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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT