTSD has yet to be determined. Research is needed to evaluate whether such exposure is causative or whether it contributes to the development of PTSD by amplifying the effects of exposure to traumatic events.

It will likely come as no surprise to clinicians that parental verbal aggression is associated with psychiatric symptoms. The potential effects of exposure to verbal abuse, by itself and in combination with other forms of abuse, need to be carefully considered in research studies focusing on the effects of early experience. Individuals interested in the welfare of maltreated children should not underestimate the consequences of verbal abuse. Finally, careful attention should be given to the number of different types of traumatic experiences a child was exposed to, as this may be even more critical than the specific type of abuse.

Full article here. (8 pages)

 

[mabar]

Thanks Menrva, these articles helps to bring me down to earth, now that I had been having problems with phrases. What I had observed in myself is that one/me believes X hurting words from whatever kind of people, and so then, it affects me.

In cases of expressed phonetically words, is not just words, it also involves the intention, physical movement, tone of voice, intonation too. We once did an exercise on high-school, instead of using words/having meanings, we use numbers. So for example:

"thirty two seven, thirty two and nine thousand with eleven cents" instead of "You disgust me. I don't even know why I stick around."

"seventeen eighteen millions" instead of"You're a b****h".

I observed this with my sister's dog, phonetically words not by meaning, I could be saying "Who is my favorite dog" with flowery lovely intonation and she bahave (just being happy, waving its tail) similar as saying "You are so dirty, I do not want to be near you.

 

[Laura]

Thanks for starting this thread, Menrva; it's a problem that has been on my mind lately: how words carry charge and even if nothing bad or mean is intended, those words bury deeply in the other person's mind and can have profoundly negative effects over time.

 

[Possibility of Being]

Very important topic, thank you Menrva for starting it. Verbal abuse is a form of emotional abuse and is still widely minimized.

Some more clues of variety of forms it can take:
_http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/verbal_abuse.html

Verbal Abuse

Some forms of verbal abuse, such as name calling or sneering, are obvious, but many more forms are covert, such as withholding or discounting, and therefore much less easily recognizable.

Some of the following questions may help you to work out whether you are being verbally abused in less obvious ways, or whether you are being verbally abusive towards your partner:

* Does your partner speak to you differently in private and in public?
* Do you often leave a discussion with your partner feeling completely confused?
* Does your partner deny being angry or upset when he/she very obviously is?
* Does your partner act as though you were attacking them when you try to explain your feelings?
* Does your partner discount your opinions or experiences?
* You feel as though no matter how hard you try, you just don't seem to be able to communicate your thoughts and feelings to your partner as he/she always seems to misunderstand you, and/or it always seems to cause an argument no matter how you try to approach the subject?
* Do you feel nervous or avoid discussing issues which disturb you with your partner because you 'know' that trying to discuss them will just leave you feeling even more upset?
* Do you feel as though your self-esteem and your self-confidence have decreased?
* Do you find yourself spending a lot of time working out either how not to upset your partner or wondering what you did or said which did upset your partner?

The above are just some indicators that verbal abuse may be an issue in your relationship. Some facts which generally apply to verbal abuse:

* Verbal abuse tends to be secretive, ie happens in private.
* Verbal abuse tends to increase over time, as both abuser and victim adapt to it.
* Verbal abuse discounts your perception of reality and denies itself.
* Verbal abuse is usually part of a pattern which is difficult to recognise and leaves us with a feeling of confusion and upset without really understanding why.
* Verbal abuse uses words (or silence) to gain and maintain control.

From time to time we are all likely to say something which is nasty and abusive to our partner or our children. Usually when we realise that what we have said is hurtful, we feel sorry for the hurt we have caused and apologise. Verbal abusers are not likely to apologise, not because they don't realise that they have been hurtful, but because that is their aim.

I lived in fear constantly. He rarely hit anyone; he didn't have to. The threats, coupled with the verbal and emotional abuse, were more than enough to keep us all under his control. (from Carla's Story)

Categories of Verbal Abuse

Patricia Evans, in her book "The Verbally Abusive Relationship - How to Recognise it and How to Respond" lists 15 different categories of verbal abuse commonly employed by verbal abusers, which we will have a closer look at below. The categories Patricia Evans lists are: withholding, countering, discounting, verbal abuse disguised as a joke, blocking and diverting, accusing and blaming, judging and criticising, trivialising, undermining, threatening, name calling, forgetting, ordering, denial and abusive anger.

"I want us to be happy." Those are Lauren’s own words. For there to be an ‘us’, we both need a voice. I needed to matter too. "What’s that supposed to mean?" or "You’re telling me...." I felt like I was being analyzed, interpreted, manipulated, lead to a witness stand confession and forced into another apology for something I didn’t really say or do. I heaped anger on me for feeling beaten down and damned to silence by the very person I wanted to spend a life with. (from Donald's Story)

Withholding basically involves withholding oneself from the normal intimacy needed for a close relationship. We may experience it as a prolonged silence, or an unwillingness to interact with us, or simply get the impression that our partner never shares themselves with us. Where one partner is withholding, there can be no intimate relationship, no exchange of feelings, opinions or thoughts, the whole fabric which is meant to mesh a relationship together is lacking. We end up feeling alone in our relationship and often wondering what we have done wrong to alienate our partner.

When I wasn’t being beaten I was ignored for days on end, I was sent to Coventry that much that I even thought of moving there. (Joanne's Story)

Countering is as it sounds, countering or opposing any thought, opinion or feeling. If we state that we feel as though there is a growing distance between us as a couple, a counterer would respond with an adamant "you're wrong", as though we had just stated a verifiable fact and the counterer knew better. Our reality is being undermined, our perceptions and opinions are opposed. Countering renders any discussion impossible, as the counterer doesn't listen to our opinion or feelings, but simply opposes anything we may say. A tell-tale sign of dealing with a counterer is that phrases such as 'I feel', 'I think' or 'I get the impression' are neither used by the counterer nor accepted as personal (and therefore valid) opinions when we voice them.

Discounting means giving our feelings, emotions, thoughts and opinions lesser value, and in so doing, devaluing or discounting us. Discounting tells us that our thoughts and experiences are worth nothing. If we are upset, we may be told that we are making a mountain out of a molehill, imagining things, too sensitive, can't take a joke, too serious, etc etc etc. Basically any statement which tries to discount or deny our reality as we perceive it. We end up wondering whether our partner is right and we are imagining things, too sensitive, etc. We lose our willingness to trust in our own judgment and perception.

When verbal abuse is disguised as a joke it simply isn't funny. It may be a disparaging comment said with a laugh or a smile, but which actually feels more like an attack on our competencies, abilities or values, or it may be a sexist joke which we find offensive. If we verbalise that we don't think it was funny, we may then be discounted ("You don't know how to take a joke.") or our partner may get angry with us. Some abusers also purposely frighten or scare us and then laugh, as though it were funny when it was actually designed to give us a fright.

In social situations I was often the butt of his jokes, and some of them hurt. If I got upset he would make it look like I was the crazy one by loudly proclaiming that he was only kidding and that I was being too sensitive, so I taught myself to keep my mouth shut and brush it off whenever he said or did something that hurt. (from Sadie's Story )

Blocking and Diverting are both ways of preventing or controlling a discussion or changing the topic. An example of blocking is simply refusing to discuss an issue, while diverting changes the discussion from the original topic to one of the abusers choice, often by criticising us in some way so that we end up trying to defend ourselves or explain ourselves and lose sight of the original aim of the conversation.

I tried talking to Pat about the way he was treating me but it was like talking to a brick wall. He didn’t want to hear it. (from Sadie's Story )

"When I want your opinions, I’ll ask for them." That hurt me. (from Donald's Story)

Blaming and accusing are self-evident and consist of statements or retorts which are designed to shift the blame and the emphasis from abuser onto victim. While it is easy to pick up blaming and accusing when we are, for instance, accused of sleeping with someone else, it is not so easy to recognise phrases such as "You always have to have the last word" as an accusation.

"When things went his way he was wonderful. When they didn’t, well, he snapped at me and blamed me whether it was my fault or not. If I got upset or challenged him, he’d get even angrier and then bellow and threaten until I backed down." (Sadie's Story)

Judging and criticising are ways in which our partner shows his/her lack of acceptance of us as an individual. Phrases such as "you always think you are right" are an example of judging - our abuser believes he/she can know and judge us better than we can ourselves. Comments disguised as being 'constructive criticism' are often actually judgmental, critical and abusive, eg statements starting with "The problem with you is ...". Making critical statements or telling critical 'stories' about you to third parties are also in the same abusive category.

He would nit-pick on the tiniest, stupidest things, and make me feel like an idiot. It seemed like he enjoyed pointing out my shortcomings and mistakes and was constantly referring to me as stupid, idiot, or moron. Pretty soon I believed it. I had always been extremely self-critical, but after a while I began to hate myself for being such an incompetent fool who couldn’t do anything right. And even when I did manage to do something right it was still never quite good enough for him, so I was still wrong. (from Sadie's Story)

Robert started to say that people were commenting on what I was wearing and that I looked a bit of a slapper which was one of his favourite words, and that I should try and tone it down a bit, he was so convincing that I believed him. (from Joanne's Story)

Trivialising is telling your partner in some way that what they do is not significant, not valuable or not worth doing. Abusers tend to trivialise our interests and hobbies, our achievements and often our work or jobs (lack of appreciation for the work of a stay-at-home mum being an obvious one). We may feel confused or that we have not explained ourselves very well so that our partner simply doesn't understand.

Threats are an overt form of verbal abuse, like yelling and shouting. Threats are designed to frighten us and verbally beat us into submission. Usually we will be threatened either with pain or with loss, and the abuser will often choose threats based on his/her knowledge of what we value most or what we are most afraid of. In the context of physical abuse, threats can be as debilitating as the violence itself. Threats are also often made to prevent us from leaving an abusive relationship or to persuade us back after leaving.

He told me if I didn’t take any pride in the way I looked he would cheat on me. (from Belinda's Story)

Name calling again is an overt, obvious form of verbal abuse, designed to hurt or degrade us. Terms of endearment can also be used in an abusive way, when spoken with obvious sarcasm for example.

He gave me a nick name which referred to me looking like a duck.[Muggy quacks.] He called me this in a ‘loving’ manner and manipulated me into thinking it was true. (from Belinda's Story)

His campaign of degradation intensified. He stopped being ‘nice’ about it and started calling me a whore, slut and ‘skettel’ [patois for cheap prostitute]. These words went through me like a hot knife through butter. (from Belinda's Story)

Forgetting includes denial and manipulation. Verbal abusers will conveniently 'forget' incidents or promises which are of importance to us - especially previous incidents of verbal abuse. Denying by 'forgetting' (rather than blatant denial) what has happened consistently is way beyond the normal forgetfulness which we all sometimes have, and is in itself abusive.

Ordering is another overt form of verbal abuse. If our partner orders us about, he/she is not treating us as an equal individual but as a servant or someone who is exists to fulfil the abusers wishes and needs. Ordering someone around is an obvious indication that the abuser believes he/she has the right to dominate and have power over us.

He took to ordering me around instead of asking, and if I balked or didn’t jump when he wanted something I’d get a withering verbal tirade, so I learned to jump really fast. I’d still get the tirade, but the faster I jumped the faster it would end. He felt that since I was his wife he didn’t need to be polite, and I soon discovered that trying to convince him otherwise was a useless proposition. (from Sadie's Story )

Denial underpines most abuse. A verbal abuser will deny outright that he/she has in any way been verbally abusive or that his/her behaviour unacceptable. Denial is dangerous for us because it denies our experiences, and often turns reality on its head. When our partner denies outright that a conversation or disagreement has taken place, that any hurt or upset has been caused, or that he/she was shouting and angry, we may begin to doubt our own perceptions.

Abusive Anger is something only too many of us are familiar with. It is that unexplicable explosion of rage which we try to pacify, and that brooding uneasiness we can sense just in the presence of our partner. When we ask our partner what they are angry about, the anger is likely to be denied outright, or we are likely to be verbally abused in some of the ways described above.

He said the problems in our marriage were because of me, that he didn't have a problem. That he got angry because of what I did or how I was; if I would just be better, than he wouldn't have to get angry. So I fixed his favorite gourmet meals, cleaned the house, said the right things and tried to change myself, thinking he would stop being angry. But he always found something else to be angry about. (Kiara's Story)

For more information on how to recognise and for suggestions on how to tackle verbal abuse in your relationship we strongly recommend Patricia Evan's book "The Verbally Abusive Relationship - How to Recognise it and How to Respond".

Patricia Evans's website: _http://www.verbalabuse.com/

How does it feel, in images: Words Can Hurt - Verbal abuse and emotional abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G7nohXboIc

 

[Skyalmian]

Invalidation

• _http://www.daughtersofnarcissisticmothers.com/invalidation.html

  Invalidation leaves daughters of narcissistic mothers with a lot of doubt into adulthood, not able to trust their own feelings - how do they know that they're feeling what they think they're feeling, or if it's right? And given that our feelings are our guides - every feeling carries an important message - then we're missing out on that essential system. For instance, if we don't trust our fear, how do we know if we're in danger, and then how can we take the necessary steps to protect ourselves?
  
  Because of this invalidation daughters of narcissistic mothers can grow up believing that they are abnormal or twisted. This is because our totally natural and normal feelings are told to be wrong (either in as many words, or by implication), and so we absorb the message that we're wrong to have them.
  
  This is totally head-wrecking stuff. It can leave you wondering if you're imagining it, if you're over-reacting and so on, and that doubt leaves you open to more abuse.

  Speaking of mother narcissism:
  • Narcissistic mother, will it ever end?
  • Hating My Mother and Merry Christmas - Two of my *I*s
• _http://outofthefog.net/CommonBehaviors/Invalidation.html

  The Distorted Mirror
  
  Abusive people will often use invalidation as a means of diverting attention away from flaws in their own logic, character and behavior while pressuring others to yield control. It works by deflecting attention away from the subject or problem at hand, and focusing on a false surrogate topic which can be summed up as: "look what’s wrong with you".
  
  The victim is thus maneuvered into a position where in order to deal with the problem they want to discuss, they must first demonstrate to the perpetrator that they have fixed all the flaws in themselves. This means the perpetrator successfully avoids addressing the original problem or issue.

• _http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.com/2007/02/invalidation-invalidation-is-to-reject.html

  Invalidation is to reject, ignore, mock, tease, judge, or diminish someone's feelings. Constant invalidation may be one of the most significant reasons a person with high innate emotional intelligence suffers from unmet emotional needs later in life.
  
  A sensitive child who is repeatedly invalidated becomes confused and begins to distrust his own emotions. He fails to develop confidence in and healthy use of his emotional brain-- one of nature's most basic survival tools. To adapt to this unhealthy and dysfunctional environment, the working relationship between his thoughts and feelings becomes twisted. His emotional responses, emotional management, and emotional development will likely be seriously, and perhaps permanently, impaired. The emotional processes which worked for him as a child may begin to work against him as an adult. In fact, one defintion of the so-called "borderline personality disorder" is "the normal response of a sensitive person to an invalidating environment".
  
  Psychiatrist R.D. Laing said that when we invalidate people or deny their perceptions and personal experiences, we make mental invalids of them. He found that when one's feelings are denied a person can be made to feel crazy even they are perfectly mentally healthy.

  Invalidation goes beyond mere rejection by implying not only that our feelings are disapproved of, but that we are fundamentally abnormal. This implies that there is something wrong with us because we aren't like everyone else; we are strange; we are different; we are weird.

• _http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/matter-personality/201309/invalidation-in-families-what-are-the-hidden-aspects

  As I described in my post on the family dynamics of borderline personality disorder, "Invalidating someone else is not merely disagreeing with something that the other person said. It is a process in which individuals communicate to another that the opinions and emotions of the target are invalid, irrational, selfish, uncaring, stupid, most likely insane, and wrong, wrong, wrong. Invalidators let it be known directly or indirectly that their target’s views and feelings do not count for anything to anybody at any time or in any way. In some families, the invalidation becomes extreme, leading to physical abuse and even murder. However, invalidation can also be accomplished by verbal manipulations that invalidate in ways both subtle and confusing."

 

[RedFox]

As I described in my post on the family dynamics of borderline personality disorder, "Invalidating someone else is not merely disagreeing with something that the other person said. It is a process in which individuals communicate to another that the opinions and emotions of the target are invalid, irrational, selfish, uncaring, stupid, most likely insane, and wrong, wrong, wrong. Invalidators let it be known directly or indirectly that their target’s views and feelings do not count for anything to anybody at any time or in any way. In some families, the invalidation becomes extreme, leading to physical abuse and even murder. However, invalidation can also be accomplished by verbal manipulations that invalidate in ways both subtle and confusing."

Along those lines (and hopefully this isn't too off topic) this video on validation/invalidation is particularly useful to understanding how these things work and how to communicate in healthy ways.

http://<iframe width="420" height="...dk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Rich]

Thanks for starting this thread, Menrva; it's a problem that has been on my mind lately: how words carry charge and even if nothing bad or mean is intended, those words bury deeply in the other person's mind and can have profoundly negative effects over time.

Yes, thank you Menrva. what you've written Laura reminds me of a time in my youth that makes me cringe a little:

I don't know if it is true how the following was relayed to me but could be a fitting example:

I have two sisters several years older than me who used to tease each other, like sisters do. One day they were calling each other "thunder thighs" - I guess one sister had heard it at school and was tormenting the other with the phrase. I don't know if they were being spiteful, I think they were joking with each other.

At school the next day (I think I was 12) I parroted the phrase to a girl (who I liked and quite liked me). I didn't really think anything of it or mean anything by it, at that age boys aren't really aware of the angst and sensitivities of teenage girls go through. Looking back I think I was just trying to get her attention because I liked her but didn't know how to communicate that.

About ten years later I met up with the old school girlfriend on a hometown visit. One of the first things she reminded me of was how she remembered vividly me calling her "thunder thighs" and said that had caused her to develop anorexia. As I said, I don't know for sure if she was being serious by the casual way in which she was recounting the episode. But it obviously has stuck in her mind as something memorable that had affected her negatively. It is possible those out of place words were a trigger for her symptoms, contributory or an simpler explanation for her to blame rather than root causes in her preceding years. I don't know but it does make one think.

Gabor Mate says "what makes you upset is not what you're upset about" and in this case perhaps because we had feelings for each other my clumsy and ill-thought repetition of my sisters phrase may have really opened up vulnerabilities and hurt her. I thought it was a just a silly phrase but I can see how the wrong words at the wrong time in a persons life could be damaging in ways the other would be oblivious to.

Along similar lines, in Fear of the Abyss, Aleta Edwards writes:
"It is possible to receive a well-meaning message or action as threatening or alarming in some way. As the saying goes, "We know what we give, not what the other person receives""

 

[Laura]

POB, what you describe seems to be normal behavior in our culture: kid sees/hears people behaving in certain ways, thinks it's funny or normal, and imitates that behavior.

My ex-husband was a case in point. He grew up in a "jokey/good-ole-boy, men do certain things, women do other things" type of environment. In the list posted by PoB above, my ex ticked several of the boxes, ESPECIALLY this one:

When verbal abuse is disguised as a joke it simply isn't funny. It may be a disparaging comment said with a laugh or a smile, but which actually feels more like an attack on our competencies, abilities or values, or it may be a sexist joke which we find offensive. If we verbalise that we don't think it was funny, we may then be discounted ("You don't know how to take a joke.") or our partner may get angry with us. Some abusers also purposely frighten or scare us and then laugh, as though it were funny when it was actually designed to give us a fright.

In social situations I was often the butt of his jokes, and some of them hurt. If I got upset he would make it look like I was the crazy one by loudly proclaiming that he was only kidding and that I was being too sensitive, so I taught myself to keep my mouth shut and brush it off whenever he said or did something that hurt. (from Sadie's Story )

I observed my ex-mother-in-law treated this way and she accepted it as normal. But it obviously wasn't and she died in her 50s after a rapid onset of dementia that was pretty horrifying. When her brain started "melting", it seemed that the main thing she kept trying to do was to get away from her husband. She finally had to be restrained and then shortly after, she died.

Now, this husband of hers was well-liked by all. He was just a great guy as far as anyone could see or say; the same was said about my ex. But they were both constantly demeaning, invalidating, discounting, withholding, countering, and on and on MOSTLY in a jokey kind of way. That's how they got away with it. It was kind of a variation of "I'm doing this for your own good" covert op. When anybody says either of those things: "I'm saying/doing this for your own good" or "I was just making a joke!", run like hell.

What's really sad, though, are the people who are exposed to this as children and think it is normal. Or women who are really abused, so they think it is a GOOD thing that they are not being yelled at or beaten, just "joked to or about". The fact that my ex-mother-in-law accepted and defended this behavior as normal (and so many people will defend their abusers of this kind) presents another issue: how can others object to something that the abused accepts? Whose business is it anyway, how people interact with each other as long as they SAY they are satisfied and happy?

