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 at each
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 actual
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. ‘So I
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 be
less likely that someone will insult you in the cricket club. Or if you are 6 feet tall and well
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 learn 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
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 the
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 defend themselves 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.
I understand that this concept might feel a little advanced to some of the readers. However,
from now, notice people interacting in different social settings and how different they feel in
those settings. Notice levels of formality, informality, what they tolerate, what they excuse
and what they confront in different situations. You will begin to notice roles, and you will
begin to notice frames.