[ESTP] - How Do You Handle Passive Aggression? | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

[ESTP] How Do You Handle Passive Aggression?

What is your preferred method?

  • Stomp it out immediately

    Votes: 15 62.5%
  • Wait for an opportunity to confront later

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • Cry

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • Starve the passive aggressor of attention

    Votes: 8 33.3%

  • Total voters
    24
I kind of disagree, in my experience, I think that women are more afraid of violence that they fear rocking the boat.

But culture probably factors in here too.
Yes I can see that. That might be more likely.

I do think the issue might be gendered, though, in that we're socialised to respond differently based upon the different responsibilities that are expected of us.
 
Yes I can see that. That might be more likely.

I do think the issue might be gendered, though, in that we're socialised to respond differently based upon the different responsibilities that are expected of us.
100%.
 
Of course, in these cultures, the risk is that if you allow yourself to be victimised, then you'll also expose the people under your protection to the same victimisation, be it mother, siblings, friends or whatever. The proximity of violence always tends to produce honour cultures, I think, as we see most notably in 'the hood' today.
Working-class neighborhoods, Saudi Arabia... basically the same thing.

Mohammed Bin Salman is really just Saudi Arabia's biggest dope boy.
 
Hmm, I don't think passive aggression has ever made me feel like a "victim."
 
Are you criticising my approach with an ad hominem? lol

Tell me why it doesn't work.
That first sentence got my hackles up... Nice

I agree that reinforcing and advancing "the social contract" as you discussed is important, but I also think that people shouldn't be confronted for simply being in a mood. It's only when people's moods lead to time-wasting, that I'll object. I don't think most people are aware enough to ascribe intentionality/morality to their passive agression, moreover, I principally see it as an economic problem, not as a moral one. Time is valuable, so I'd rather spend it dealing with a problem, or on something productive. Calling out passive agression is entirely about using time well.
 
I don't think most people are aware enough to ascribe intentionality/morality to their passive agression, moreover, I principally see it as an economic problem, not as a moral one. Time is valuable, so I'd rather spend it dealing with a problem, or on something productive. Calling out passive agression is entirely about using time well.

It might be about using time well for you, but I think that for a lot of people it's perceived as psychologically damaging. Hence, a moral issue.

Agree that sometimes people can just be "in a mood", and it's also possible to perceive imaginary passive aggression. But it can also very much be intentional. I mean, isn't gaslighting an extreme form of passive aggression?
 
Hmm, I don't think passive aggression has ever made me feel like a "victim."
But nonetheless it's an approach to aggression which provides you with the insulation of plausible deniability, and so tends to be used by people who feel otherwise powerless or who wouldn't be able to manage a direct confrontation.

I don't think that using 'passive aggression' necessarily means that you are 'powerless' in this way, just that it's often the only recourse available to those who are.
 
Let's hear it.
My reaction to passive aggressiveness really depends on context. If it's really passive arsehole-ness then ignore, or confront. I think if it's behaviour directed at me personally then it's important to understand why. Just because that sort of behaviour is underhand doesn't put me automatically in the right, and there may well be something in my own behaviour I need to attend to. Getting anything like that out in the open so if possible we can attempt to remove the cause and resolve the situation in an adult way is important to me.

Passive aggressive behaviour isn't always morally bad though. Faced with overwhelming might of opposition, a passive aggressive response may be all that's open to anyone wanting to resist. It may be the only way to respond to a powerful bully, or to resist an oppressive government - for example it was the only way open to many to resist under Nazi Germany or the worst excesses of the Soviet Union, particularly in their labour camps.
 
That first sentence got my hackles up... Nice

I agree that reinforcing and advancing "the social contract" as you discussed is important, but I also think that people shouldn't be confronted for simply being in a mood. It's only when people's moods lead to time-wasting, that I'll object. I don't think most people are aware enough to ascribe intentionality/morality to their passive agression, moreover, I principally see it as an economic problem, not as a moral one. Time is valuable, so I'd rather spend it dealing with a problem, or on something productive. Calling out passive agression is entirely about using time well.
I think if you're disconnected from the 'goal' (of say, having passive aggression reduce generally) then yes it would be a waste of time, or an expense of energy that you don't want to spare.

However, I was just explaining the potential utility of an 'always confront' approach if, as a person, you don't like passive aggression in general and it's important to you in any way.
 
I do not like the tension it creates so I will either just leave and distance myself from someone if I don't need to be around them or if I have to interact with them, I'll confront them to bring it to a head and defuse it. I'm really sensitive to the emotions in an atmosphere and it can be really overwhelming if someone is having strong feelings but not expressing them. I hate walking on eggshells with people.
 
Last edited: