Why silence is often the best response to a verbal attack

I think that the author of the article makes said it best when she said "Silence is always in your toolbox"

It's not the ONLY tool, but one of many. If used for the appropriate task, it gives the best result.

The challenge is not only in using silence, but using it in the correct context.

I've had a very similar situation with a family member. She went on a rant, attacking me for a perceived slight to her daughter. In a single breath, she told me I was malicious, a bitch, socially inept, mean, cruel, pretentious, etc....) I responded with silence. When she finally blurted "I know you read my message, do you honestly have nothing to say for yourself?" I said "No, particularly not to someone who attacks my character" She sent one final message, but couldn't continue because I didn't engage her.

I'm still trying to figure out how to resolve her anger with me. But until I do, silence is the way to not make it worse, or to cause her anger to spread to other family members (because they're prone to taking sides).

On the other hand, I have another family member who perceives silence as resent/anger. So if there's bad feelings, the best way to deal with it is to talk it out with her.

Silence is powerful. And with great power comes great responsibility

Miss_Leah wrote: I think that the author of the article makes said it best when she said "Silence is always in your toolbox"

It's not the ONLY tool, but one of many. If used for the appropriate task, it gives the best result.

The challenge is not only in using silence, but using it in the correct context.

I've had a very similar situation with a family member. She went on a rant, attacking me for a perceived slight to her daughter. In a single breath, she told me I was malicious, a bitch, socially inept, mean, cruel, pretentious, etc....) I responded with silence. When she finally blurted "I know you read my message, do you honestly have nothing to say for yourself?" I said "No, particularly not to someone who attacks my character" She sent one final message, but couldn't continue because I didn't engage her.

On the other hand, I have another family member who perceives silence as resent/anger. So if there's bad feelings, the best way to deal with it is to talk it out with her.

Silence is powerful. And with great power comes great responsibility

Silence is definitely not the best solution in these situations because silence is a form of bullying by isolation and dehumanisation.

Entropist wrote:
Silence is definitely not the best solution in these situations because silence is a form of bullying by isolation and dehumanisation.

So you think that engaging in dialogue - which due to high emotion, would undoubtedly create even further tension - is a better solution? No. That is not a situation where reasonable discussion could be achieved. Later, when an aggressive person had calmed, sure, but not during their tirade.

I agree that silence is often the best response to a verbal attack, but not always. As others have said, silence can also be a vicious retaliation. Knowing when to respond with silence and when to respond with words could mean the difference between a new enemy and a new best friend.

Miss_Leah wrote: So you think that engaging in dialogue - which due to high emotion, would undoubtedly create even further tension - is a better solution? No. That is not a situation where reasonable discussion could be achieved. Later, when an aggressive person had calmed, sure, but not during their tirade.

A loaded question is begged in the first sentence of this reply. Further tension cannot be said to be undoubtedly created, only when a retaliation is made to the verbal attack that is unjustified.

Dialogue is paramount to mediation, and to synthesis a solution. During a verbal attack, there is only good reason to make efforts to de-escalate. Similarly, there is only good reason to think and meditate on these means.

Entropist wrote: Dialogue is paramount to mediation, and to synthesis a solution. During a verbal attack, there is only good reason to make efforts to de-escalate. Similarly, there is only good reason to think and meditate on these means.

Have you ever tried to reason with someone who is blindingly angry? Or told someone who is upset to "calm down"? No matter what you say, or how good your intentions, trying to engage with then verbally will not help. Sometimes silence (and, if appropriate, soothing physical contact) is the only way to allow emotions to settle before trying to engage a person verbally. Then, when both parties' minds are not clouded by emotion, reasonable discussion can be attempted to solve the conflict.

Entropist wrote:
Silence is definitely not the best solution in these situations because silence is a form of bullying by isolation and dehumanisation.

EXACTLY what "situations" are you talking about?

she described two different situations, and suggested that silence was appropriate in one but not the other

you quoted both of those situations as if they were the same

and you made a statement that reads like an absolute truism that would be true even beyond the situations that were mentioned here when you said "silence is a form of bullying by isolation and dehumanisation"

is silence ALWAYS a form of bullying?
is silence ALWAYS dehumanizing?

can you think of no single instance where someone might choose to remain silent because they honestly believe that is the wisest course of action?

or did you mean that silence CAN BE form of bullying, such as in the type/s of situation/s that Miss_Leah shared with us?

Miss_Leah wrote: Have you ever tried to reason with someone who is blindingly angry? Or told someone who is upset to "calm down"? No matter what you say, or how good your intentions, trying to engage with then verbally will not help. Sometimes silence (and, if appropriate, soothing physical contact) is the only way to allow emotions to settle before trying to engage a person verbally. Then, when both parties' minds are not clouded by emotion, reasonable discussion can be attempted to solve the conflict.

Yes I have reasoned with people who are blindly angry very successfully, and obviously the issue at hand is some have mediation and de-escalation skills to deal with confrontation and conflict, while the skill sets are absent in others.

If the word "sometimes" has to be said, the context actually begs the question when there's no specific examples to demonstrate "some of those times". De-escalation is a focus on other angry party that requires acknowledgement of the grievance. However, silence is a means of demonstrating not knowing what to do other than be silent.

Entropist wrote: Yes I have reasoned with people who are blindly angry very successfully, and obviously the issue at hand is some have mediation and de-escalation skills to deal with confrontation and conflict, while the skill sets are absent in others.

If the word "sometimes" has to be said, the context actually begs the question when there's no specific examples to demonstrate "some of those times". De-escalation is a focus on other angry party that requires acknowledgement of the grievance. However, silence is a means of demonstrating not knowing what to do other than be silent.

You're assuming that all people have (or should have) the skillset needed to de-escalate an aggressive situation. While that is certainly ideal, it's not a reasonable expectation.

As Jedi, sure, we can strive to learn how to de-escalate verbally. But not everyone has that level of insight. I think the point of the article is to explain that silence is better than engaging if there's a risk to escalate. And for Average Joe, that's a real risk.

Silence is the middle road: not as damaging as responding with emotion, but perhaps not as good as having the skill to defuse.

Miss_Leah wrote: You're assuming that all people have (or should have) the skillset needed to de-escalate an aggressive situation. While that is certainly ideal, it's not a reasonable expectation.

Clearly false, and demonstrated below by:

Entropist wrote: Yes I have reasoned with people who are blindly angry very successfully, and obviously the issue at hand is some have mediation and de-escalation skills to deal with confrontation and conflict, while the skill sets are absent in others.

And further supported by your own words below:

Miss_Leah wrote: But not everyone has that level of insight. I think the point of the article is to explain that silence is better than engaging if there's a risk to escalate. And for Average Joe, that's a real risk.

Silence is the middle road: not as damaging as responding with emotion, but perhaps not as good as having the skill to defuse.

Silence is well known as a means of dehumanisation, which disproves silence could be a middle road. Rather silence is well known to give consent, so in an argument, silence gives consent to the raised grievances. Alternatively as mentioned, silence is an evasive tactic because there was no reason to found on logic to disprove raised grievances.

As a result, silence is definitely often not the best response to a verbal attack.

Entropist wrote: As a result, silence is definitely often not the best response to a verbal attack.

Remembering the thread is about situations where it might be (I think!?).

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Entropist wrote:
Silence is definitely not the best solution in these situations because silence is a form of bullying by isolation and dehumanisation.

EXACTLY what "situations" are you talking about?

she described two different situations, and suggested that silence was appropriate in one but not the other

you quoted both of those situations as if they were the same

and you made a statement that reads like an absolute truism that would be true even beyond the situations that were mentioned here when you said "silence is a form of bullying by isolation and dehumanisation"

is silence ALWAYS a form of bullying?
is silence ALWAYS dehumanizing?

can you think of no single instance where someone might choose to remain silent because they honestly believe that is the wisest course of action?

or did you mean that silence CAN BE form of bullying, such as in the type/s of situation/s that Miss_Leah shared with us?

this was dodged
evaded
avoided
youre response was no response at all
silence

are you trying to bully and dehumanize me?

also, im wondering if i still have to explain why its better to develop reasonable criteria for judging people, than it is to believe that youre just not going to judge them at all

Adder wrote: Remembering the thread is about situations where it might be (I think!?).

The post title claims silence is the best response to verbal attack, but my previous reply summarised and disproved reasons why silence is not the best response to verbal attack. The question is begged, if there are situations where silence is the best response to verbal attack, because if there was then knowing the reasons is not just good reason, but supports the claim.

Entropist wrote: The post title claims silence is the best response to verbal attack, but my previous reply summarised and disproved reasons why silence is not the best response to verbal attack. The question is begged, if there are situations where silence is the best response to verbal attack, because if there was then knowing the reasons is not just good reason, but supports the claim.

The title claims that silence is *often* the best response. Which means that there are situations when it isn't.

And I gave a personal situation where silence was the best response.

Why are you so focused on arguing that silence is never the answer?

Miss_Leah wrote: The title claims that silence is *often* the best response. Which means that there are situations when it isn't.

And I gave a personal situation where silence was the best response.

Why are you so focused on arguing that silence is never the answer?

Which post number did you think had reasons that proved why silence was the best response in the given example? I ask because there wasn't any justification or rationale why silence was the best response to the example, rather the example was begged. I need to know which post number to reply to in order to substitute this response with.

Entropist wrote: Which post number did you think had reasons that proved why silence was the best response in the given example? I ask because there wasn't any justification or rationale why silence was the best response to the example, rather the example was begged. I need to know which post number to reply to in order to substitute this response with.

You do realize that this is not a debate about logical fallacies, right?

I have had the experience where silence was the best course of action for that situation. It felt it was the best course of action at the time, and I still think, in hindsight, that it was the best course of action.

Now, you, in all your majestic wisdom, may not feel the same, and may have acted differently in my particular situation. But you don't know me, my relative, our family dynamic, or our values. Experience is subjective and cannot be fit into neat little logical boxes, no matter how desperately you want them to.

This discussion is about whether silence can be an appropriate tool when faced with verbal aggression. I think it is, and so do many others. You are free to disagree, but that doesn't negate the experiences of everyone else who agrees.

Miss_Leah wrote: You do realize that this is not a debate about logical fallacies, right?

I have had the experience where silence was the best course of action for that situation. It felt it was the best course of action at the time, and I still think, in hindsight, that it was the best course of action.

Now, you, in all your majestic wisdom, may not feel the same, and may have acted differently in my particular situation. But you don't know me, my relative, our family dynamic, or our values. Experience is subjective and cannot be fit into neat little logical boxes, no matter how desperately you want them to.

This discussion is about whether silence can be an appropriate tool when faced with verbal aggression. I think it is, and so do many others. You are free to disagree, but that doesn't negate the experiences of everyone else who agrees.

Correction has good reason to be noted here that to impose our personal opinion in no way justifies the status quo bias. Opinions are unjustified, and we are only entitled to what we can reason. So when there's unfounded reason in an opinion, the opinion is therefore unreasonable. Furthermore, presuming status quo bias demonstrates circular reasoning fallacy, so yes, logical fallacies are unfortunately common in undermining one's own argument.

To prove as an exercise, let the situations where silence does offer the best response speak for itself with reason, rather than presumption or opinion that the title of the thread is guilty of. Let's use specific examples and give reason because there's only merit in reason, and it's productive to brainstorm.

Entropist wrote: there's only merit in reason.

I think this is the crux of the matter: you are unwilling to see (or incapable of seeing) merit in personal or subjective experience/opinion.

I truly recommend that you try to open your mind to the fact that humans can be messy, emotional, illogical and imperfect, but still give great insight into life, the universe, and everything. You may see yourself as above the rest with your arsenal of reason and logic, but really, you're missing out on gaining a real understanding of human discourse and the reaping the benefits of it. Plus, it makes you seem like a pretentious jerk (which you may not *actually* be).

But if you'd rather be right than happy, then by all means, carry on as usual.

Entropist wrote: To prove as an exercise, let the situations where silence does offer the best response speak for itself with reason, rather than presumption or opinion that the title of the thread is guilty of. Let's use specific examples and give reason because there's only merit in reason, and it's productive to brainstorm.

she gave you an example in one of her earlier posts

to prove as an exercise, why dont you very carefully read all of her posts in this thread until you find the example that she gave, and then come back and ask her further questions to determine if silence was really was the best response?

Entropist wrote: Opinions are unjustified, and we are only entitled to what we can reason. So when there's unfounded reason in an opinion, the opinion is therefore unreasonable.

But opinions don't need to be justified, and everyone is entitled to them. That is why they are called opinions. What we are not entitled to is agreement from everyone else that our opinions are correct. You can believe that some opinions are unreasonable and you can try to "prove" them to be illogical, but others can still choose to consider that your opinion even if you know it to be fact.

If certain Jedi believe that silence may be the best response to a verbal attack based on their own experience, no amount of your (somewhat flawed) logical nitpicking will change that. The actual experiment resulted in data that suggests silence resulted in the desired outcome. That was their experience, whether logic supports the outcome or not.

The irony of this entire dialogue is that perhaps the best way to resolve any differences of opinion or to prove the reasonable and logical legitimacy of claims made here would be silence from everyone going forward. :whistle: