WELCOME
Given: Inherent in passive-aggression is a desire to withold understanding, for example, preventing closure of a challenging discussion. Aside from employing "maybe's", oppositional speculation and other avoidance techniques, if they reason at all, the passive-aggressive employs a limited number of techniques to avoid resolution of challenging communication.
Observation: Passive aggressives use fifteen (or so) predictable techniques to prevent closure of a discussion and evade reaching an understanding.
Hypothesis: Involve a suspected or confirmed passive-aggressive in an intellectually challenging analytical or merely stressful discussion and they will exhibit many of fifteen (or more) predictable techniques for avoiding resolution of a discussion.Test: Involve a passive aggressive in a challenging discussion and they will exhibit techniques, the purpose of which are identifiable as the witholding of understanding and avoiding resolution of the discussion. 
The Roman numbered paragraphs below (in italics) are commentary. The paragraphs beginning "A" and
"P-A" are based on an actual dialogue between two friends -- a Passive-Aggressive and an Assertive.
THE FRIEND - A Conversation With a Passive-Aggressive
(I) [A case in point: A minor point was agreed upon between an Assertive and a P-A. The Assertive quoted the P-A's agreement and wrote down what was agreed upon. "Why do you have to be so 'legalistic' " the P-A asked. "You don't have to write it down!" "Time will tell," said the Assertive. Later, in the same discussion, the P-A denied agreeing to the minor point. The Assertive brought out the paper saying, "You did agree to this minor point, and you see why I had to write it down." To which the P-A defiantly replied, "I AM NOT GOING TO UNDERSTAND YOU IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE FAIR." Thus, one of Passive-Aggression's primary characteristics is The Witholding of Understanding.]
P-A: I think the best way to teach is by example.
(II) [P-A's always resort to cliche´s or truisms. Most action taken by P-A's, if they take any at all, is passive and socially/widely accepted. This conforms to their habit of deriving values from outside themselves and their belief in "morality by consensus". They choose values, 'stances' and opinions that are "approved of" because these are easy and easy to defend, i.e., risk-free. Sources differ on the cause of this avoidance, be it fear of rejection or lack of self esteem, being out of touch with their feelings, fear of anger, having a limited sense of self/identity or their belief that they have created nothing of value in their lives. In the context of withholding understanding in a 'discussion', distrust is the root cause of a P-A's behavior; distrust of their ability to reason, distrust of dialectic. Even the vaguest forms of confrontation are avoided -- logic and reason -- because they are the confrontation of one premise with another. Accountability is another form of confrontation P-A's avoid. It is ideal if, despite their actions they can maintain "plausible deniability". The end result of this attitude is that while the P-A appears to be disingenuous if not dishonest, they think of it as 'merely' being untrusting -- their right to 'privacy.' P-A's do not appreciate that Trust is directly proportionate to how vulnerable we make ourselves, sincerely and on a personal level, i.e, how much privacy we give up. At the very least, the P-A dishonors the purpose and intent of communication, which is understanding.
P-A: I think the best way to teach is by example.
(II) [P-A's always resort to cliche´s or truisms. Most action taken by P-A's, if they take any at all, is passive and socially/widely accepted. This conforms to their habit of deriving values from outside themselves and their belief in "morality by consensus". They choose values, 'stances' and opinions that are "approved of" because these are easy and easy to defend, i.e., risk-free. Sources differ on the cause of this avoidance, be it fear of rejection or lack of self esteem, being out of touch with their feelings, fear of anger, having a limited sense of self/identity or their belief that they have created nothing of value in their lives. In the context of withholding understanding in a 'discussion', distrust is the root cause of a P-A's behavior; distrust of their ability to reason, distrust of dialectic. Even the vaguest forms of confrontation are avoided -- logic and reason -- because they are the confrontation of one premise with another. Accountability is another form of confrontation P-A's avoid. It is ideal if, despite their actions they can maintain "plausible deniability". The end result of this attitude is that while the P-A appears to be disingenuous if not dishonest, they think of it as 'merely' being untrusting -- their right to 'privacy.' P-A's do not appreciate that Trust is directly proportionate to how vulnerable we make ourselves, sincerely and on a personal level, i.e, how much privacy we give up. At the very least, the P-A dishonors the purpose and intent of communication, which is understanding.
A: Yes, the best way to teach behavior (form) may be to teach by example, but what about learning something about a behavior -- the purpose (function) of a behavior? What about academic learning?
(III) [In line with their need for approval, P-A's always value and emphasize FORM over FUNCTION or over SUBSTANCE in all matters. That is, Form as in "good form", behavior, appearances or even Art. There is great value in Art and Good Form, manners etc. One could say that Function and Substance help us live. Art and Beauty give us a reason to live. But the one should not preclude the other. Art can be meaningful, however a life lived for beauty or without meaning is the essence of superficiality.]
P-A: When we speak about the "purpose of a behavior" we're speaking of judging a person's intent. Its not good to be judgmental. Judge not lest ye be judged. Asserting a point of view which someone is resisting is confrontational. Pressing a point of view in a confrontational manner is not justified if you want the other person to learn only what you learned, if you are just exercising your ego, or if you hurt someone's feelings.
(IV) [Many P-A's believe Matthew 7:1 "Judge not..." prohibits people from voicing moral opinion. The word "judge" as used in Matthew 7:1 is widely understood by translators to mean "condemn". P-A's equate being non-judgmental and being forgiving with being amoral as if it were a virtue. P-A's often feel condemned when they have merely been judged. P-A's are very defensive and often interpret criticism as condemnation, i.e., that they are a 'bad person'. Because they obtain their self-esteem exclusively from others, the worst thing that can happen is to be deemed 'not nice'. P-A's don't feel worthy enough to criticize others. Hence, a P-A will tolerate being treated very badly, but cannot tolerate what they feel is condemnation and in particular will not tolerate being told they "are not a nice person". THAT, believe it or not, is the WORST thing you can say to a P-A. P-A's believe that making moral judgments or discernments about others is wrong. Therefore P-A's cannot take criticism, though they pretend to. The usual meaning of "can't take criticism" is that the person criticized gets defensive or angry. P-A's don't take criticism by way of "letting go" of it. In other words ignoring it. "Letting go" is what P-A's do best. Ask a P-A if a hurtful or inconsiderate behavior of theirs is wrong and you may be greeted with a distraction, or a blank stare. For P-A's its not about an action being wrong. It's about reactions, expediency and avoiding confrontation. Make a joke at their expense and you may be greeted repeatedly by silence. Point out to a P-A that they forgot to take an action and they will rationalize it away, maybe as having "Not written it down," as opposed to forgetting. If a P-A replies to a criticism at all -- a criticism of themselves or even a criticism of others there will be no half measure. They will try to baffle you or they will get over-angry (and they are angry see link below #10 ) and tell you "you are rude" or "not nice" -- ignoring entirely the validity of your criticism. P-A's will seek to attack your FORM, ignoring WHAT is being said in favor of HOW its being said. This is a form of changing the subject. They address your Form, never the Substance of your criticism. At best, the most intelligent P-A's will negate the possibility of objectivity by suggesting that "We see what we are looking for" and will promote denial by asserting "you empower a negativity by acknowledging it." These assertions are not untrue, but like an ostrich with it's head in the sand these statements negate objectivity and promote denial. "You take the blue pill...and believe whatever you want to believe." ~ said Morpheus to Neo in "The Matrix." Because they obtain their values from outside themselves, P-A's do not think in terms of right and wrong. P-A's think in terms of "am I liked”, “am I accepted” and “do others do it” -- never in terms of right or wrong. Never black and white, always grey. Keep in mind, this behavior generally comes from growing up in one of several specific environments (i) the favored only child or youngest child - "the baby" OR (ii) an overly-critical or shaming environment OR (iii) an environment where expressing anger was not allowed. When criticizing a P-A it may help to precede the criticism with the statement "You are a good person. And sometimes good people do wrong things. That doesn't make them bad people..."]
A: What else are you able to teach someone, other than what you've learned? What else can someone teach, but what they know? It is a given that a person can only teach what they've learned. Generally speaking you want them to (ideally) learn what you learned, or (at least) hear what you said and acknowledge an understanding of what you are saying -- that's communication. Or to put it another way, how valuable is it to have someone accept everything you tell them without question? Not very valuable! You want them to accept what you said or you want them to question what you said with some acknowledgement, active listening or feedback. If they question you, they've still learned (of) what you learned, so-to-speak. They've taken in what you said, and acknowledged (but not necessarily accepted) what you said.
P-A: I feel that the only justification for asserting an opinion in a confrontational manner is if the intent is to teach 'something' -- to enable another to partake of your experience.
(V) [BE AWARE: P-A's are rife with ulterior motives. They may enter into a 'rational' discussion with the aim of simply not agreeing,' or they might proclaim at the end of it all that they simply 'feel' you are wrong, or that they don't believe in logic or reason. P-A's will act less intelligent than they are as a strategy to be disarming and gain your confidence. P-A's will tell you that the ‘true’ meaning of words is ineffable, because they pursue unaccountability. Army Psychiatrist Col. William Menninger first coined the term Passive-Aggression in WWII when soldiers said they would follow an order, and then they didn’t. P-A's will couch their statements in feelings, saying "I feel" this or that, because a feeling is unassailable as it is not founded on Rationality. P-A's will commonly assert that a person has little or no accountability for whether their feelings get hurt or not. They are also notoriously poor at active listening, engaging in a dialog, giving feedback or acknowledgement. Keep in mind, feelings are the language of the gods, and the expression of real feelings is far truer communication than expression of thoughts and analysis. Beginning a statement with "I feel" instead of "I think" also generally sounds more diplomatic and less confrontational. However P-A's frequently express opinions as feelings; opinions that are not based on personal experience, that are wishy-washy, grey, unsubstantial, which don't bear up under scrutiny and usually amount to "you're rude." They do this in order to 'win' arguments or avoid accountability, but never to promote a better understanding.]
P-A: When you say you think its important to prove something to a person, even against their will, you're speaking of forcing them to think like you, and I think its purely your ego that makes you want to do that.
(VIa). [P-A's always have to get personal rather than endeavor to keep things impersonal and intellectual; as in preventing a discussion from becoming an argument; as in keeping a discussion hypothetical; as in "let's leave our ego's in the corner for this discussion."]
(VIb). [P-A's will throw out 'carte blanche' statements of feeling, without backup, aiming to derail any linear integrity of thought or rational dialog -- a form of changing the subject. In this sense they are careless of respect for the truth. They will defend people they 'like' and who like them, aggressively -- particularly family -- with a blindly irrational, clannish 'kin' mentality. Mind-sets like "What she did is OK because she's my sister," or statements like "I won't discuss that because they are my Grandparent" are common. In this way you can clearly see how Passive-Aggression is not only defensive, it is a form of censorship, evidently appealing to a discriminatory and protectionist clique of like-minded people that are anti-expression and pro-conformity. With "consensus" as their moral touchstone, the more popular the P-A, the more likely they are to prey on the unpopular by 'carefully ignoring' them or ostracising them. Being manipulative is minor. The popular P-A becomes intoxicated by their popularity, believing it bestows on them an entitlement -- the entitlement of being legitimized by the coercive threat of peer pressure, ostracision and alienation. Government intervention appeals to P-A's as it relieves them of accountability. For the P-A the line is blurred between conforming to the law, versus conforming to popular personal morality. Because of these features, P-A's have been attracted to: unionized workplaces, business networking clubs (to a lesser degree), churches and Al-Anon (unfortunately), government....or in the extreme, to be Auschwitz guards. To determine one's personal morality by consensus is truly the mob mentality. P-A's do not take unpopular stands, which begs the question: "Who are they serving?" To illustrate the discriminatory and mob-mentality aspect of the P-A, here are some examples:
In the Original Star Trek Series--episode #27--"The Alternative Factor" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Alternative_Factor Lazarus meets his anti-self from a parallel anti-matter universe. They repel each other like the opposite polarities of a magnet, and cannot exist in close proximity to each other. Perfectly opposite versions of Lazarus cannnot exist in a universe at the same time...they inherently cancel out everything the other represents and Lazarus goes mad with rage at the thought.
