649
Drain irritation and feel superior: passive aggression in social networks
When anger and irritation can be expressed directly, it is unpleasant, but just. If someone says "you fool" - with all the negative messages, we still clearly understand that this is - aggression, and we can take a decision in the style of fight or flight, or respond in kind, or simply refuse to enter the conflict, leaving on his conscience (not the fact that the present).
However, most educated people keep direct aggression banned. Feeling as of this is not going away, and therefore we have the comments of 500 passive aggression under the prickly posts.
Why passive aggression is much harder? Firstly, because it is manipulative, and in fact does not give moral right answer direct aggression without paying for it is your sense of self educated man. Sometimes she is so beautiful veiled that it is often difficult to catch, but leaves a toxic aftertaste. This manipulation, which aims - to merge irritation and feel superior
. Verbal violence - is any expression, aimed at, to force us feel worse. Passive verbal violence - it is the same expression that is better or worse disguised as something else. But the disguise does not change the fact, and that is why we often can not find what's the catch, but feel that we were attacked.
Conflict develops according to the scenario - a veiled humiliation - "achotakova" - "She flogged herself". That is, first the aggressor carries a hidden attack, then tries to prove that he did not attack ( "I'm just expressing an opinion"), and then shifts the blame for the offense on the victim back.
How do I know?
How often masked passive verbal aggression:
1. Direct said the denial by the depreciation: "Bollocks," "Brad write," "Oh, nonsense," "garbage"
. 2. The indirect denial of what has been said by the false finding sources: "References to the studio," "Where did you get this," "Who told you that." The aggressor assumes the right to stand in a position to report the teacher and demand explanations.
3. found to have ulterior motives: "It is not clear what's to show off," "could, and not to show off," "Well, buy yourself a medal." The aggressor believes that since he had caught something in your baseness, and it is necessary to discover the world.
4. implicated in the alleged lie, "And you-what I expect," "we know"
. 5. The imposition of guilt, "and the children of refugees, meanwhile, are starving"
. 6. Direct the recommendation how to live, "Better", "We need to be simpler," "Hammer," "Yes, rejoice better", "be kind", "man you need", and anything with the word "must" in the beginning.
7. Indirect recommendation how to live with reference to certain truth, "normal people", "but the real woman"
. 8. False sympathy: "I feel sorry for you," "poor children"
. 9. hysteria, "and then wonder", "what to expect", "here and grow"
. 10. An imposed unflattering comparisons (white coat): "What is this, but in", "but I never"
. 11. Depreciation: "Well, so what," "and who needs it", "and why did you write it", "it is because we all know", "me too"
12. Indirect condemnation:. "Like you"
13. uninvited diagnosis reasons "and all because," "not surprising, because you did"
. 14. Gram-Nazis. Giving public comments about the faults of others as unethical as to publicly comment on the stain tie.
15. Just projection, often have no relation to you and what was said. They differ in that they have not even no logical connection with what you said, but are aggressive, and I say to you, putting you in the position of justification.
16. Talk about the author in the third person in the literal comments: ". These are always", "she's just"
17. Denial of reaction after passive aggression, "like she just want to stand out, but I will not argue, world friendship gum"
. 18.Trolling - I will not write, it is so clear that it can already be considered a direct attack
. Why are all these passes I consider to passive aggression? Because they are:
a) trying to impersonate the care, attention, discussion, meanwhile, being hidden emotional drain aggression.
b) seek to humiliate the recipient and to elevate the speaker
c) made no request.
A characteristic feature is the absence of the "I" in most (because the author does not try to be the aggressor), statements are as of a person "all" impersonal.
How to respond?
I react like this:
1. Indicates that consider aggression happens in self-reported. "I hate when you", "I do not like being".
2. If the classic round aggression continues in the style of "achotakova", "I'm just expressing an opinion", "where you see" - I can explain that hurt, what kind of structure of the phrase, turnover, unsolicited advice I disliked. Sometimes people are willing to hear, I am personally ready to hear when someone offended.
3. If the aggression continues to turn in the style of "we must not be so sensitive," "it's your problem" - I answer that my business to identify, hear your case or not. And I get out of the conversation. Sometimes I leave earlier. Sometimes it does not even designate, when the overall level of the interlocutor suggests that this is the standard style of communication.
HOW Unlike sincerely pity interest WORRY?
The man who wants to sincerely help but expressed in an aggressive manner, most likely you will hear and or apologize, or reformulate. If he went to the second or third round of aggression "have the right to an opinion," "there is nothing to be offended," then see. Point higher.
How not to be the aggressor?
It helps me stop and think about your goals. If my goal - to express the emotions of anger and resentment, then try to stop yourself, and reach more important goals
. If my goal is still to "help" for a better world, so to speak, it forces to stop and think, how to write so that you have heard. My goal is to change from expressing their emotions to achieve dialogue in which you will be heard. We have to say several times in the head response before groped desired, sincere words. And then comes something like:
"I understand your position, but my experience does not allow to agree with her." (Right to disagree)
"I do not want to climb to the tips, but in this situation helped me so-and-so, if you want, I can tell" (to give the right to receive advice or not)
"I read one book, it said" (without the board read)
"I can not compare, we have different situation, but in my case ..." (direct rejection of the comparison, personal experience)
And if there are no forces to contain righteous anger, or at least admit it:
"I know that I sound judgmental, but to me it is terrible" (I have a message, a recognition of aggression).
And finally. None of us is an angel, and I periodically yazvlyu and merge. And, knowing this, I start with yourself. Ability to speak of disagreement respectfully and directly - this is an opportunity-filled, interesting debate, which, in the format of "who is right" would never have happened. And it - wealth.
However, most educated people keep direct aggression banned. Feeling as of this is not going away, and therefore we have the comments of 500 passive aggression under the prickly posts.
Why passive aggression is much harder? Firstly, because it is manipulative, and in fact does not give moral right answer direct aggression without paying for it is your sense of self educated man. Sometimes she is so beautiful veiled that it is often difficult to catch, but leaves a toxic aftertaste. This manipulation, which aims - to merge irritation and feel superior
. Verbal violence - is any expression, aimed at, to force us feel worse. Passive verbal violence - it is the same expression that is better or worse disguised as something else. But the disguise does not change the fact, and that is why we often can not find what's the catch, but feel that we were attacked.
Conflict develops according to the scenario - a veiled humiliation - "achotakova" - "She flogged herself". That is, first the aggressor carries a hidden attack, then tries to prove that he did not attack ( "I'm just expressing an opinion"), and then shifts the blame for the offense on the victim back.
How do I know?
How often masked passive verbal aggression:
1. Direct said the denial by the depreciation: "Bollocks," "Brad write," "Oh, nonsense," "garbage"
. 2. The indirect denial of what has been said by the false finding sources: "References to the studio," "Where did you get this," "Who told you that." The aggressor assumes the right to stand in a position to report the teacher and demand explanations.
3. found to have ulterior motives: "It is not clear what's to show off," "could, and not to show off," "Well, buy yourself a medal." The aggressor believes that since he had caught something in your baseness, and it is necessary to discover the world.
4. implicated in the alleged lie, "And you-what I expect," "we know"
. 5. The imposition of guilt, "and the children of refugees, meanwhile, are starving"
. 6. Direct the recommendation how to live, "Better", "We need to be simpler," "Hammer," "Yes, rejoice better", "be kind", "man you need", and anything with the word "must" in the beginning.
7. Indirect recommendation how to live with reference to certain truth, "normal people", "but the real woman"
. 8. False sympathy: "I feel sorry for you," "poor children"
. 9. hysteria, "and then wonder", "what to expect", "here and grow"
. 10. An imposed unflattering comparisons (white coat): "What is this, but in", "but I never"
. 11. Depreciation: "Well, so what," "and who needs it", "and why did you write it", "it is because we all know", "me too"
12. Indirect condemnation:. "Like you"
13. uninvited diagnosis reasons "and all because," "not surprising, because you did"
. 14. Gram-Nazis. Giving public comments about the faults of others as unethical as to publicly comment on the stain tie.
15. Just projection, often have no relation to you and what was said. They differ in that they have not even no logical connection with what you said, but are aggressive, and I say to you, putting you in the position of justification.
16. Talk about the author in the third person in the literal comments: ". These are always", "she's just"
17. Denial of reaction after passive aggression, "like she just want to stand out, but I will not argue, world friendship gum"
. 18.Trolling - I will not write, it is so clear that it can already be considered a direct attack
. Why are all these passes I consider to passive aggression? Because they are:
a) trying to impersonate the care, attention, discussion, meanwhile, being hidden emotional drain aggression.
b) seek to humiliate the recipient and to elevate the speaker
c) made no request.
A characteristic feature is the absence of the "I" in most (because the author does not try to be the aggressor), statements are as of a person "all" impersonal.
How to respond?
I react like this:
1. Indicates that consider aggression happens in self-reported. "I hate when you", "I do not like being".
2. If the classic round aggression continues in the style of "achotakova", "I'm just expressing an opinion", "where you see" - I can explain that hurt, what kind of structure of the phrase, turnover, unsolicited advice I disliked. Sometimes people are willing to hear, I am personally ready to hear when someone offended.
3. If the aggression continues to turn in the style of "we must not be so sensitive," "it's your problem" - I answer that my business to identify, hear your case or not. And I get out of the conversation. Sometimes I leave earlier. Sometimes it does not even designate, when the overall level of the interlocutor suggests that this is the standard style of communication.
HOW Unlike sincerely pity interest WORRY?
The man who wants to sincerely help but expressed in an aggressive manner, most likely you will hear and or apologize, or reformulate. If he went to the second or third round of aggression "have the right to an opinion," "there is nothing to be offended," then see. Point higher.
How not to be the aggressor?
It helps me stop and think about your goals. If my goal - to express the emotions of anger and resentment, then try to stop yourself, and reach more important goals
. If my goal is still to "help" for a better world, so to speak, it forces to stop and think, how to write so that you have heard. My goal is to change from expressing their emotions to achieve dialogue in which you will be heard. We have to say several times in the head response before groped desired, sincere words. And then comes something like:
"I understand your position, but my experience does not allow to agree with her." (Right to disagree)
"I do not want to climb to the tips, but in this situation helped me so-and-so, if you want, I can tell" (to give the right to receive advice or not)
"I read one book, it said" (without the board read)
"I can not compare, we have different situation, but in my case ..." (direct rejection of the comparison, personal experience)
And if there are no forces to contain righteous anger, or at least admit it:
"I know that I sound judgmental, but to me it is terrible" (I have a message, a recognition of aggression).
And finally. None of us is an angel, and I periodically yazvlyu and merge. And, knowing this, I start with yourself. Ability to speak of disagreement respectfully and directly - this is an opportunity-filled, interesting debate, which, in the format of "who is right" would never have happened. And it - wealth.
