Chapter 4: How to Respond to an Insult

Part I: Insults, and the Unique Challenge They Pose

Insults are one of the hardest things around which to manoeuvre in a conversation,
for several reasons.

Firstly, insults are employed in a myriad of ways, with many different underlying
interests and motives provoking them. In order to effectively respond to an insult,
one must become adept at identifying the cause of the insult.
Secondly, insults involve an emotional flavour. It is almost always harder to respond
to an emotionally charged statement than to a purely logical one, because the
listener is at risk of being carried away by the speaker's charged emotion. This
risk is especially bad in the case of insults, because they involve negative emotional
flavour. The human mind clings much more strongly to negative emotions than to
positive ones. It is therefore much harder to separate oneself emotionally from an
insult than from a compliment. Case in point if someone calls you good-looking or
interesting, you will likely be affected positively by that compliment. But if someone
else calls you ugly or boring, it will drive the compliment right out of your mind,
because the negative emotion is so much more intense.
Thirdly, and most importantly, insults are a challenge to the sub-text, the underlying
fabric of a conversation. When talking, whether one-on-one or in a group, the
conversation exists on multiple levels. On the surface, the conversation exists only
via the words being said, and concerns itself only with the topic being discussed: the
literal text of the discussion. But beneath the surface, all conversations include a
sub-text, which governs the roles and power of each participant, and the way in
which they view each other.
All conversations involve more than one party, and each party subconsciously
acquires a role within that conversation. This role becomes a status symbol: the
rough measure of the respect they hold in that moment from the other people in
the discussion. These roles exist in all conversations, but they are especially
obvious in settings that require teamwork and cooperation. To see this in action,
think back to your school or college days and remember a time when you were
assigned a group project. Usually, in an academic group project, neither the
teacher nor the group itself will elect to appoint an official leader. However, in
almost all these instances, one person in the group assumes the role of an
unofficial leader. Even if the other members do not recognize this verbally, they
do so implicitly, through their actions. Some group members, less than interested
in the project, will exist on the periphery and try to do the minimum work possible:
these people are only too glad to do as they are told, because the leader's
instructions saves them the time and effort of thinking for themselves. Other group
members may have been just as interested in the project as the leader, but lacked
the natural leadership or charisma of the leader. These runner-ups typically act as
intermediary authority-lieutenants' to the leader-and will organize the less motivated
members to follow the leader's instructions and execute the project.
These roles may seem obvious, but only because we have all spent our entire lives
existing in situations like these, governed by the same unspoken rules of social
interaction. Consider the following:

- When a major disagreement occurs, the leader is expected to resolve it

- The 'lieutenants are expected to do more work than the less-motivated people,
even though there is no official difference in responsibilities between the two
- If the lieutenants disagree with the leader on an issue, but remain loyal to the
leader, they will address the issue with him or her privately first, instead of in front
of the group at large
- One member of the group. typically one of the less-motivated people, becomes
the group jester: i.e. the butt of all the jokes. The entire group will bond by using
humour directed at this person's expense. This humour is seen as harmless and
positive: but if the same joke was directed towards a different group member, no
one would laugh.

Who decided all of these rules? Where were they written?

In the subconscious of our minds

The explanation is a little longer and has everything to do with the need for
efficiency in communication in our environment of evolutionary adaptation (EEA).
We were supposed to move quickly against danger and the only strength our
bipedal ancestors had was numbers. Thus organisation of groups evolved as a
natural instinct in humans, and it plays out subconsciously. In this subconscious
play, we each acquire a role, and this role denotes a temporary status. This group
based status constitutes a major component of the sub-text of any given
conversation.

Insults, however, interrupt that status, and therefore they are so unavoidable
when they appear in conversation. So what do we do about them?

Part II: The Causes of Insults

The cause of insult is a guesswork you need to be involved in real-time.

