Neuroscientist recommends three-word retort to blunt insults as research highlights lasting harm of verbal abuse

A neuroscientist writing for BBC Science Focus says a short, pointed reply — “Calm down, grandma” — can be an effective comeback to mild insults by shifting perceived status and defusing the exchange.

Dr. Dean Burnett, author of Emotional Ignorance and a lecturer in neuroscience, argued that the emotional impact of an insult depends as much on the recipient as on the person delivering it. In his piece he described the three-word retort as a way of making the insulter appear older, unfashionable or out of touch, and therefore less authoritative in the exchange. He suggested the line can be particularly disarming when used against a younger, cocky aggressor – for example, a man in his 20s who clearly could not be a grandparent.

Burnett offered other brief responses that use the insulter’s own words to reverse the intended effect. One example he cited was replying to a put-down about a partner with the line, “Would you like me to explain it to you? With crayons?” He also described a tactic he called “co-constructing criticism,” in which the recipient accepts and then expands on the insult to deflate it — for instance, answering “You’re fat!” with “I should hope so, I’ve spent enough money to get this way.”

The common thread in these tactics, Burnett wrote, is denying the insulter raised status and retaining control of the narrative. He cautioned that their effectiveness depends on context, the nature of the insult and the relationship between the parties involved, and that they are not guaranteed to work in all situations.

Burnett linked his practical advice to neuroscientific findings suggesting that social rejection and criticism recruit neural circuits similar to those activated by physical pain. He said the old adage “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me” is misleading when set against evidence that verbal attacks can produce genuine psychological harm.

That perspective is supported by recent public-health research. A study led by Liverpool John Moores University and published in BMJ Open analysed data from more than 20,000 adults in England and Wales and found that exposure to verbal abuse in childhood was associated with long-term mental-health problems in adulthood, at levels directly comparable to those linked with physical abuse. The study’s lead author, Professor Mark Bellis, said the research indicates verbal abuse in childhood “may inflict mental health scars as deep and enduring as those caused by physical abuse.”

The BMJ Open study reported that people who experienced childhood taunts were more likely in later life to report feelings of disconnection, pessimism and poorer emotional wellbeing. The researchers said the findings challenge assumptions that verbal abuse is less harmful than physical forms of maltreatment and underline the need for greater attention to childhood emotional environments in public-health policy.

Burnett and the study authors both emphasise that while verbal tactics can sometimes blunt the sting of an insult, the broader scientific record shows words can have lasting effects. Burnett framed the suggested comebacks as tools to regain social control in a transient, interpersonal exchange rather than as remedies for deeper harm.

Experts caution that strategies effective in casual, peer-to-peer interactions may be inappropriate or unsafe in situations involving persistent bullying, harassment or abuse, where professional support and institutional interventions are more appropriate. The scientific literature distinguishes between brief, resolvable social conflicts and sustained patterns of verbal maltreatment that can require clinical or social-service responses.

Taken together, the commentary and research highlight two related points: quick, status-reversing responses can sometimes defuse isolated insults, but verbal aggression — especially in childhood — can produce measurable, long-term effects on mental health. Policymakers, clinicians and educators say both prevention of harmful speech and support for those affected remain public-health priorities.