NT's Passive Aggressiveness

Post Reply New Topic

Hello,

This is my first post on these forums, so I will do my best to keep this short, sweet, and to the point;
I find myself so supremely frustrated in instances where I have to talk with NT's about much of anything
where the stakes are higher than insignificant & petty "small talk".

I am not so delusional as to purport myself a mind-reader (So I publically declare here & now that I am not).
However I will say that I have become pretty good at developing a certain type of asburgian fore-sight into NTs as to
how they are apt to re-act depending on how I choose to organize the words that I say as well as which I choose when I say them. To some, (possibly >50%) this might seems like an intuitive and insightful boon that could help me in my interactions that could minimize Asperger->NT friction.

The thing about it that is so very upsetting and frustrating to me, is that virtually all interactive scenarios that
deviate from the "fascinating" realm of "small talk" inevitably wind up with me being made to feel bad for the part that I played in the interaction (as either initiator or reciprocator). This puts me in a situation where I do not see
any way to formulate what I need to say, that is going to evoke favorable response from NT's. In such instances, all roads lead to sh1t-ville .

I therefore do not say anything and am left in yet one more scenario where the only options are: 1.) to say something and evoke negative response from NT or 2.) do nothing, and have either a neuteral or no NT response.

The real problems occur when those NTs are positing very difficult questions to me in such a way that they are DEMANDING a response from me. I cannot stay silent in those situations if that NT is in a position of authority over me. Its a loose-loose situation for me then...and the fact that I have an effective forcasting radar for how they are apt to respond to each possibility that I could consider saying, makes it all the more frustrating when I realize that there is literally nothing that I can say that will not set them off. So in these instances, it makes me so uncomfortable, (I don't know how I am the one able to keep my &$^&-ing cool when the NT's are loosing it and trying there very damndest to make me loose it to).

This seems to me to be an apt example of NT passive aggressiveness. Am I alone in my difficulties with this?? Insight anyone?

I don't understand how this represents passive-aggressiveness. What you have described seems to me like NTs being emotionally involved in topics that are heavier than small-talk, or possibly reading into what you are saying to them rather than interpreting the words literally.

Maybe I don't understand what passive aggressive is normally understood to mean. I understand it to be a personality trait, wherein you are apt about being aggressive socially through acts of omission (either through word and or deed). But when one is able to craft social scenarios that hammer another individual into passivity to the point where the only collateral minimizing choice that they can make is to remain silent...that seems like perhaps maybe a aggressive way to induce passivity in your target. IDK, perhaps I am not accurate in calling it passive-aggressive is perhaps it would be better reffered to as aggressive-passive?

It would help if you gave more specifics, like a sample dialog or script. I'm going to make up what I see as a passive-aggressive conversation:

Person A: What do you want to eat?
Person B: I don't know, what would YOU like?
Person A: I was thinking of tacos.
Person B: Oh. Well. I GUESS that would be okay.
Person A: If you don't want tacos we could get something else.
Person B: No. It's alright. What I want doesn't matter. Tacos are fine. (sigh)
Person A: I really don't care we can go get something else. What do YOU want?
Person B: Obviously no one cares what I want.

In that scenario, Person B is won't clearly state that he or she doesn't want to eat tacos, and Person B is also trying to make it seem as though Person A is inconsiderate. Nothing Person A says will accommodate Person B, who is being passive aggressive. Is this the type of thing you mean?

SocOfAutism I'm not sure if that qualifies. Person B stated their dissatisfaction at the end. Although person B doesn't have to eat Tacos anyway.

A passive aggressive person would find some other way of undermining the person, more indirect.

As TS I seek answers here, otherwise I would not have started this thread.

to quote TS "I understand it to be a personality trait, wherein you are apt about being aggressive socially through acts of omission (either through word and or deed)." I seek clarity as to whether or not this is what is commonly understood to be passive agressivity.

If I google passive aggressive, I get the following courtesy of Wikipedia: "Passive-aggressive behavior is the indirect expression of hostility, such as through procrastination, stubbornness, sullenness, or deliberate or repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible."

The implication of there being either implicit or explicit responsibility implies ipso de facto that there is some higherarchy of authority. Otherwise there would be no one to hold you directly accountable for your fulfillment or lack-there-of for said responsibilities. Who gives authority over whom. And what about when the PTB (powers that be) are NTs?????

In my example, Person A cannot be assumed to represent "everyone" so when Person B says that "no one" cares what he or she wants, that doesn't have anything to do with Person A, although the guilt is implied. There is also a grand statement by Person B regarding his or her "wants" which may or may not have to do with tacos. The conversation is not a fair one, but something that Person B could easily be trapped in. It is not directly aggressive, but posed so that nothing Person B says is right, which is component of passive aggression.

Another form of passive aggression could be to refuse to answer someone who is asking you a question. Or when Little Kid A points at Little Kid B and declares, "I'm not touching her!" There are lots of kinds of passive aggression, and it's not fair to say it's a neurotypical "trait" any more than one could say being smart is an autistic trait. Lots of neurotypical people are smart, lots of autistic people are not. It's the same with passive aggression.

HOWEVER, it is common for a minority population, such as autistic people, to over-read negative social cues from their oppressing population. An example of this is of black people being suspicious of white people. Not all or even most whites are out to get blacks, but it's understandable how many people might feel that way. I think it's also understandable that a lot of autistic people might find a lot of neurotypicals to be more conniving, manipulative and negative than perhaps they are, which can make it seem as though passive aggression is a NT "trait."

The "power" or "authority" are the social rules of the majority population. In this case, it is not only neurotypicals, but also whites, males, the wealthy, the educated, etc.

(NicholasJacquet wrote:

The implication of there being either implicit or explicit responsibility implies ipso de facto that there is some higherarchy of authority. Otherwise there would be no one to hold you directly accountable for your fulfillment or lack-there-of for said responsibilities.

I don't think that's necessarily true. For example, people who are in intimate relationships have responsibilities to their partners without the relationship being hierarchical. Such people are mutually responsible to one another.)

Thank you (both Starkids and autistic socs') both your responses are thought provoking...I find the above quote from star kid to bring to mind a couple specifics question(s).

Your romaticially entagled response hits on a/a couple fact(s) that I had/have over-looked in my previous posts...namely that there are several types of human relationships. And perhaps they can be categorized? (albeit in a rather Aristotelian fashion)

1.) Relationships of reciprocity....like when you have two people in love...kinda like when Hannibal Lector says "quid pro quo Clairice?"..."yes or no". Its a relationship where it seems that there is little to no third party (like a big brother) that would hold both parties accountable...in other words...any accountability is purely mutual accountability.
Like when folks in technical support call centers from India say the englush-hindustani phrase "please do the needful"...while it is not said in the direct imperative...there is some indirect implication that the other party has the brains to know what is being requested/expected of them without the need of a detailed explaination being given to them in order for them to do it.

2.) Relationships that are more businesslike (utilitairian)....is a relationship where love never enters the picture (on a mutual level at least) Its a relationship where both players are guided by the invisible hand of the marketplace and whose decision trees are guided by the understanding of what is most pareto efficient. There are no altruistic considerations relating directly to the "well being" of the other.

3.) The hybrid...a relationship that cannot be said to fit into either category 1 or 2...there is some sort on imbalance/asymmetry between what A can reasonably expect of B...and what B can reasonably expect of A.

The hybrid is what I have been encountering at my job. And it is the relationship type that is the most "high-stakes" to me because like Aristotle said "the virtue lies in the middle" it is the least clear cut to me and it happens to be what I am encountering the most in the business world.