Is it disingenuous to tell kids sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me?
Or, what other people think of you doesn’t matter?
As the article points out it can be damaging at any age. Maybe a better approach is to tell them, yes it can hurt, but here are some ways to process that and work on resilience.
Where I grew up no one would actually say the sticks and stones line unless they were intentionally being sarcastic and provoking people to bully them (i.e. trolling). It was still a useful phrase to pass around though
I understood the lesson to mean "Dont let bullies control you with words". As in, be wary of people trying to manipulate you with hurtful words. The point is to not give your bully information on how they are hurting you because they can leverage it against you
Of course words can hurt. the saying wouldnt exist if that wasnt true. We dont go around saying "sticks and stones can break my bones but giving me thoughtful gifts will never hurt me". There is an understanding the bully is trying to hurt with words, because words can hurt, and the response is meant to deny them the emotional reaction they are looking for from you
If you are not familiar with the mantra, Knives are physical like sticks and stones.
"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me"
Harm from knives is physical and objective. Words can only hurt to the degree you care about them. You could call me a nasty name right now, and it would not hurt my feelings because I am not invested in your opinion of me. I have an independent sense of self worth. Understanding that you can change the level that you care about the opinions of others is a basic human skill.
There are several things wrong with this line of thinking. The first error is that telling someone that words don't hurt doesn't automatically create an independent sense of self worth in someone. Instead it teaches people to not share pain caused by words. To some people, this has the appearance of working - namely it isn't brought up again, but it does nothing to solve the problem of the experience of pain people feel.
The second is an error in generalization that may very well apply to people who do have this skill, but has disastrous consequences for those that don't. The people who experience live this way would do well to understand the type of person they are giving such advice to before they assume that everyone experiences the world as they do.
As someone at the receiving end of advice like this. It doesn't help. What ends up ensuing follows a similar pattern to all patterns based on individuating ideologies - the person isn't doing it right, or didn't try hard enough. People learn to not express their feelings instead.
Lastly, making a distinction between objective and subjective pain is trying to carve out phenomenological categories that simply don't exist.
Sticks and stones is not a full instruction set, but an introduction to the concept and a reminder. It is not, and should not be considered "one simple trick" to deal with hurtful words. This doesn't mean that it is useless or detrimental.
It is a reminder that self-esteem should not be based on the opinions of others. More clearly needs to be done to instill baseline self-esteem. That doesn't mean it's not a helpful reminder of the concept when one encounters derogatory feedback.
It is like saying:
"When someone says something that makes you feel bad, remember the conversations we had about how just because someone says something, it doesn't mean it is true. People will say things to try to hurt you, but they are just being mean and it isn't true. It reflects on them as a person, not you as a person. However, if someone physically hurts you, this is different."
In my mind, "sticks & stones" is the same thing, but shorter and more memorable.
I'm getting the sense that this is a conversation between a neurotypical person and a neurodivergent person and that is the source of the disconnect between our understandings.
Can you explain more of what you mean? Are you talking about my example of talking to a child or implying that I am neurodivergent.
If the former, It is an interesting thought. In many ways children can be seen as very similar neurodivergent adults.
In some cases this is because they simply lack basic information adults take for granted. In others, they simply don't have the "software" to process it yet.
I see, that makes more sense than is probably the more charitable reading I should have taken.
I agree that my perspective isn't Universal and therefore doesn't apply to everyone, but I don't think that is a prerequisite for being good advice in the general sense.
The concept of understanding and preempting emotional responses is a fundamental Concept in cognitive behavioral therapy and typical emotional growth.
Typical individuals have the ability to modify their emotional response with training and practice . The idea is not to suppress an emotion but not have the reaction in the first place.
For example, anger management might teach someone not to feel so angry when they encounter traffic. Instead of entering a escalating feedback loop of anger, they might rationalize it as impersonal and continue their Drive without the unpleasant emotions.
It does not portray self respect. It says that if you feel hurt by words you are in the wrong. The phrase makes it harder to actually truthfully talk about whatever is going on.
It’s a way of mockingly refuting an insult on the playground without responding in kind or escalating to a physical fight. (Or as a private internal mantra, a way of keeping your chin up while refusing to engage a bully, ignoring their negative attention so they go away.)
Good luck as a 7-year-old trying to “truthfully talk about” the harm you feel when other kids call you mean names.
I was referring to adult discussing the situation with kid, not kids among themselves.
But also, I really dont think this phrase works as mocking refutation. First, it is not mocking at all. Second, unless kid is super good confident actor, it will be clear the kid is uncomfortable and hurt.
And third, why do you see passivity as preferable over "responding in kind" in case of verbal abuse? Kids who react passively get mocked again and again and again. How exactly respond greatly depends on situation (that is why truthful discussion is necessary), but kids who dont listen to "be passive and polite" advice get verbally abused less often.
the question for you making that statement is whether children usually understand that to be the point. Or whether there are more effective approaches without harmful misunderstandings
The purpose of the sticks and stones saying is to prevent disproportionate physical responses to verbal insults.
You are justified in needing to use violence to stop someone from attacking you with sticks and stones because those cannot be mentally shrugged off, but it is better to walk away from words being said to you, since you can mentally shrug them off.
One has to be careful here. Sometimes physical violence is the only effective answer to stop bullying.
People often underestimate how much constant mobbing can hurt. Ignore? It gets worse. Fight back verbally? Usually doesn't work, since verbal harassers are much more versed at insulting and hurting mentally. You just can't be so good as someone who practices insults and mockery day in day out.
What choice do you have? Move the battle to the playground where, even if you can't win, you at least may have a chance to cause some harm to the enemy.
Kick the bastard with the fist? In most of the cases it works[1]. If the bully is physically weaker, he won't bully your child again. If the bully is stronger, he kicks too, there's a fight, but still, next time bully will think about consequences of insulting again.
[1] of course, physical force only in a very limited way. Overuse of physical force to actually injure someone, or use weapons and tools, is of course not a way to go.
EDIT: Physical violence doesn't always work. Frequently is not even a good, let alone the best option. But still, there are situations when it can be an adequate response, and this option shouldn't be a priori dismissed.
My experience has been, there's effective strategies against bullying that work if you have a single bully. Physical violence is one of them, you do some damage to that single bully, and they'll think better of using you as their punching bag.
If you have a group of bullies, you're sunk. You can't fight everyone, they are going to maintain their "superiority" via unfair tactics if they can. You beat one of them in a fight, the rest are going to jump in and beat you down to maintain the status quo.
Going to administration is the best path. Document your complaints, establish a pattern of behavior. Find sympathetic adults and confide in them.
What's funny is, my experience has been that bullying is a phenomenon of smaller school size. Once I got to junior high, my grade school bullies all of a sudden just weren't interested anymore. Bullying in high school was almost unheard of. We had something like 2500 students in my high school.
I look at these teen dramas with high school bullies, and those schools look tiny, just a few hundred students. If anyone knows research into this area which explains the correlation, I'd love to read about it.
Like most clever sayings, there are parameters where it does not apply.
But for a children calling each other a mean name on the playground, or acute instances of verbal insult such as words exchange in a bar, the cost benefit analysis of the saying is accurate.
Repeated instances of bullying or communal insults and humiliation cross into the abuse realm, and are not addressed by the saying.
Which brings me to probably most misunderstood of Jesus teachings: "turning the other cheek". People usually interpret it as a call to pacifism - do not respond to violence with more violence. What people miss is that for Jesus contemporaries being slapped in the face hardly counted as violence (if it happens between two adult men it is really hard to cause any lasting damage this way). Instead, slap in the face would be considered an insult, and the meaning of "turn the other cheek" phrase is pretty similar to "stick and stones" saying - don't unnecessarily escalate from insult to violence.
I think it is disingenuous to tell kids that. Learning to disregard others’ opinions of you is a skill learned with time. The best way to teach that skill is to instill a sense of self worth and high self esteem in kids. Words very obviously do hurt kids, so to tell them that words don’t hurt is to disregard their feelings at best and call them a liar at worst. Understanding the complex web of emotions felt in response to stimuli is a central part of growing up and not something you can shortcut with platitudes.
The obvious intent is forward moving, not retrospective. Nothing can change the past hurt. However, you can control your future emotions. Sticks and stones is not a full instruction set, but an introduction to the concept.
If you tell a kid that words shouldn't hurt them, but words do hurt them, then what other conclusion can they come to other than that they're emotionally deficient? Kids trust their parents. If parents say the world works in a certain way, then kids will believe that. Kids can have trouble reconciling things when a their observations disagree with what a trusted parent has told them.
It's better to instill high self-esteem in a kid through positive reenforcement. When the kid is called stupid at school, the words don't hurt them because the kid knows they are, in fact, not stupid.
Like I said, it's not a full instruction set. It is a reminder that self-esteem should not be based on the opinions of others. More clearly needs to be done to instill self-esteem. That doesn't mean it's not a helpful reminder of the concept when one encounters derogatory feedback
You keep saying "it's a reminder not a full instruction set." But what is the difference between a reminder and an instruction set? You're not responding to the main issue, which is that this "reminder" is incongruous with how the kid feels.
Would you take the same concerns about telling a child:
"When someone says something that makes you feel bad, remember the conversations we about how just because someone says something, it doesn't mean it is true. People will say things to try to hurt you, but they are just being mean and it isn't true. It reflects on them as a person, not you as a person. However, if someone physically hurts you, this is different."
In my mind, "sticks & stones" is the same thing, but shorter and more memorable.
>what is the difference between a reminder and an instruction set?
Completeness.
Question: How to find the direction of magnetic field induced by a current.
Reminder: Use the right hand rule
Instruction: Detail on how to use the right hand rule and what it means.
Your longer explanation would be much more meaningful to a child. Using your analogy, telling a child to "use the right hand rule" before you've explained (and they've internalized) the relationship between current and a magnetic field will not be helpful.
There's a large difference between personal offence and genuine threat, and hence in optimal response. Please teach them that difference; we don't seem to be doing a good job at the moment.
It’s a mantra a child can use to express to others and help steel themselves in the face of a verbal assault. Is it actually harmful? I don’t know but it could be harmful to some and helpful to others. I remember a moment when during lunch at elementary school someone retired insulting my mom. My response was to just ignore it because this taunt changed nothing in the world. The moment that sticks for me though is when the adult lunch monitor asked me why I wasn’t defending my mother.
I think it IS disingenuous and also lie. What people tell about you and to you affects your experience and possibilities a lot.
The above phrase is told to bullied kids so that they shut up and so that adults don't have to deal with situation. Teaching the kid how to defend from bullies, how to avoid them or addressing bullies themselves is much harder. If the kid is not pickes on but kid complains for wrong reasons, then explaining the situation to the kid is also harder.
I agree. If someone is feeling a certain way bascially telling them "you shouldn't care" doesn't make sense. Emotions are powerful and difficult to control, especially for young people
Or, what other people think of you doesn’t matter?
As the article points out it can be damaging at any age. Maybe a better approach is to tell them, yes it can hurt, but here are some ways to process that and work on resilience.