ILNews

DTCI: Perception and psychology shape interactions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

DTCI-Tyra-Kevin.jpgMy friend, colleague, sometime-adversary and fellow DTCI board member, Phil Kalamaros, recently wrote a thought-provoking column regarding civility (Indiana Lawyer, May 8, 2013). As I understood Phil’s point, as much as “civility” is a worthy goal, the more important goal is for all of us to avoid the kinds of egregious behaviors that may provoke an “uncivil” response.

I’d like to take Phil’s column a step further and consider how perception and psychology shape interactions in general, and interactions among adverse lawyers in particular. An op-ed piece in the New York Times by Harvard psychology professor Daniel Gilbert, “He Who Cast the First Stone Probably Didn’t” (nytimes.com, July 24, 2006), is very enlightening in this regard.

Gilbert explained two principles of human interaction leading to conflict. First, people tend to focus on the consequences of another person’s negative behavior, but when they themselves behave badly, they focus only on their reasons for behaving that way. That is “[f]irst, because our senses point outward, we can observe other people’s actions, but not our own. Second, because mental life is a private affair, we can observe our own thoughts but not the thoughts of others.”

As a result, it is human nature for a person to disregard why the other person engaged in certain behavior, and only consider the negative effect of that behavior. Meanwhile, that same person will focus more on why he engaged in certain behavior (typically along the lines of “Well, he started it!”) more than the effect his behavior will have on others.

Gilbert described a study in which volunteers played the roles of world leaders debating whether to initiate a nuclear strike. When later shown transcripts of his own statements, the participant naturally remembered what had led him to say them, but when shown transcripts of the other person’s statements, the participant naturally remembered how he himself responded to them.

Gilbert’s second principle was that the retaliating person tends to escalate the retaliation while believing the retaliation is proportionate to the provocation.

A study demonstrating this second principle hooked up pairs of volunteers to a machine that allowed each of them to exert pressure on the other volunteer’s fingers. The researcher began by exerting pressure on the first volunteer’s finger, then asked the first volunteer to exert the same amount of pressure on the second volunteer. The researcher then asked the second volunteer to exert on the first volunteer’s finger the same amount of pressure he had just experienced.

Although each volunteer made a good-faith effort to apply equal pressure, the pressure each volunteer exerted was consistently 40 percent greater than the pressure the volunteer had just experienced. Gilbert described this as “a neurological quirk that causes the pain we receive to seem more painful than the pain we produce, so we usually give more pain than we have received.”

He concludes that “[t]his leads to the escalation of mutual harm, to the illusion that others are solely responsible for it and to the belief that our actions are justifiable responses to theirs.”

So how can we apply these lessons to how we interact with others, and how we might live up to our obligation to be civil lawyers?

Under the professor’s analysis, we have to admit that civility is a matter of swimming upstream against human nature. It requires an understanding of our own natures as well as that of others. Simply resolving to be “civil” is not enough if we do not recognize these “neurological quirks.”

I therefore suggest that whenever any of us encounters behavior by an opponent we find upsetting and even offensive, we should attempt to do two things that perhaps do not come naturally.

First, take a minute to try to understand why your opponent engaged in this behavior. Was there some provocation or some other explanation (whether it truly justifies the behavior) that puts the behavior in a more reasonable perspective, and therefore perhaps less offensive? Certainly, the end result of your analysis may be that there is no justification at all, and your opponent is simply a jerk. But you may be surprised at the number of instances in which the behavior does not seem so bad after you engaged in this exercise.

Second, take another minute to consider the effect and proportionality of your response to your opponent’s behavior, and indeed whether you should respond at all. Just as you may still conclude from the first analysis that your opponent’s behavior was that of an inexcusable jerk, it is also possible you may conclude in this analysis that your opponent’s behavior was so outrageous that it requires a pointed response, especially if your opponent’s behavior prejudices your case. But, again, you may be surprised at the number of instances in which you consciously temper your response and thereby advance the cause of civility.•

__________

Kevin C. Tyra is a director of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana and the principal of The Tyra Law Firm P.C. in Indianapolis. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT