It is not merely a matter of slight irritation or resistance to change; it is an innate, in-bred rebelliousness which is part of the unique character of the American personhood. People don’t like being lectured to.
Whether emanating from the rugged individualism of pioneers and the manifest destiny taught and ingrained within the historicity of our short background, exploding with a sense of independence refuting prior declarations of conforming wisdom imparted; or, perhaps it is merely the collective DNA of those who would flee from oppression or abandon the security and safety of known normative constraints for greater opportunity and a new start in a strange and alien land; regardless of the origin and foundation, the tone and tonality of a lecture is something we avoid with fastidious and painstaking means of refuting, resisting and expressing aggressive signs of intolerant repugnance.
Thus, when we become critical of that youthful movement during the Sixties, of defying convention and refusing conscription; was it merely a variegated expression of that inborn character trait? And in modernity, with so-called millennials who shed the proper dress code and act indifferently to the accumulation of wealth, power and material comforts — can it be explained as merely the continuum of a genetic trait we fail to recognize?
Often, however, it is the “how” in a methodology inherent within a lecture, which makes all of the difference. The substantive content of the “what” that is being said, is likely not the culprit, but rather, the voice inflection which delivers the message. Perhaps that is even why real-time classroom lectures are becoming a rarity of sorts, because the cumulative decline reflects that very repugnance of having a finger wagged at, but merely in a format more impersonal and confined.
For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are attempting to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, it behooves the preparer of the application to note the tone and tonality of a Federal Disability Retirement application, as well as (obviously) the substantive content of the packet to be submitted.
Keep in mind the sense of assertiveness running like a quiet thread throughout; for, as the American character refuses to merely stand still while being lectured at, an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, must be aware of that genetic disposition to refuse to listen to a narrative which fails to posit an “objective” presentation, as opposed to an irritating voice which “demands”; and it would be a shame if the Federal or Postal Disability Retirement application were to be denied at any stage of the administrative and bureaucratic process, merely because of the repugnance in being lectured to, as opposed to the validity and viability of the substance underlying.
Robert R. McGill, Esquire