Why silence is often the best response to a verbal attack

I think that the author of the article makes said it best when she said "Silence is always in your toolbox"

It's not the ONLY tool, but one of many. If used for the appropriate task, it gives the best result.

The challenge is not only in using silence, but using it in the correct context.

I've had a very similar situation with a family member. She went on a rant, attacking me for a perceived slight to her daughter. In a single breath, she told me I was malicious, a bitch, socially inept, mean, cruel, pretentious, etc....) I responded with silence. When she finally blurted "I know you read my message, do you honestly have nothing to say for yourself?" I said "No, particularly not to someone who attacks my character" She sent one final message, but couldn't continue because I didn't engage her.

I'm still trying to figure out how to resolve her anger with me. But until I do, silence is the way to not make it worse, or to cause her anger to spread to other family members (because they're prone to taking sides).

On the other hand, I have another family member who perceives silence as resent/anger. So if there's bad feelings, the best way to deal with it is to talk it out with her.

Silence is powerful. And with great power comes great responsibility

Miss_Leah wrote: I think that the author of the article makes said it best when she said "Silence is always in your toolbox"

It's not the ONLY tool, but one of many. If used for the appropriate task, it gives the best result.

The challenge is not only in using silence, but using it in the correct context.

I've had a very similar situation with a family member. She went on a rant, attacking me for a perceived slight to her daughter. In a single breath, she told me I was malicious, a bitch, socially inept, mean, cruel, pretentious, etc....) I responded with silence. When she finally blurted "I know you read my message, do you honestly have nothing to say for yourself?" I said "No, particularly not to someone who attacks my character" She sent one final message, but couldn't continue because I didn't engage her.

On the other hand, I have another family member who perceives silence as resent/anger. So if there's bad feelings, the best way to deal with it is to talk it out with her.

Silence is powerful. And with great power comes great responsibility

Silence is definitely not the best solution in these situations because silence is a form of bullying by isolation and dehumanisation.

Entropist wrote:
Silence is definitely not the best solution in these situations because silence is a form of bullying by isolation and dehumanisation.

So you think that engaging in dialogue - which due to high emotion, would undoubtedly create even further tension - is a better solution? No. That is not a situation where reasonable discussion could be achieved. Later, when an aggressive person had calmed, sure, but not during their tirade.

I agree that silence is often the best response to a verbal attack, but not always. As others have said, silence can also be a vicious retaliation. Knowing when to respond with silence and when to respond with words could mean the difference between a new enemy and a new best friend.

Miss_Leah wrote: So you think that engaging in dialogue - which due to high emotion, would undoubtedly create even further tension - is a better solution? No. That is not a situation where reasonable discussion could be achieved. Later, when an aggressive person had calmed, sure, but not during their tirade.

A loaded question is begged in the first sentence of this reply. Further tension cannot be said to be undoubtedly created, only when a retaliation is made to the verbal attack that is unjustified.

Dialogue is paramount to mediation, and to synthesis a solution. During a verbal attack, there is only good reason to make efforts to de-escalate. Similarly, there is only good reason to think and meditate on these means.

Entropist wrote: Dialogue is paramount to mediation, and to synthesis a solution. During a verbal attack, there is only good reason to make efforts to de-escalate. Similarly, there is only good reason to think and meditate on these means.

Have you ever tried to reason with someone who is blindingly angry? Or told someone who is upset to "calm down"? No matter what you say, or how good your intentions, trying to engage with then verbally will not help. Sometimes silence (and, if appropriate, soothing physical contact) is the only way to allow emotions to settle before trying to engage a person verbally. Then, when both parties' minds are not clouded by emotion, reasonable discussion can be attempted to solve the conflict.

Entropist wrote:
Silence is definitely not the best solution in these situations because silence is a form of bullying by isolation and dehumanisation.

EXACTLY what "situations" are you talking about?

she described two different situations, and suggested that silence was appropriate in one but not the other

you quoted both of those situations as if they were the same

and you made a statement that reads like an absolute truism that would be true even beyond the situations that were mentioned here when you said "silence is a form of bullying by isolation and dehumanisation"

is silence ALWAYS a form of bullying?
is silence ALWAYS dehumanizing?

can you think of no single instance where someone might choose to remain silent because they honestly believe that is the wisest course of action?

or did you mean that silence CAN BE form of bullying, such as in the type/s of situation/s that Miss_Leah shared with us?

Miss_Leah wrote: Have you ever tried to reason with someone who is blindingly angry? Or told someone who is upset to "calm down"? No matter what you say, or how good your intentions, trying to engage with then verbally will not help. Sometimes silence (and, if appropriate, soothing physical contact) is the only way to allow emotions to settle before trying to engage a person verbally. Then, when both parties' minds are not clouded by emotion, reasonable discussion can be attempted to solve the conflict.

Yes I have reasoned with people who are blindly angry very successfully, and obviously the issue at hand is some have mediation and de-escalation skills to deal with confrontation and conflict, while the skill sets are absent in others.

If the word "sometimes" has to be said, the context actually begs the question when there's no specific examples to demonstrate "some of those times". De-escalation is a focus on other angry party that requires acknowledgement of the grievance. However, silence is a means of demonstrating not knowing what to do other than be silent.

Entropist wrote: Yes I have reasoned with people who are blindly angry very successfully, and obviously the issue at hand is some have mediation and de-escalation skills to deal with confrontation and conflict, while the skill sets are absent in others.

If the word "sometimes" has to be said, the context actually begs the question when there's no specific examples to demonstrate "some of those times". De-escalation is a focus on other angry party that requires acknowledgement of the grievance. However, silence is a means of demonstrating not knowing what to do other than be silent.

You're assuming that all people have (or should have) the skillset needed to de-escalate an aggressive situation. While that is certainly ideal, it's not a reasonable expectation.

As Jedi, sure, we can strive to learn how to de-escalate verbally. But not everyone has that level of insight. I think the point of the article is to explain that silence is better than engaging if there's a risk to escalate. And for Average Joe, that's a real risk.

Silence is the middle road: not as damaging as responding with emotion, but perhaps not as good as having the skill to defuse.

Miss_Leah wrote: You're assuming that all people have (or should have) the skillset needed to de-escalate an aggressive situation. While that is certainly ideal, it's not a reasonable expectation.

Clearly false, and demonstrated below by:

Entropist wrote: Yes I have reasoned with people who are blindly angry very successfully, and obviously the issue at hand is some have mediation and de-escalation skills to deal with confrontation and conflict, while the skill sets are absent in others.

And further supported by your own words below:

Miss_Leah wrote: But not everyone has that level of insight. I think the point of the article is to explain that silence is better than engaging if there's a risk to escalate. And for Average Joe, that's a real risk.

Silence is the middle road: not as damaging as responding with emotion, but perhaps not as good as having the skill to defuse.

Silence is well known as a means of dehumanisation, which disproves silence could be a middle road. Rather silence is well known to give consent, so in an argument, silence gives consent to the raised grievances. Alternatively as mentioned, silence is an evasive tactic because there was no reason to found on logic to disprove raised grievances.

As a result, silence is definitely often not the best response to a verbal attack.