If you have evidence that the teacher(s) are being demeaning, abusive, or disrespectful to the students, discuss that with the school principal. Other than that, your concern is with the behaviors exhibited by your two children. Remember, bad behaviors are an attempt to solve a problem for which the person doesn’t possess the requisite skills. So the specific issue is less important than the children’s need to learn functional problem-solving skills and exhibit behaviors that give them a positive outcome. Your role-modeling will be key. Here are a few comments.

Stop asking your children “why.” It is just an invitation for them to give you an excuse for their behavior (and it will only be their brain’s opinion anyway, because that’s all any brain has). There is no excuse for bad behavior. Discussing excuses just detracts from the issue at hand, which is how to exhibit acceptable behaviors next time. That is the children’s job and responsibility: to exhibit good behaviors. No excuses.

Adults teach children how to treat them. If they are arguing with the teacher(s) and being disrespectful, it is highly likely they are doing the same with you. Arguing and disrespect are usually attempts to take the spotlight off the child and turn it back on the adult through blaming. This only works if the adult picks up the blame responsibility, gets side-tracked from the real issues, and allows the bad behaviors to continue. Figure out what problem-solving skills your children (and/or you) need to develop in order to exhibit good behaviors. Then start role modeling those skills and expect the same from your children. What do you as a parent exhibit? Role model respect and no arguing.

For example, if the child says, “I forgot my homework because the teacher had a bad day,” your response might be: “Everyone has a bad day from time to time. Homework is your responsibility. Finish it now.” Then you turn around and walk away. Engaging in further conversation about how bad the teacher’s day was, how unfair life is, how you don’t understand the child (or whatever) is unhelpful and puts the “power of delaying” in the hands of the child. 

You may be familiar with an old saying: “If I had a dollar for every time _______.” Fill in the blank. Unless you are exhibiting behaviors on purpose to get attention, make yourself stick out, or violate common norms of decency, you might just want to let it go. It’s only their brain’s opinion.

If you feel compelled to say something, be sure your thoughts and self-talk are positive so you don’t spew out negative electromagnetic energy and compound the situation.

I like words that have been attributed to Dr. Kareem F. Samhouri:  If weird means I’m uniquely me—and there’s no one else in the world like me—then I’m super weird. He goes on to say that the word “weird” simply means that you have permission to act like yourself, think like yourself, move like yourself, eat like yourself, and be yourself.

Every brain on the planet is different and unique. In a sense, every brain is “weird.” Enjoy it!

I understand what it feels like for a colleague to continually be texting or taking calls while you are trying to have a meeting—much less while eating lunch when, at least theoretically, one is supposed to be having a break from calls to give the brain and body a brief rest. And it is distracting to holding a cogent conversation when the other person (hopefully not you, too) has their phone sitting beside their plate and continually looks at it to check messages even if there is no phone call.

I read an article recently entitled “Phubbing—The Modern way to Kill Your Relationship.” Phubbing, as you may know, is the label for electronic snubbing. As I read the article, my brain thought that much of what the author wrote could apply to workplace communication and encounters, as well. You might want to read it yourself, and perhaps recommend it to your colleagues. (www.spring.org.uk/2015/10/phubbing-the-modern-way-to-kill-your-relationship.php).

When I am in a meeting or eating with colleagues or friends, I make it a practice to let voice mail on my mobile phone take messages. If I am expecting a specific phone call that it is important for me to deal with immediately, I tell the others in advance that I may have to take one call. Otherwise, I concentrate on the people I am with in the present moment. After all, before mobile phones the caller had to wait to speak with me until I was back in the office. (I do realize that some people who grew up with mobile phones may never have experienced that phenomenon, however). Make no mistake, I like my mobile phone. However, I like the people I have chosen to be with in the present moment even more.

When colleagues and I were working with young people who were in Youth Authority for misbehaving, it quickly became clear that behavioral outcomes were uncannily similar for two groups of kids. One group came from lassez faire environments with little functional guidance and healthy role-modeling, and that contained dysfunctionality in the form of addictive behaviors, either poverty or extreme affluence, and/or abuse. The other group were the produce of very rigid (often rigidly religious) home environments with a plethora of rules and/or extreme patriarchal-styles of parenting and leadership, where they were micromanaged and kept so busy that there was little time for play. Typically, the behaviors exhibited by both groups were very similar and one could rarely tell who was who and which was which without reading their case histories.

Genuine friendships require time to stay connected, to communicate and chat with each other, to eat together, and affirm and care about each other. Individuals who do not commit to that may not know what a genuine friendship looks like or may be interested only in a superficial relationship or make contact only when they want something from you. It would appear that you are not a priority for them. It matters less what they say and more about how they behave. If you have a disagreement or say something the other person doesn’t like, they can leave or disconnect immediately. They “move on” putting no effort into figuring out how to resolve what they didn’t like—because the relationship is not that important to them. These brains tend to be very superficial, moving from friendship to friendship, relationship to relationship, coming around only when they want something and never coming to understand the depth of love that a true friendship can achieve. You cannot change them. Maya Angelou said, “Never make someone a priority when all you are to them is an infrequent option.”

I suppose that would depend on your definition of the term shortsighted. One definition is nearsighted or myopic or blind as a bat. Another is lacking foresight. Under the theory that “a brain convinced against its will is of the same opinion still,” my goal is not to convince another brain of something but rather to challenge that brain to think.

I am crystal clear that no one knows everything and it would be arrogant to suppose one did or to act as if one did. When asked a question, my modus operandi is to use one or more of the following:

• Share information from research with which I am familiar.
• Tell the questioner if I know of no research that bears on the question
• State that this is out of my area of study
• Provide my brain’s opinion, if other research may shed light on the question.

Once I’ve done one of the above, I move on to another question. I have no agenda for others to take my opinion as their own and I refuse to argue. Arguing, especially if one is trying to convince another person of something, tends to create angst and tension and can suppress immune system function. That is not my goal.

When I was asked previously the reason that I do not argue or try to convince another person against their will, this was my response: “Perhaps a true test of humility is that when you have been asked for your opinion and have given it as honestly as possible, you are indifferent to whether it is taken or not, and you never persist in trying to convince the questioner otherwise.” My brain’s opinion is that to do otherwise would represent low levels of emotional intelligence.

When something goes wrong it is often human nature to assume that the other individual had an “ulterior motive.” This may be true in some cases. Individuals have agreed to participate in order to “do harm” or “override another’s preferences” or “to get their own way.” Many times, however, these differences of opinion have to do with brain function. People do “hear” and “perceive” information against the backdrop of their own past experiences and personal preferences. To be the devil’s advocate, her brain may have been excited about her new house and energized with the thought of working on a July 4th celebration. If she even really absorbed your comment about the park venue, it may not have been high in her working memory.

You need to make a decision here about what is the best long-term solution. Ask yourself:

1. When you asked for her help, were you really clear about where you wanted the event to be held? She may not have even “heard” that detail or failed to realize that the venue was important to you. Ask her what she heard and the benefits she perceives of holding the celebration in a home versus a partk?

2. How important is the venue? Will there be children present who would do much better with a park playground? If not, what would be the down side to holding it at her home?

3. Is this a friendship you value and want to maintain? Friendships often involve compromise. “Thanks, but no thanks¾I’ll do it on my own,” may result in a fractured relationship that may or may not be easily repaired. If it is really important for her to show off her new home is that a problem for you and, if so, how is it a problem?

4. What have you learned from this experience that can help you avoid a similar situation in the future?

Nice try but no cigar. I do not know the content of your discussion or in what way your colleague thought your brain was “excessively biased” so I cannot comment on that.The brain does appear to come with a “built-in bias” related to issues of safety, however. Some believe that this is the fastest decision a brain ever makes, especially when it encounters someone or something or a situation for the first time.

If it is a person, the brain evaluates: “Is this person like me? If not, what are the differences and am I SAFE?”

If it is a thing, the brain evaluates: “Have I ever seen this something before and am I SAFE?”

If it is a situation, the brain evaluates: “Does this situation appear to be safe or unsafe for me?”

This type of healthy brain discrimination can help keep you safe.

Studies estimate that 2/3 of the population has an IQ under the Bell Curve (115 – 85 (with a mean of 100)).

Anyone higher or lower than that can have a harder time communicating and being accepted and rewarded. If the person ALSO has a brain lead outside of rewarded expectations for their gender it can be brutal and the person (if IQ is higher than the norm) must continually translate to a lower IQ’s ability to absorb information. A failure to understand this is one reason individuals with a very high IQs run into difficulty when communicating with others.

Generally speaking when there is great disparity between IQs, a high IQ can translate for a lower IQ; a lower IQ likely would have great difficulty translating up to a higher IQ. For discussion purposes, let’s say a person’s IQ falls in the 97th percentile. That means in a group of 100 people there are only a few (half a dozen or so) individuals with whom it will be easy to communicate without having to restate or try to explain yourself (unless it is a very basic social-niceties type of conversation). That isn’t either good or bad, it just is. You typically give up something to get something.

It can be exhausting to continually be monitoring how what you are trying to communicate is getting through and, if not, how you can redefine it or restate it in a way that is more likely to be understood. That’s one reason it can be so necessary to have a few close friends who have a similar IQ and a similar brain lead—you tend to “feel smart” when you don’t have to translate. Some individuals turn to drugs to try to “feel smart” because they have felt like a misfit, or dumb, or at least not fitting in because of some of these factors, or they use drugs to sort of “zone out” from the effort of trying to be understood. 

Bias that is inappropriately managed can quickly turn into prejudice, racism, and bigotry, to name just a few—all of which can become deeply ingrained in the brain. They can impact all interactions, running in the background much like apps can run in the background on a mobile phone.

Unless small children have learned to dislike other children based on gender or race or skin color, they tend to play quite well together and don’t seem to particularly register “differences.” However, children observe their parents and other adults and can pick up prejudice, bigotry, and racism quite quickly—along with bullying behaviors and violence. There may also be some impact from biological ancestors transmitted through cellular memory (Epigenetics). This can include prejudice related not just to race, gender, or skin color, but also to politics, education, religion, and you name it.

Fortunately, as human beings have the opportunity to become acquainted with others who are different from them, they can “learn” to avoid blanket prejudice based on externals alone. After all, the brain is the same color and blood looks red regardless of gender or skin color.

The simplistic answer is, yes, since everything begins and ends in the brain. A more helpful response, perhaps, is much more complex. Some people have a great need to feel powerful and important. Depending on what else is going on in their lives, they may achieve this temporary and fleeting sense of power primarily when they say “no.”

The “terrible twos” so called, describe a period of time when children are beginning the process of individuation. If they live in an environment in which they have few choices, the fastest way to begin feeling autonomous is by saying “no,” because there’s so little opportunity to make choices.

I see this in adults, as well. Unfortunately, sometimes among females in positions of power. This can be exacerbated when the females have felt powerless, comparatively speaking, much of their lives. When they say “yes” to another’s ideas, they perceive that as being powerless (e.g., just going along with someone else’s choice). In the other hand, when they say “no,” this gives them a temporarily perception of being in charge and feeling more powerful. Unfortunately, they often cut off their nose to spite their face because sometimes they say “no” when it would be so much more functional and effective to say “yes.”

Sometimes I’ve been able to work around this stance by proposing the opposite of what I believe should be done. The response is typically “no.” So then we explore opposite possibilities, which is what I had hoped for all along. This has to be done very carefully because you want to avoid becoming a manipulator of sorts. 

Remember, the typical human brain has two hemispheres—a right and a left. And the pre-frontal cortex is designed to make choices. Many caregivers fall off one side of life’s proverbial highway but failing to give children choices; others tip over the other side by allowing for too many choices. Current wisdom is to deal with only two options at a time. If you try to juggle three or more, the brain will “discard” everything but two and concentrate on those two. I try to work options two at a time until I come to my most-preferred two, and then select from those. 

I am very willing to share the new information and my brain’s opinion is that it is well worth embracing. Actually, I’ll just write a short article and include it in this issue of SynapSez®. (See http://arlenetaylor.org/images/pdfs/Self-talk-WhiteBearsandWillpower(002).pdf)