To properly respond to an insult, you need to know the place it is coming from.
One can easily imagine Karan getting overly defensive when his friend Arjun
insults him as banter. The room gets silent and everyone notices that Karan
overreacted. In the subconscious status play, Karan lost points. Likewise, a lot
of us have been in places where someone in the room is being purposefully mean
to you with insults and you continue to remain silent or laugh it away. After a few
rounds of insults, everyone can notice that these insults are not friendly banter'
but come with an intent to hurt or put you down, but you continue to exist in that
space not knowing how to stand up for yourself. Figuring out the cause of insult is
the number one step to decoding a response.
1. Banter
Friends will engage in insults as banter. To understand why you need to ask
yourself What forms the basis of any friendship at all? What is the invisible thread
that ties me to my friend? You might be tempted to say 'memories' and 'tastes', but
you may have common memories and tastes with other people you do not think of
as friends. In fact, common memories and tastes happen to be a consequence of
friendship more than the prerequisite for friendship. The answer to what keeps a
group of people together in harmony is the culture of the group, and insults form a
significant part of that culture,
I used to know a guy many years ago in New Delhi. His name was Pranav, and
Pranav had a rabid taste for insults. For whatever reason, Pranav loved bantering
with insults. So naturally, the friends he made were people who were at least ok,
if not joyous, about his insults. Some times, his friends would complain about
Pranav's over-inclination to insults. Pranav would respond, rather unapologetically,
that is my way of showing love. If I can insult you, and you can insult me, and we
dont mind it then I know our relationship is so deep and pure that I know we wont
stop being friends for menial reasons.

Pranav was an extremist manifestation of this philosophy, but Pranav wasnt wrong.
People use insults as banter to subtly establish the depth of a relationship. If I can
insult you and you don't mind, we must definitely mean a lot to each other.'Dont be
like Pranav, but learn from his ways, I remember telling myself

2. To measure each other

When you encounter strangers in a somewhat competitive environment, you will

find that the competitors need to measure each other before they compete. It's both
a natural instinct and a good strategy. This is very obvious in the pre-fight press
conferences or the weighing ceremonies between boxers and MMA wrestlers. The
fighters, about to enter the ring in a few days, will scream personal insults a other
for the crowd's entertainment and to acquire a psychological edge. They will try and
figure out what makes their opponent lose their cool, ie what is my opponent insecure
or afraid about. Part of the fighters' trash talk is performative. They want to sell more
tickets, create a spectacle, add some drama, but the rest of it is an attempt to gain
information. This is more obvious in less public settings, like for example when you
are starting a new job at a new office. One of your co-workers is going to try and float
a rather public dig at you, and then try to measure how you stand up against it.
3. To actually put you down
A version of the following has happened to you

A friend of mine from many years ago came to me to talk about his college friends.
He said that there was a particular guy in his group who was always after his case.
He would crack a lot of jokes, and try to pass off a lot of insults as humour. I asked
my friend if any of what that guy said hurt him. My friend was unsure. He wanted
to say yes, but he had an explanation in his head which is very similar to what we
mentioned with Banter. My friend, Rajesh, seemed to think it was somehow his
problem that he could not stand up to the harmless banter that his college friend
Suyash threw at him. I asked him if he was sure that Suyash was only interested
in friendly banter? Rajesh remained silent. He didn't know. I asked him to run a test.
I told Rajesh to go back to college tomorrow, and hang out with his group of friends
normally. At a certain point, I told Rajesh, either before he has managed to 'banter
with you, or when you do not particularly feel angry or helpless, throw an
insult-as-banter on Suyash. Make sure, it is only banter and not angry revenge.
Be calm as you say it, as you might say it to me after a night of happy hanging out
Rajesh came back from college the next day and walked straight into my study.
'Sol did it he said I insulted him in a funny, friendly way' 'And did people laugh?'
I asked.yes they liked the joke I guess' 'And how did Suyash respond? Did he laugh
or play along?" "No Rajesh said. "He got pretty angry, it seemed. He doubled down
on his insults at me and they became more hurtful
"Thats not your friend, Rajesh' I said. "Insults, when used as banter between friends,
is a two way cooperation. If he is okay insulting you as a joke but not okay receiving
it similarly, he is not interested in keeping this friendly. He wants power over you. He
wants to put you down to feel his superiority over you. Never confuse pettiness for
friendship by adding the grace of your own forgiveness.
So what should I do?' Rajesh asked

Part III: Common Responses to Insults: Staying Silent or Laughing it Off

"Silence' or 'laughing it off' is the most stable response to an insult. That doesnt
mean its good. Well, to be fair, silence or laughter to an insult can produce either a
very good outcome or a very bad outcome, but rarely ever in the middle. What does
this mean? Let's try and unpack it.
Remaining silent to an insult or choosing to laugh along with it is good because
it does not show reactivity to the insult. In conversational terms, this is called frame
control. Silence and laughing along with the joke is a kind of frame control, a way of
saying 'This doesn't affect me'. However, most people do this out of fear. They don't
want to be picked on and they don't know how to respond, so they freeze and either
imitate everyone else in the room or try to hide. This is a powerless type of silence. It
does not invite respect, it invites pity, and most people who do this do not get away
with it. They no longer communicate 'This doesn't affect me', they communicate 'I am
okay with this'. I have met many friends in many social groups who are the most
picked on, sometimes even viciously, but choose to tolerate it with a smile, a chuckle
or silence. They hope that other people would understand and stop, but they do not
understand that on a subconscious level, they have acknowledged the role of the
bully

and their own as the bullied. The bully continues performing his role, uninterrupted
by morality in that moment. The bullied keeps pleading in silence. The vicious cycle
continues
The same is imaginable when it is not an established friend group but a new social
situation. A competitive colleague wants to measure you out, so he throws out a dig.
You cooperate by smiling sheepishly or laughing along. Now he knows he can pick on
you infinitely and this is how you will respond. Your roles have been established.
You might choose to eventually respond differently, but by then, odds are, you will
be carrying so much pent up emotion that no matter what you have to say people
will find it reactive and excessive. It's a lose-lose situation if you do not act quickly

Part IV: Drawing Boundaries

Have you ever wondered why you get picked on and not someone else, or how
easy it is for others to pick on someone but how difficult it is for that someone to
respond? It is partly because of the frame/role that you acquire in communication.
A lot of the role acquisition happens in body language and situation. If you are the
president of the cricket club, it'll less likely that someone will insult you in the cricket
club. Or if you are 6 feet ta built, people will think twice before insulting you. The rest
of it is in your behaviour, and people try to tease it out by producing reactions from
you, the same way a matador controls the bull with a red cloth.
So that is rule number 1, do not react. When presented with an insult, always take
an extra second to respond. Look them deep in the eye, with a calm sense of do
you know what you are doing? . Take that second to say without saying. Let them
feel it, and let the tension build in you. This tension can be new and make you
anxious or nervous or aroused in general. Hold it. Then go on to use the least
amount of force to draw a boundary. Say something. anything, that reminds them
what the boundary between you guys should be. If the insult was very obvious, just
look them in the eye and slowly say That is not okay my friend.' or a variant of the
same. Keep it small and crisp. Dont let the emotion come in the way

If the insult was more subtle, do the same except say something subtler.
'Did we wake up salty today? Are we feeling a little hurtful today?'. Notice the use
of the we-frame. The roles are no longer me vs you, but WE. Also notice how these
short sentences very subtly indicate that a line has been crossed, without saying so.
In fact, these are questions, asking the instigator to answer if they want to play this
game. It's a warning of types.

The general content of what you say can change and adapt to a situation. However,
the form should remain the same. You should remain emotionally unreactive. Your
eyes should meet theirs. Your body should be relaxed. Your tone should be
unaggressive and you should take your time saying it.

Part V: Persistence
At this point, you should either find that message was delivered successfully in
which case they would back off, or that it failed and they would come at you stronger.
You have to trust that you have given them a fair condition to your relationship.
This is my boundary and I'd be open to you only if you dont cross it. Very rarely
should you repeat it again.
 If they leam and adapt, you can now try and give your relationship a better flavour.
If they persist, you have a broad variety of options. Everything from verbal
confrontation to walking out is possible. However, the key part is that you maintain
your frame. You remain emotionally unaffected, calm and always take an extra
second to respond if you feel reactive.
It is important that you draw a boundary quickly in the relationship. Whenever
you find the first instance of violation, make sure the other party knows that they
have crossed a line. Do not expect them to understand from your silence, humans
are more prone to roles than rules, and silence is usually seen as cooperation,
unless used with strength.