As I wrote elsewhere recently: my ex-husband was a master of this "joking" thing. He also did it with the children and they still talk about how painful it was, how dehumanized they felt over time. For me, I, too, accepted it because there was the "other side" of the relationship where I got assurances that "it's just his way" and "he was brought up that way" "it doesn't mean anything" and "I really love you, see all I do for you?" etc etc. But, after 20 years, the reassurances no longer compensated for the constant degrading and subtle abuse in the form of "jokes". In fact, it felt like being eaten alive by a single piranha, one small bite at a time. At a certain point, I knew I was on the edge, that enough of my psychic "flesh" was gone that the next nip might very well hit a major artery and I would psychically bleed to death.

I think this is what happened to my ex-mother-in-law. So even if a person accepts and defends such behavior, it obviously takes its toll over time. The issue for us is this: we are trying to work our way through our programs, our social "norms" that ponerize us, and more, in order to find a more or less "better way to be" overall, for a social group. How can a community be formed when any of the individuals behave in this way? It is definitely a set of behaviors that we wouldn't want to observe, experience, or replicate. Such behavior is not acceptable in front of children because as I've noted many times, children do what they see, not what you tell them. Breaking the cycle of this sort of psychological abuse depends on people becoming aware of it and refusing to participate or to have their children exposed to it. It is nothing other than bullying.

 

[LQB]

Now, this husband of hers was well-liked by all. He was just a great guy as far as anyone could see or say; the same was said about my ex. But they were both constantly demeaning, invalidating, discounting, withholding, countering, and on and on MOSTLY in a jokey kind of way. That's how they got away with it. It was kind of a variation of "I'm doing this for your own good" covert op. When anybody says either of those things: "I'm saying/doing this for your own good" or "I was just making a joke!", run like hell.

I've found this to be a technique of the covert-aggressive - hurtful and demeaning things said in such a skillful way that "I was just making a joke" is always an easy out for the CA (if challenged). Eventually the individual receiving this kind of treatment finds that challenging the CA simply does not work, particularly in the presence of others who can't fathom the negative intentions of the CA (due to skillful impression/image management). So "run like hell" is very good advice, imo.

 

[Nienna]

Now, this husband of hers was well-liked by all. He was just a great guy as far as anyone could see or say; the same was said about my ex. But they were both constantly demeaning, invalidating, discounting, withholding, countering, and on and on MOSTLY in a jokey kind of way. That's how they got away with it. It was kind of a variation of "I'm doing this for your own good" covert op. When anybody says either of those things: "I'm saying/doing this for your own good" or "I was just making a joke!", run like hell.

I've found this to be a technique of the covert-aggressive - hurtful and demeaning things said in such a skillful way that "I was just making a joke" is always an easy out for the CA (if challenged). Eventually the individual receiving this kind of treatment finds that challenging the CA simply does not work, particularly in the presence of others who can't fathom the negative intentions of the CA (due to skillful impression/image management). So "run like hell" is very good advice, imo.

Totally agree with this.

My ex was also a master of this. He would say things that really hurt me and, then, would claim he was only joking. It really did take its toll on me emotionally.

So if someone is making digs, slights, hurtful comments and claiming they are joking, I'd think again, very seriously, about being with this person.

 

[truth seeker]

I think I've been on both the receiving and giving ends of this. My father does this and because I would feel the injustice of it (as well as the added insult from those who would defend him), it would end up with me internalizing those feelings which would eventually end in a kind of numbness. So no fight, no flight but instead a sort of freeze. Eventually, I would begin to speak out against it only to be met with more attempt to 'convince' me of the okayness of it all.

The real horror of it is that the coping method I developed wasn't too different from what he was doing! It became a twisted way of dealing with people/situations when I felt vulnerable. Not good and this has given me much food for thought as to why I can 'communicate' in this way at times.

The invalidation (I don't see you or recognize/care about your feelings) Skyalmian posted about is spot on and I think for me, the most harmful aspect of this is the 'social proof' that occurs when others who have also been cut off from their emotions cannot discern the harm that's being done because that's what causes the 'crazy'. Perhaps what also happens is that those watching are afraid that if they don't join in, they too will be made fun of.

What's really sad, though, are the people who are exposed to this as children and think it is normal. Or women who are really abused, so they think it is a GOOD thing that they are not being yelled at or beaten, just "joked to or about". The fact that my ex-mother-in-law accepted and defended this behavior as normal (and so many people will defend their abusers of this kind) presents another issue: how can others object to something that the abused accepts? Whose business is it anyway, how people interact with each other as long as they SAY they are satisfied and happy?

Maybe it depends on the specific situation, but I think it's the business of anyone who has the ability to be moved when they see these things take place, providing that it doesn't lead to physical harm. If attempts are made and for whatever reason the abused is not at a place yet where they can acknowledge the long repressed feelings of pain so that they can be truly responsive, then, I dunno. At least those trying to help can then say they did what they could.

 

[monotonic]

What's really sad, though, are the people who are exposed to this as children and think it is normal. Or women who are really abused, so they think it is a GOOD thing that they are not being yelled at or beaten, just "joked to or about". The fact that my ex-mother-in-law accepted and defended this behavior as normal (and so many people will defend their abusers of this kind) presents another issue: how can others object to something that the abused accepts? Whose business is it anyway, how people interact with each other as long as they SAY they are satisfied and happy?

After reading the SRT sessions from Patrick and pondering them so far, I think the best thing for these people is to feel safe around their friends. After all, felling unsafe is a large part of this problem isn't it?

This seems very real to me. It seems that to be safe, at least emotionally, is powerful. After reading SRT sessions from Patrick I realized how much unacknowledged safety there is in my life, and in a MAJOR way because of this very forum. I went to bed in a very peaceful state and then experienced something like Levine describes about how you may in a way relive a traumatic event when the trauma discharges, and you feel the sensations of what happened in that moment. I wrote about it here: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,12837.msg497862.html#msg497862

Of course I've never been shot, at least not in this lifetime. It could just be a dream experience, but it's interesting how the dots line up here.

What strikes me is that, if we are practicing external considering, then we are creating an environment that is safer, are we not? And when we give all that is asked for and nothing more, we create proper social boundaries which are important for safety while maximizing the support we can provide to the person. Yet if we don't practice these things and try too hard, what we do is actually endanger the person by crossing boundaries and disturbing dominoes.

Maybe this is a good angle towards understanding and responding the best way to these situations?

Of course, to study the list of aggressive statements in this thread and eliminate them from our character, will be something that makes us very emotionally safe to be around as people. So we have 3 ways here to improve emotional safety. It seems to me that if we just do external considering, giving all that's asked but not more, and destroying our pathological social programs, the cumulative effect is already very large even if we don't realize it.

 

[truth seeker]

I think this thread dovetails nicely with the current discussion on covert depression.

After reading the SRT sessions from Patrick and pondering them so far, I think the best thing for these people is to feel safe around their friends. After all, felling unsafe is a large part of this problem isn't it?

Maybe the larger issue is that the person can no longer discern what is safe? If someone finds theirself in an abusive relationship for an extended period of time (like years) or even in several abusive relationships, then I'd say that they may have grown up in a similar environment and thus abusive relationships feel safe to them. Because they don't know anything different, it feels 'comfortable' to them. It's as if the abused person no longer has a sense of self or a strong identity and becomes sort of absorbed by the abuser so they may actually think they're happy when in reality, they don't know what they feel about anything. They think they're happy because it's the only emotion they were given allowed to project as a child (that's mainly for women, for men this may be anger).

I'm also thinking that often there seems to be some kind of power struggle that may go beyond emotions as well. Many women (and men for that matter) can find themselves financially dependent on their abusers which further complicates the issue. It's even worse if the abused has children and little to no other means of support.

So even though the thread is about verbal abuse specifically, I'm thinking that what we're really talking about is the different forms of unbalanced power structures (real or perceived based on societal beliefs) that can occur in relationships. If this is the case, then perhaps that's the first issue that needs to be addressed - the various ways that people interpret their 'roles' and the value placed on them. How people view themselves and in addition how they view others in relation to themselves. How do people regain validation and find ways of feeling empowered without invalidating others. When someone is clear on where they stand, they are less willing and able to be affected by a breech of boundaries. For what it's worth.