In the novel The Fountainhead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountainhead Peter Keating and Elsworth Toohey are the foils to hero Howard Roarke. Keating and Toohey are described as 'of a type' who silently recognize their socialist kinship as if with a sixth sense, whose primary ability is to flatter and please; as "second-handers" incapable of original thought. Roarke on the other hand is described as remaining true to himself against the influence and "hostility of second-hand souls".
(VIc) [P-A's will assert that they can divine your intentions, without offering a shred of reason, rationale or evidence. Christians might call this "discernment". Just as likely, a P-A will assert t.hat no one can divine another person's intent]
A: Well, I think you believe truth and understanding are subjective, personal things that you have a right to withold. I believe, if two people agree on something then they have established a 'truth' between them, an understanding. And I believe that if you have any respect for the truth at all, a person is obligated to acknowledge that understanding, however begrudgingly. The understanding I'm talking about is at worst a begrudged acceptance because the person felt 'cornered' into a realisation. That, feels like giving in. At best, its about a person simply changing their mind -- buying in. You speak of 'ego' as if it disqualifies a person as a teacher. And that's a classic scenario: teach someone a lesson, and if they become aware that teaching was your intention, the lesson is lost on them. That's just allowing a person's form - anger, ego, rudeness - to eclipse their function, the substance of their message. And too much of that goes on. Why can't we acknowledge the substance of a message as well as, or instead of, the fact that the messenger wasn't on his best behavior? Most times, focussing on a persons's Form is just an excuse to remain ignorant of their message.
When I say 'prove' something to someone, I mean prove in the way that you would show them something physical(1) -- some thing that is undeniable -- like an opposition of terms, rock-solid logic, the existence of an idea. That's why I believe in being able to prove something, for education's sake or for the sake of "knowing of what you speak". It's important to be able to learn a thing -- anything -- well enough to teach another, especially when the 'other' is unfamiliar with that thing, even reluctant to learn about that thing. In short the litmus test of whether you understand something well, is whether you can explain it satisfactorily to someone else.
P-A: I agree with that -- that it's important to be able to learn something -- anything -- well enough to teach others.
A: OK. On the subject of teaching, how do you feel about rules, especially where dialog and dialectic are concerned. If a person is going to learn (assertive, proactive, not passively) anything from instruction, there have to be rules, It's like black and white versus grey. A person might prove the existence of grey to themselves (to their own satisfaction), but so-called "grey areas" are inherently difficult to prove(1) under the objective scrutiny of others. There have to be rules and a focus. The rules(2) (at least) are language (a physical thing) or at best the rules are language and reason ("if-then" logic) and the focus is a common premise from which to begin the discussion (a physical thing, temporal -- of time, and of space, ie., provable).
P-A: I think you can prove grey to someone else. And I think you can prove anything to anyone so long as your will is strong 'enough'.
A: That's like getting into the metaphysical. This borders on or leads to saying things like "I can prove that nothing is provable" and that leads nowhere. For example, contradictions-in-terms break the rules(2), you can't prove them. So-called 'grey' areas and the metaphysical are inherently unproveable, empiricly, i.e., in the physical world. In any case, I don't believe you should introduce the metaphysical into a discussion which begins with a common premise (for example: objective reality, a physical thing, temporal -- of time, and of space, i.e., provable) and aims to reach a conclusion, i.e., aims for closure. You can't equate apples with oranges, the physical with the metaphysical.
(VII). [P-A's will pose a contradiction-in-terms as a premise unless you identify some rules(2) and the need for them. Woe and fear to all definites unless they are popularly backed by a group. For example, a P-A might say "We musn't interpret the Bible. Scholars study it and lead our studies of it."]
(VIII). [P-A's will try to introduce the metaphysical into a rational process, unless you nip it in the bud.]
[A long, involved discussion/digression occurs on the subject of metaphysics. 'A' suggests that a man alone long enough, will go wild. The metaphysical, even the spiritual will not sustain a man alone. We need a physical relationship to other humans to maintain our connection with meaning - 'unwildness.' "A man without men might as well be a plant". P-A refers to the metaphysical as a discipline and refers to it's totality. 'A' makes a further mental note to recall the terms 'discipline' and 'totality' and how they relate to his point. P-A wraps up, saying: "I know I sometimes go on too long, but it's getting hard to remember what I've said." When 'A' acknowledges an understanding of what 'P-A' is saying 'P-A' says: "I love the way you understand what I say!"
(IX). [P-A's will compliment you, ie., charm you to divert the discussion -- a form of changing the subject. The discussion continues...]
A: You used the words 'discipline' and 'totality' in relation to metaphysics. You see metaphysics as a discipline more than as something grey and fuzzy and hard to sink your teeth into. You see it as more "physical" than "meta"?
P-A: Yes.
(X). [P-A's will say 'Yes', will nod their heads, will give the impression of agreement, but later when you refer to their agreement or call them to account for that agreement, they will deny their agreement saying something like "I was only nodding my head."
A: Well, it's that 'totality' element to metaphysics that I think (breaks the rules) makes for a very unfocussed or undisciplined discussion.
P-A: If I'm sure of anything, I'm absolutely certain I never used the words discipline or totality!
(XI). [They will forget what they or you said, regularly. They will claim to not understand things while exhibiting no effort/desire to understand. Saying "I don't understand" without ever asking a question is a familar P-A refrain.]
A: (Unspoken: If you just admitted you've been talking so long you can't remember what you've said, how can you be so certain you didn't forget using those words?) OK, no matter. It doesn't matter if you used those words. What I'm trying to say is, the 'totality' of the metaphysical can only be appreciated until you need to eat, or sleep or you need heat or shelter. You can't be totally metaphysical in a physical world.
(XII). [P-A's can be so eager to avoid committing to anything for which they could be held accountable; can be so defensive, that they can't tell when they are justified in feeling threatened and when they aren't.]
P-A: You can't be totally physical in a metaphysical world!!!(3)
(XIII). [P-A's will tell you something you told them, in an attempt to own the statement.]
A: We seem to be agreeing. I don't see where we are disagreeing?
P-A: We are probably just approaching the same thing from different directions.
A: Oh, we definitely are!
(Unspoken implication: The question that begs asking is: are we doing that by coincidence or because someone is denying the mutuality that is apparent - is willfully trying to prevent closure on the other's terms -- regardless of whether those terms are valid.)
P-A: I will give you this. I do agree with the premise you started with, that its important to understand something well enough to teach others.
A: Oh. Good. (Unspoken implication: Then why didn't you say so at the beginning? Why was the discussion directed away from what we agreed on? If we were in agreement, all else is trivial and unimportant by comparison. How did we get sidetracked?)
(XIV). [They will challenge you on something trivial(3), something relatively risk-free for them. They are eager to catch you in any contradiction and are in fact competing not communicating. That's because they believe (perhaps unconsciously) the world...is...acting and therefore you are acting. 'Acting...intelligent'. Context, integrity or substance have no significance. Function or substance have no priority.]
(XV). [They will change the subject(4) rather than agree with a good point.]
['A' and P-A continue their backgammon games.]
P-A: I really wish I could trust your blot counting to be accurate(4) .
(XVI). [P-A's will accuse you of doing things that you are critical of in others, or simply that "You're angry." You do that" or "You do it too" are familiar refrains. This is another form of changing the subject since, in this case, the subject is never "What's being done." They will try to change the subject to "If we've both done it, it makes it OK to do it."]
A: The scarcity of counting errors I've made today is extraordinary. I don't do it on purpose, and I don't think any of my errors have been blatantly in my favor. I'll be more careful.
[The game continues.]
P-A: What do you feel you have a special knowledge of that you can teach to others?
A: Loyalty - as an ideal to strive for. Principle - as a value that evolves from self-knowledge. Integrity - as in "loyalty to" and "strict adherence to" a respect for truth (objectivity) and knowledge -- the pursuit of completeness and 'the integral' in any specific area of knowledge. Perseverance. And lastly being true to yourself, identifying your 'causes' and especially standing up for unpopular causes, and the 'little guy'.
[P-A searches for ways to differ and thus assert his independence through external means. The backgammon continues until 'A' concedes to P-A.]
P-A: [Immediately after winning] I don't like this. Can you afford this? How can you afford this? [After beating around the entrapment bush.] I don't think you can afford this!
A: Well I was going (but didn't get a chance) to ask you if I could make payments.
P-A: [Wagging his finger] You shouldn't gamble over your head!!!(5)
(XVII). [They will tell you not to do something which you aren't doing(5) They will accuse you of doing things that you criticize others for doing. "You do that" or "You do it too" are familiar refrains. This is another form of changing the subject. They will tell you:
-- not to do something that you have done, but aren't doing(5) or (in an attempt to change the subject(4) or find a hot button) they will tell you
-- not to do something you are doing and have a right to do.]
A: I'm not over my head. Asking is OK isn't it? You can say no! Are you saying that because I chastised you for gambling over your head, once, when without any hint of asking you summarily stated that you couldn't pay your gambling debt?
P-A: I did end up paying the debt.(4)
A: Yes you did. After telling me you wouldn't and couldn't. Anyway, let's shake hands -- congratulations -- and here's your winnings. Just spare me the happy dance.
Additional things P-A's do to prevent closure of a discussion or debate and to withold understanding:
(XVIII). [P-A's will ask (or imply) "Who do you think you are" when you claim to know anything definitely, especially if they have little education! Woe and fear to all certainty (see VII).]
(XIX). [They may patronize you by way of acting sorry for you or 'praying' for something for you that you don't value.]
P-A announced he was going on vacation. 'A' told P-A that when he got back from vacation he was going to be very busy bearing down on his job, therefore he would be less available for fun. P-A agreed this was a good goal for both of them.
A few days later P-A said to 'A', "I'm going to be bearing down on my job soon, and I will be less available for fun." 'A' thought this a bit odd that P-A should be echoing word-for-word what 'A' had said a few days earlier, without referring to it, or as if it had never been discussed before.
(XX). [P-A's will try to own something you said, in order to appear like they contributed something; to avoid accounting for taking a contrary position or to manipulate the context of a discussion -- a form of changing the subject. Similar to (XIII)]
Conclusion: Passive-aggressives exhibit twenty (or so) predictable techniques for avoiding meaningful communication, for avoiding "thinking" and avoiding resolution of a discussion. These techniques can be learned and therefore anticipated. The primary goal of the passive aggressive is to withold understanding and avoid accountability. By dismissively ignoring your efforts at communicating, passive aggressives will bait you into: (1) tapping into negative emotions associated with your inner-child, and (2) losing your composure. P-A's claim that overtly ignoring someone is benign whereas speaking angrily to someone is malignant. That attitude is enabled because society condones it. The fact is we often have a right to be passionate or angry. By contrast, ignoring someone is the height of abusive behavior, as people in abusive relationships commonly prefer abuse, even beatings from someone they care about rather than being ignored. Hard as it may be to believe, the beatings at least show care enough to acknowledge one's existence. To use someone's caring to hurt them, by overtly ignoring them -- a different kind of slap-in-the-face -- is abusive and Pharisaical in its dishonesty.
- http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Pharisee?q=pharisaical#Pharisee__10
- http://injustice-by-consensus.blogspot.com/
- https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://dealing-with-a-passive-aggressive.blogspot.com/
LINKS TO ENNEAGRAMS & OTHER SITES ABOUT PASSIVE-AGGRESSION
1. 9Types.com
2. The Enneagram Institute
3. Passive-Aggressive Personality | Suite101
4. hHealing and Dealing with Passive-Aggression
5. Causes of Passive-Aggression
6. http://passiveaggresive.blogspot.com/
7. http://psi-it.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-is-passive-aggressive-behavior.html
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive%E2%80%93aggressive_behavior
9. http://businessnegotiations.blogspot.com/2010/02/ch7-8-power-and-influence.html
10. http:/see_paragraph_24