Part VI: How the Strong use Silence or Laughter as a Tool

There is a more powerful way of choosing silence or laughter as a response.

The basics remain the same, but the conviction behind your calmness in that
moment needs to be unquestionable. You can get away with putting on a strong
front if you are going to respond verbally, but if you choose to remain silent or laugh
along, your frame needs to be rock solid

When presented with an insult, stand your ground. Look the person in the eye and
let your face say 'how fucking small. Then, gently take everyone's attention and guide
it to a new topic. This is hard to pull off, but very powerful if done right. The point is to
produce a strong interruption to his role by using just the weight of your presence.
Then, without having to say. convey that the insult wasn't worth our time.
When using laughter as a response. laugh only when you can actually laugh.
The only person who wins from a verbal war is the one who remains most
unaffected. So laugh when you can actually find it funny, and that can only happen
if you are truly unaffected. However, if you can't do the same thing as you do with
silence. Take a second challenge them with your eyes, and then laugh
performatively to signal that wasn't funny
Message delivered

Part VII: Respond to the Cause of insult

Remember to respond symmetrically to the other person's intent. You probably

don't want that boundary between friends. Probably, the whole point of your
friendship is not to have that many boundaries. Probably, your friends and their
banterful insults can be a diagnostic tool for introspection. Probably, your friends
help you discover who you are by pointing to your flaws while insisting that they
don't care about them.
The idea is that there is only a certain category of insults that deserve a response,
and you have to be active in trying to establish it. Non-reactivity should be a default.
Avoid being in the situations where you are being picked on. Avoid being around
people who like the weakest version of you. Walk out of these situations if you must.
However, if you must face this kind of behaviour in the pursuit of your life, try
using a strong frame of silence and establish boundaries. If that doesn't work,
I have a few pro tips. These must be exercised liberally before one expects
to get a grip on these tactics.

Part VIII: How to Tactfully Respond to an Insult: A Pros Guide

What you want to tell the other person in these kinds of situations is 'shut up.'
However, saying 'shut up' to say 'shut up' is too literal. It invites conflict, and the
first visibly reactive person always loses the round. You dont want to be that, but
you want to make sure a 'shut up' is communicated. These are the snap back
moments we love watching on TV, and they are generally made out of the
following tactics (non exhaustive).

1. Misinterpretation

Misinterpretation is one of the most commonly found ingredients in the response

to an insult. There is a very interesting example of this phenomenon from a Green
Room conversation between Bo Burnham and a few other comics. At one point in
conversation, Bo, the youngest of them all, is telling the lot about his comedic
inspirations. Bo mentions a Dutch absurdist Hans Teeuwen, who would often
perform with a black sock on his hand. Clearly Hans is a ventriloquist. When Bo
mentions the sock and ventriloquy, a senior comic responds with 'See, I already
do not like him'. The attack is on the sock and the ventriloquy, and it is intended to
shake Bo's frame. The senior comic has not just challenged Bo, who is a very
young comic at this point, but also Bo's early inspiration. You can even see Bo
let out a yeah' in agreement before he recomposes himself and responds with
some of the best display of the misinterpretation tactic. Here is a rough transcript
from that moment

Bo: 'He's a Dutch absurdist and one of the things that he does is that he brings
out a sock puppet, which is a black sock..'
Senior Comic: "See, I already do not like him"
The Audience erupts in laughter
Bo: 'Alright, alright in a resigned fashion, 'it was a white sock'.

immediately, the sentiment turns, and the insult is deflected back.

What exactly happened? The essential things to notice here are the following

a. The use of minimum force- Bo used one sentence only, and said it almost in
a resigned fashion, not charging his words with the emotion of vengeance

b. The insult was left unacknowledged- Notice how Bo did not try to defend
Hans or himself. He just let the insult hang, as if to say it is not even a strong enough
insult.
 c. Misinterpretation- Bo purposely misinterpreted the subject of the insult to be
not the use of a sock or ventriloquy but the colour of the sock-black or white, implying
racial preferences on the part of the senior comic. So by misinterpreting the protein
of the insult, Bo flipped the onus on to the insulter to defendthemselves against racism.
This is the general thesis about misinterpretation. You take the subject matter
of the insult and consciously twist it in a way that reflects badly on the one who
threw that insult at you.
2. Flipping the script
Flipping the script is an extension of misinterpretation. All you have to
do when presented with an insult is to open your mouth and say
'Are you saying.....? and twist it in a way that suits you best.
One of the most common transformations of the insult is that into a compliment.
Take a few very simple illustration

Friend 1: 'You aren't good enough to do this'

Friend 2: "Are you saying I am good enough to do a lot of other things but not this?"
Friend 1: 'You are annoying
Friend 2: 'Are you saying you think of me so often that it has begun to annoy you?
Other times you can also flip the script back at them
Friend 1: 'You are such an idiot
Friend 2: "Are you saying you are an expert on idiots? An expert idiot?'

You don't necessarily have to stick to the 'Are you saying...' model,
even though it is helpful

Friend 1: 'You can't handle this

Friend 2 (very slowly, almost as if confused): 'And you know that because you
are the expert on tough things?
The process is the same-take the subject matter of the insult
(good enough/annoying idiot) and mould it into something favourable towards you.
In the Misinterpreting tactic, the purpose was to mould the subject matter so
the insult is deflected back in a new way. In the Flipping the Script tactic, the
purpose is to mould the subject matter so the insult loses its potency

3. Raising the stakes

Raising the stakes is a tactic that comes from the 'Yes, and __technique of
improv comedy. The idea is that the tension of an insult or a joke is not resolved
until someone disagrees, so when a joke is made at your expense you always
have the ability to accept the insult and raise the stakes. Take the following
illustrations
Friend 1: 'How can you eat all of this?
Friend 2: i can also eat everything at your home, so you dont complain this much
Friend 1: 'You cannot kick this ball for shit"
Friend 2: "Maybe, but I can kick your butt'
Friend 1: 'Do you always behave like this in public?'
Friend 2: yes, particularly on the weekends'

The purpose of raising the stakes is to admit the insult with an exaggeration (eat all your food),
a transformation (ball-> butt) or an absurd variation(weekends). The response communicates
how trivial the insult was to you, because you did not even mind taking it one or many steps further.

However, these are all objects of wit. These tactics need precision and timing to be executed
properly, and therefore they flow naturally only after a lot of practice. The key condition for all
of this to work is emotional non-reactivity and a rock solid control of your frame.

Part IX: A Note on Frame Control:

I know we have used the term "frame control and frame' quite a few times in this chapter.
This note is a brief explanation of what frame or frame control means. Earlier in this
chapter we discussed how people acquire roles in their social environments. These
roles change the way people look at and interact with the world at that moment. The
way people perceive the world and their reality in a particular role is their frame. If
your role as an employee is to bully a boss, your frame is going to be submissive,
compliant, and fearful. In that moment, when the boss is screaming at you, you forget
that you are you, a person with whatever definition of self-respect and dignity, you play
a version of you, interlaced with this role.
Frame control generally means to hold the frame of your own ownership without getting
reactive. It is to present yourself as such that your version of reality is unmistakably taken
into account, that you are not reduced to a role, that you remain you, whatever that might
mean. Let's go back to the boss and employee example. In this case, as an employee, frame
control would mean letting your boss finish and saying something like 'Sir, I appreciate the
feedback. I'd really feel a lot more encouraged if you said it more calmly."

Ground held? Check. Emotionally unreactive? Check.

That is what makes up frame control. To not get swept into the emotional charge of someone
else's utterance, and then be able to offer your version of reality where required.