
The CLARA Method of De-Escalation - fanf2
https://calimac.dreamwidth.org/798770.html
======
vinceguidry
Occasionally when dealing with irrational people I have found it useful to
match their energy level. So if they're yelling, you start raising your voice
too. And you take whatever it is they're saying _seriously_. And if you have
an objection, you state that objection. Then you continue the argument until
the raised voices seem pointless and you both just calm down.

I had to learn this technique when I was living with friends that had
undiagnosed and untreated personality disorders. Remaining calm while they're
blowing up simply didn't work, and led them to think I was patronizing them.
So I'd start making the same points I was trying to make to them, only with a
raised voice. I would get completely invested in the argument, while remaining
in full control of myself. Soon they would calm down.

It usually wound up being a cathartic experience for them. They'd break down
after the whole thing was over, sometimes even cried. At first I thought I was
doing God's work, but eventually I realized that that sort of thing just
wasn't ever going to 'fix' them, and they needed treatment. For most of us,
major cathartic events happen once a month to once a year and provide
opportunities for permanent personality growth.

But when you have a personality disorder, no amount of catharsis will change
your behavior, because your brain isn't wired the same way.

~~~
pc86
One of my sales mentors shared this story with me, but I'm not sure where he
heard it originally. Basically what you said, if someone comes to you angry
about something, be angrier _but not at them_. In all but the most extreme
cases _they_ end up trying to calm _you_ down.

His example was a tailor of very high-end clothes, think tuxedos that cost as
much as most folks' cars, custom women's jackets for formal events, etc. A
customer comes in, angry that a button is sewed on with an incorrect thread
pattern. Something to fix if you're paying $10,000 for a jacket but not
exactly something reasonable to get angry about. The customer comes in, throws
the jacket on the counter and demands that it be fixed. Rather than trying to
de-escalate their anger, be absolutely outraged that one of your employees
would do this. Assure the customer that you _will_ find out who did something
so inconceivably stupid, and that you will most certainly fire them on the
spot. The expected response will generally be something like "well, it's not
_that_ big of a deal I mean if we just fix the threading..."

I'm sure there have been exceptions for other folks but every time I've used
this tactic (generally reserved for the most egregiously ridiculous displays
of anger) it's worked almost immediately.

~~~
topbarcolor
> (generally reserved for the most egregiously ridiculous displays of anger)

On the other end of that spectrum you have Monty Python's "The Restaurant
Sketch".

~~~
jwilk
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdzqTGmEcZE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdzqTGmEcZE)

------
wallflower
When I did phone technical support for a computer company, I received my share
of angry customer calls. In addition to keeping calm at all times in response
to angry statements, I would try to subliminally impart better customer
behavior on all calls. Since this was in the days of Windows 95, I would often
have to spell out DOS and Windows commands. If the command included an "I"
like "regedit" or "sysedit", I would specifically say "I as in intelligent"
for that letter. These were almost all fairly complicated issues like getting
a modem to work in the days of Config.sys and IRQ conflicts and "Plug and
Pray". Having a customer primed for intelligence couldn't hurt, as I was
leading the customer through regedit and sysedit editing over the phone (no
fancy remote control software existed).

~~~
HenryBemis
Oh those were the good old days!! IRQ conflicts, jumpers all around and
thinking which device I need less :)

------
ideonexus
This technique is extremely powerful in parenting. These are exactly the steps
you take to reason with a toddler. Before anything else you have to get them
out of their temper ta tantrum and articulating why they are angry. Then you
segwey from listening to dialog.

~~~
harshreality
But...

If you have to still do this with adults, it means the adults haven't learned
to regulate their emotions well enough to listen to a rational argument even
while they're upset. It's gotten so bad that some adults _never_ listen to
things they don't emotionally agree with, even when they're not initially
upset (hearing contrary facts _makes_ them upset). That is a _catastrophe_ for
rational thought and discourse.

If an adult or an adolescent routinely requires being engaged on an emotional
level before they'll listen to your rational argument, then once you do engage
them emotionally they will listen to _anything_ you say, whether it's logic or
pseudologic or rhetorical, semantically-null bullshit.

To elaborate a little bit...

Of course humans have all sorts of rational deficits. I never meant to imply
they could be turned into Vulcans.

Putting too much emphasis on emotionally positive engagement over rational
engagement leads to even worse emotional fragility and dependence than humans
normally have. That leads to a constant preoccupation with the emotional side
of interactions. And that indirectly atrophies their ability to evaluate
incoming communication rationally, because they're constantly thinking about
their own emotional state, or even worse the group emotional consensus of
whatever groups they primarily identify as. That emotional evaluation
interrupts rational evaluation.

I'm not advising people to eschew emotional engagement if they're in the
business of persuasion, or in the business of keeping peace, or if keeping
peace is a priority in a specific situation. I agree that that is sometimes
needed, but I think it needs to be more limited in its application, and not
the default approach for handling all disagreements. I don't think it works to
create _lasting_ rationally-based changes to concepts in someone's mind; when
emotional evaluation (mostly) replaces rational evaluation, anyone who makes
the listener feel good can get them to believe anything. All the valid
rational arguments you use today can be undone tomorrow by someone else who
has no rational arguments but can keep the listener engaged.

~~~
rtpg
I get what you're saying, though I've found that handling the emotional part
of a discussion first makes the "rational" stuff way easier.

One thing to keep in mind is that many people out there have mental disorders
(treated and untreated) that make it difficult on a chemical level to control
these things. For example, ADHD destroys inhibition (causing the classic
"speak before you think" behavior) on a deep level that's hard to work out
even after a lot of training.

The way I see it is that emotional appeals serve first to level the playing
field for this kind of state of mind, so that the rational discussion can
happen. The Jobsian Reality Distortion Field is a thing, but for the most part
I think it's about complementing the rational discussion.

~~~
phasetransition
Your note about ADHD completely resonates with a close friend who has adhd is
often open in ways that are to his detriment. Any chance you have a resource I
could read more on this as it relates to ADHD

------
hollander
This is basically Non Violent Communication (Marshall Rosenberg). First you
need to address their feelings (empathy), to make contact, then proceed to
reason and find a solution (strategy). Solution doesn't mean that the problem
is gone, but could mean that the situation is accepted.

------
crypt1d
I can totally relate to this from both perspectives (being pissed off at
someone, and trying to calm somebody pissed off) and seeing how both
approaches work/dont work.

Not too long ago I opened a dispute with Ryanair about what I thought was
quite obvious their own issue for which I should be refunded (I provided
screenshots and everything). I've reached out to their customer support
expecting to raise a simple issue that should result in a quick solution on
their end. I was shocked to see their support behaving in a very defensive and
completely dismissive way that resulted in a 2 hour long support case that
didn't really fix anything (they still have the same bug on their website, and
I was not refunded). These guys basically upgraded me from 'slightly annoyed'
to 'never again will I fly ryanair' kind of customer.

In another case, I've reached out to an online chocolate vendor to point out
an issue I had with their shipping carrier. I knew it was not directly the
vendor's fault, but this being their only shipping method I figured they
should be aware as it is a constant problem. These guys acknowledged my
frustrations immediately and even offered a symbolic gift card as a way of
apologizing for an issue that they can't really fix any time soon. I was
generally happy to see them even acknowledging my problem, and in turn
completely understood that this was out of their hands. I continue to be their
customer even though the shipping is still a pain.

I also have a local ad to help my father sell some stuff he makes by hand. As
its a hand made thing that he makes in large quantities, mistakes happen every
now and then and I get complaints. I try to be understanding of every issue
they raise and offer urgent refunds/replacements to anyone affected. Even
though people get pissed off they didnt get what they expected, everyone
responded much better if I used similar methods of de-escalation.

People are often (and understandably) very impulsive and rude when they feel
they are being wronged. We should try to be more understanding of these
emotions and work towards solving the issue instead of taking it so
personally.

~~~
madaxe_again
I’ve found, much to my chagrin, that anger seems to be a much better way to
achieve what you want than being pleasant and diplomatic.

Cases in point: ecommerce retailer offers next day shipping, but nothing
arrives. I chase. “Oh it’s out of stock”. “It said in stock on your site...
i’ll have X instead”. A week later, still nothing. “Oh it’s in the post”. A
week later, still nothing, still “in the post”. I ask for a refund. “Our
policy forbids it.”

So I find the email addresses of the company directors and send them a
blistering email full of threats and insults. I get a refund 20 minutes later.

Other case: company installs satellite dish on roof. Stops working very next
day. Ask them to come back. “Thursday.”. Three months on they’re still saying
“Thursday”, so I threaten court action in a blindingly rude phone call in
which I call him names and belittle him. He turns up an hour later and fixes
it, apologises.

When I ran my own business, I would always end up giving the shoutiest
nastiest motherfuckers the most attention, to the detriment of the people who
asked nicely - the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and most people will act to
avoid conflict. I certainly do. I’m just as guilty.

I _loathe_ this aspect of human nature, as it just generates unnecessary grief
for all parties involved.

A society that refuses the carrot is doomed to the rod.

~~~
colanderman
I've found that contacting directors and explaining _politely_ , but bluntly,
why you are upset at the service their _employees_ are providing, works
wonders. No need to be rude.

~~~
madaxe_again
I was polite and pleasant in my first half dozen emails - but after several
weeks of being ignored, the gloves came off and I got an immediate resolution.
Many business owners don’t give a tiny damn about their customers, but all
business owners care about legal embuggerances.

------
baldfat
I have friends in politics and I have even run for office (School Board 17
people ran for 5 positions and 4 were re-elections I got 6th :( but my friend
I was running with she got 5th :).

My job every election is to go to where the screamers and yellers are. For
some reason the election official leaves these people outside that will yell
and throw a tantrum if anyone even mentions a different opinion, which lowers
voter turnout. So I stand there for either 20 minutes or 2 hours until I can
get people to start dialoguing with me. It can be painful but I actually go
through these exact steps and until someone is felt heard and emotionally
calmed down and they will never care about a single word you say.

I hear how my friend has tens of thousands of dollars spent on his Man Cave in
his basement and made all these crooked deals that they have proof of. I stand
there and say have you been in his basement? He has a 20" TV a drum kit for 20
years ago and an ugly green carpet. I also want to say that he actually has
personal debt and why would he be in the hole if he was raking in the money
but ...

People just love to feel like they have superior knowledge to anyone they
disagree with. This is why debates never change eachother's mind, because we
hold on to certain "facts" when in all honesty they are opinion or speculation
at best.

~~~
ideonexus
I volunteered for my town Planning Commission last year and have to deal with
this all the time now. Residents are constantly ranting on social media
accusing us of moving town borders, down-zoning our enemies, holding secret
votes, and cutting deals. In reality, the only thing we did last year was
approve a swimming pool and do some research on parking.

It's extremely stressful for me as an introvert, but I quietly and patiently
explain concepts like due process and open-hearings when I have the
opportunity. I stress that everything we do is open to public scrutiny and
public comment. I explain that we can't engage on Facebook because it's not an
official public forum. I invite people to attend our meetings or read our
meeting minutes, but they never do.

Real government is incredibly boring and complicated. Its much more fun to
rant and rave about conspiracies on social media.

~~~
slfnflctd
Every time I've had to deal with the general public in any kind of scheduled
gathering for policy discussion, with or without specialists present, someone
inevitably says something (loudly and at length) which displays such an utter
lack of understanding of what the meeting is for and what it can accomplish
that it makes me scream inside. It makes me feel terrible for those who are
facilitating. I got so furious the last time it happened that I walked out and
left my favorite water bottle behind.

We should have great respect for anyone with even remotely good intentions who
is willing to plow through this mess of misguided humanity to get something
useful done. I'm pretty sure I can't do it, so if I want to see change happen
I have to support those who can.

------
MaxBarraclough
Direct link [PDF]
[https://www.nasco.coop/sites/default/files/srl/Bystander%20T...](https://www.nasco.coop/sites/default/files/srl/Bystander%20Training.pdf)

------
drsim
I'd be interested to see how this works in dealing with bad reviews. They
often feel disenfranchised/slighted/wronged and not a few, angry.

I've been pretty effective in dealing with bad reviews for our app and lots of
this method resonates with me.

As I'm systematizing the company a key area is putting in a process and tools
for the team to handle bad reviews rather than me. So far however, it seems
each situation and personality makes it difficult to pin down an effective
process.

~~~
b6
Regarding bad reviews, I feel for you. I am close to someone who is a good
person, but seems unable to stop himself from leaving scathing reviews. If
it's any consolation, I really believe that 1) trauma he experienced at a
young age contributes to this behavior and 2) if he knew the person who
produced the product and understood the difficulties they faced during its
production, he would not do it.

~~~
chrisseaton
I don't understand - do you think it's wrong to leave a critical review? Why
should be stop himself leaving them if the product was bad? And whatever
difficulties caused a product to be bad are irrelevant in a review of the
product. People just want to know if it's bad or not.

~~~
sn41
The tone matters, I think. Think of how teachers leave a critical review of an
assignment, versus the rants you see online. Both are often unpalatable, but
the scale of the first kind often seems justified.

Often one feels that _one aspect_ of the product underperformed, while the
others were on target, but the reviewers fly off the handle.

~~~
mnw21cam
Is the review for the benefit of the manufacturer in order to improve the
product, or for the benefit of prospective purchasers, to inform them of the
quality of the thing they are considering?

Whether a review should be constructive depends on which of these it is.

------
viach
Won't someone, who applies this technique often enough, need some
psychological help? So that we help customers here and ruin brains of these
who do listen and try to calm down all these angry people? I think there is an
analogy of conservation of energy law that could be applied to psychology...

------
amelius
What also gets me angry is if they leave no way for me to get back in contact
with the same support-person after chatting with them.

~~~
dannyw
"Can I have your name [again]?"

"Could you please transfer me to [name] as they were helping me out previously
with this issue?"

~~~
amelius
That's difficult to ask when you are kicked out of the session with a "have a
nice day, please rate this conversation". Come on, just give me a link to
click on or an email address.

~~~
the-dude
When I get connected I always take a note of the persons name, and ask for it
if it not given upfront.

------
stabbles
Coincidentally on the frontpage together with the rant of Linus Torvalds

~~~
arkades
I never got the impression that DE-escalation was Linus’ goal.

~~~
Joeboy
Isn't it? If you're the unchallenged dictator of a project, it seems to me
that saying "I will brook no more of this nonsense" is a better de-escalation
strategy than inviting further discussion.

Edit: I hope my downvoter understands the irony in their actions.

~~~
qznc
I rather believe Linus' goal is to change Intel. Some curse words got it
escalated to the Hacker News frontpage and that publicity helps. Why de-
escalate?

~~~
Joeboy
You're right, but I think he's actually accomplished two things - one is to
create useful publicity _outside_ the mailing list, and one is to minimize
drama _on_ the mailing list. I guess I assumed the latter of those two
meanings.

Also I interpreted it as a more general claim, not specifically about this
fairly unusual instance where nerd talk interacts with stuff that's in the
public consciousness.

------
z3t4
First of all, take a deep breath to take yourself out of "fight-mode". Then
when you got your brain back you can take these steps.

~~~
vletrmx
Easier said than done though, right?

------
mnw21cam
So is this why when you phone up your broadband provider to complain that the
service is down yet again, you get the incredibly infuriating nonsense about
how sorry they are and how much it means to them that your service isn't
working, before completely failing to do anything about it?

------
yorby
I would not get mad if Comcast didn't feel the need to transfer me 3-4 times
before addressing my issue...

------
elorant
Someone should send this to Intel management.

------
petercooper
For the record, the original, descriptive and not next-to-useless title: "How
to talk to angry people: the CLARA method of de-escalation".

HN guidelines say: _" please use the original title, unless it is misleading
or linkbait."_ Maybe it's time to add _" or if it's vague and non-
descriptive"_?

~~~
hammock
@dang please change it back, and many would prefer that you don't change
helpful, submitter-submitted titles to original article titles just because
the guidelines say so.

