What is a word for the unpredictable imposition of irrational standards?
July 7, 2015 5:14 PM Subscribe
What is a word (or phrase!) for the unpredictable imposition of irrationally high standards? Further description/examples inside.
Specific examples of the type of word/phrase I'm thinking of: excessive anger at someone using a cell phone in an otherwise-quiet public space; taking offense at a friend entering an unlocked front door without knocking first; a guest helping oneself to a second glass of wine without asking; violation of archaic rules of etiquette such as beginning eating before the hostess; taking offense at well-intentioned but unsolicited advice; a general arbitrary overreaction to slight (possible) breaches of etiquette and a rationalization about why the breach is SO BAD. I'm especially thinking of when offense being taken depends on external factors outside of the alleged bad actor's control.
I'm trying to think of a way to concisely describe something I've observed in others; not for purposes of confrontation, but as a means of getting my own head around what's problematic about it and how/why it happens. I'm just having trouble naming it.
Specific examples of the type of word/phrase I'm thinking of: excessive anger at someone using a cell phone in an otherwise-quiet public space; taking offense at a friend entering an unlocked front door without knocking first; a guest helping oneself to a second glass of wine without asking; violation of archaic rules of etiquette such as beginning eating before the hostess; taking offense at well-intentioned but unsolicited advice; a general arbitrary overreaction to slight (possible) breaches of etiquette and a rationalization about why the breach is SO BAD. I'm especially thinking of when offense being taken depends on external factors outside of the alleged bad actor's control.
I'm trying to think of a way to concisely describe something I've observed in others; not for purposes of confrontation, but as a means of getting my own head around what's problematic about it and how/why it happens. I'm just having trouble naming it.
I don't think any of these standards are irrationally high (with the exception of perhaps a guest needing to ask before pouring a second glass of wine). So, no word for that.
A separate question is whether the reaction was irrational or excessive. You haven't told us anything about the reaction beyond that they were "overreactions." In that case, I think that's the perfect word - "overreaction"!
I think that the things that you listed are considered rude, offensive, and breaches of etiquette *for a reason.* People who are offended by them are not unreasonable. I understand that how they *express* their offense may be unreasonable.
As Miss Manners says, the rudest thing is to point out when others are rude (unless it's your own children).
posted by amaire at 5:38 PM on July 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
A separate question is whether the reaction was irrational or excessive. You haven't told us anything about the reaction beyond that they were "overreactions." In that case, I think that's the perfect word - "overreaction"!
I think that the things that you listed are considered rude, offensive, and breaches of etiquette *for a reason.* People who are offended by them are not unreasonable. I understand that how they *express* their offense may be unreasonable.
As Miss Manners says, the rudest thing is to point out when others are rude (unless it's your own children).
posted by amaire at 5:38 PM on July 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
These do not seem like irrational standards (with the exception of the last one, which is very vaguely worded). None of these actions were out of the bad actor's control. That is: nobody has to be calling on the cell, nobody has to go inside a house, nobody has to drink a second glass of wine. The expectations seem quite rational to me, actually.
Your emphasis seems to be on the overreaction. So I would just say it's being "finicky with high standards" or maybe just being "intolerant" (of deviation from expectations).
On preview, what amaire said.
posted by ethidda at 5:38 PM on July 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
Your emphasis seems to be on the overreaction. So I would just say it's being "finicky with high standards" or maybe just being "intolerant" (of deviation from expectations).
On preview, what amaire said.
posted by ethidda at 5:38 PM on July 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
These are in the ballpark:
persnickety
fastidious
punctilious
posted by tempestuoso at 5:43 PM on July 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
persnickety
fastidious
punctilious
posted by tempestuoso at 5:43 PM on July 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
mercurial
posted by vegartanipla at 5:46 PM on July 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by vegartanipla at 5:46 PM on July 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
I like adamrice's phrasing, disproportionate response, as you seem to be asking about an exaggerated response to a small offense.
posted by SLC Mom at 5:48 PM on July 7, 2015
posted by SLC Mom at 5:48 PM on July 7, 2015
Best answer: I know some people who are craaaazy like this, and I always think of them as hyperanxious and/or control freaks. Like they want other people to follow their exact script in a situation or they flip. They're generally nice people but this behavior makes them hard to be around...
posted by easter queen at 5:55 PM on July 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by easter queen at 5:55 PM on July 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Rule-mongering? Though your examples are related more to breaching etiquette than to rule-mongering.
posted by unknowncommand at 5:56 PM on July 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by unknowncommand at 5:56 PM on July 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Hahaha, my husband's friends are constantly attempting to walk right into our house without knocking, and I find it deeply annoying. Sounds like it's a good thing I restrict my reaction to making sure the door's locked if he's expecting them rather than say something that might be perceived as punctilious.
posted by dotparker at 6:00 PM on July 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by dotparker at 6:00 PM on July 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Best answer: I think I might understand- do you mean the emotional reaction you have to this? A sort of surprised, pinned, but-I-couldn't-help-it feeling?
I would call that walking on eggshells. I think that and gaslighting are good terms that get at the heart of what you're describing. Unpredictable over-reactions and blaming others for things outside of their control can be hallmarks of abuse. There might also be "assuming ill intent" or "thinking the worst of others" involved.
posted by quincunx at 6:09 PM on July 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
I would call that walking on eggshells. I think that and gaslighting are good terms that get at the heart of what you're describing. Unpredictable over-reactions and blaming others for things outside of their control can be hallmarks of abuse. There might also be "assuming ill intent" or "thinking the worst of others" involved.
posted by quincunx at 6:09 PM on July 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
What you're calling 'irrationally high standards', other people might call basic etiquette. In general, pointing out violations of etiquette is in itself a violation of etiquette, so there is an element of hypocrisy involved.
posted by betweenthebars at 6:12 PM on July 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by betweenthebars at 6:12 PM on July 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Best answer: You might also try "shifting the goalposts" to describe the arbitrary unfairness of it.
posted by quincunx at 6:16 PM on July 7, 2015
posted by quincunx at 6:16 PM on July 7, 2015
I don't find "irrationally high standards" in most of your examples.
No one is welcome to walk into my home without permission, and in fact there's a legal term for people who walk in without the homeowner's approval: they're called trespassers. (I have a window at home wide open right now: does this mean you have permission to enter? No, it does not.) It's flat-out rude to disturb the peace of others by forcing them to listen to private conversations in otherwise-quiet spaces; the caller should consider their surroundings before making their call. And anyone who is pushy enough to offer unsolicited 'advice' can just back the hell off, no matter how "well-intentioned" they might claim to be --- who the heck do they think they are, trying to offer unasked-for correction to another adult?!?
And finally, from your phrasing I'd guess you feel a lot of etiquette rules are unnecessary: calling etiquette rules 'archaic' and 'arbitrary' seems to imply you don't feel they should apply to you, because those etiquette rules are outdated and/or unreasonable. The thing is, etiquette rules are the generally-accepted rules societies develop so we can all get along with each other; ignoring those rules may make an individual feel like a free spirit who isn't bound by silly, pointless and outdated mores, but all it really does is create the friction that the rules were developed to prevent.
posted by easily confused at 6:16 PM on July 7, 2015 [21 favorites]
No one is welcome to walk into my home without permission, and in fact there's a legal term for people who walk in without the homeowner's approval: they're called trespassers. (I have a window at home wide open right now: does this mean you have permission to enter? No, it does not.) It's flat-out rude to disturb the peace of others by forcing them to listen to private conversations in otherwise-quiet spaces; the caller should consider their surroundings before making their call. And anyone who is pushy enough to offer unsolicited 'advice' can just back the hell off, no matter how "well-intentioned" they might claim to be --- who the heck do they think they are, trying to offer unasked-for correction to another adult?!?
And finally, from your phrasing I'd guess you feel a lot of etiquette rules are unnecessary: calling etiquette rules 'archaic' and 'arbitrary' seems to imply you don't feel they should apply to you, because those etiquette rules are outdated and/or unreasonable. The thing is, etiquette rules are the generally-accepted rules societies develop so we can all get along with each other; ignoring those rules may make an individual feel like a free spirit who isn't bound by silly, pointless and outdated mores, but all it really does is create the friction that the rules were developed to prevent.
posted by easily confused at 6:16 PM on July 7, 2015 [21 favorites]
Is the key to this the unpredictable part?
Like, 99% of the time Person A doesn't care if people ask before pouring wine. But that 1% of the time, Person B will pour the wine and Person A will FLIP THEIR SHIT about it and it will turn out to be completely unrelated to the actual wine pouring and more about some conflict they have in their mind about Person B?
I don't know if there's an official word for that but I tend to think of it as a Seinfeld reaction.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 6:37 PM on July 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Like, 99% of the time Person A doesn't care if people ask before pouring wine. But that 1% of the time, Person B will pour the wine and Person A will FLIP THEIR SHIT about it and it will turn out to be completely unrelated to the actual wine pouring and more about some conflict they have in their mind about Person B?
I don't know if there's an official word for that but I tend to think of it as a Seinfeld reaction.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 6:37 PM on July 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Dogmatic could capture the adherence to rules, capricious could capture an unpredictable aspect to that (if it is unpredictable), and I agree that disproportionate could capture the (perceived) over-reaction.
Situational may also work instead of capricious, if the sense is the response isn't truly erratic, but unequally applied.
Your examples are a bit odd, and if they're serious and you encounter this "over-reaction" a lot, it makes me wonder if you're a bit oblivious/unaware of certain social norms/cues that overtime some people may find grating (and possibly boundary pushing) and then at some point explode (because, as noted above, people don't feel its polite to correct others, but sometimes that means they're burying frustrations that eventually come out in unpleasant ways). In which case, naming it correctly really won't help you to process the problem, because it's been misidentified.
And I really don't mean this to as a pile on, it's just that if you're getting this a lot, it might be worth checking in with a friend about what social cues you're missing.
posted by ghost phoneme at 6:43 PM on July 7, 2015 [12 favorites]
Situational may also work instead of capricious, if the sense is the response isn't truly erratic, but unequally applied.
Your examples are a bit odd, and if they're serious and you encounter this "over-reaction" a lot, it makes me wonder if you're a bit oblivious/unaware of certain social norms/cues that overtime some people may find grating (and possibly boundary pushing) and then at some point explode (because, as noted above, people don't feel its polite to correct others, but sometimes that means they're burying frustrations that eventually come out in unpleasant ways). In which case, naming it correctly really won't help you to process the problem, because it's been misidentified.
And I really don't mean this to as a pile on, it's just that if you're getting this a lot, it might be worth checking in with a friend about what social cues you're missing.
posted by ghost phoneme at 6:43 PM on July 7, 2015 [12 favorites]
Ungracious or ungenerous? Because the person is not being polite or considering that the supposed offender might have elements out of their control.
a guest helping oneself to a second glass of wine without asking
Of course, I could say that a truly good host would've offered to refill the glass before their guest had a chance to ponder getting another.
posted by Squeak Attack at 7:19 PM on July 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
a guest helping oneself to a second glass of wine without asking
Of course, I could say that a truly good host would've offered to refill the glass before their guest had a chance to ponder getting another.
posted by Squeak Attack at 7:19 PM on July 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
not a word, but the idiom i've heard used to describe this is "killing a fly with a sledgehammer" (or other sufficiently large weapon)
posted by decathexis at 7:54 PM on July 7, 2015
posted by decathexis at 7:54 PM on July 7, 2015
I don't have a term for this, but all of the etiquette breaches you're describing involve some kind of minor boundary-pushing behavior on the part of the person committing the petty offense. Walking into someone's house or partaking of their food without explicit permission (or, in the case of the host and guests, not respecting etiquette rules where the host gives permission to begin), taking up public space with the cell phone, giving intrusive, unsolicited advice--all of these are ways the offender is claiming physical or emotional space as their own without permission, and that apparently makes the person or people you're talking about really uncomfortable. A lot of the things you mention would be nbd to me, and I, like you, would judge someone for making a big deal out of pouring a second glass of wine or talking on the phone in public, but people coming into my house without asking always puts me on edge. It feels like a violation, like I have to be on guard because this person doesn't respect my privacy or comfort or space. The person's issues might be unpredictable to you, but they're definitely internally consistent, and it might help you to try thinking about what might be behind their need for and anxiety around control in this way. Dealing with freakouts and overreaction sucks, but it sounds like whoever this is really, really needs people around them to respect their boundaries, even if they don't know how to articulate that and so are demonizing you or getting into arguments about how whatever super petty thing was SO BAD.
posted by moonlight on vermont at 8:14 PM on July 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by moonlight on vermont at 8:14 PM on July 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
Those who demand strict adherence to set rules and mete out punishment for failing to follow them are called martinets.
Those who continually flout social rules to the point that they are called out on them are called chumps.
posted by kapers at 8:51 PM on July 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
Those who continually flout social rules to the point that they are called out on them are called chumps.
posted by kapers at 8:51 PM on July 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
"unenforceable rules"
posted by It's a Parasox at 9:25 PM on July 7, 2015
posted by It's a Parasox at 9:25 PM on July 7, 2015
no phrase, just a couple of words: "brittle" and "discomfited"
posted by macinchik at 10:35 PM on July 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by macinchik at 10:35 PM on July 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Uh just to address some of the suggestions that these are reactions to MY behavior: they're not. I asked because when I witness this type of overreaction (when someone complains to me about, again, a third party who committed what seems to me to be a minor offense), it makes me uncomfortable and I don't know how to respond; sometimes I see this overreaction in myself and don't like it. Thanks to those who restricted their answers to the question asked.
posted by mchorn at 11:30 PM on July 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by mchorn at 11:30 PM on July 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
The question is confusing because none of the examples you give show the unpredictable imposition of irrationally high standards. Objections to the behaviour described aren't unpredictable, and the standards expected aren't irrationally high.
However a person who is inflexible about holding others to a high standard is a stickler (note, a stickler is not necessarily unreasonable. Just strict.) An unpredictable person around whom other people are constantly worried in case they have done something wrong is unreasonably demanding, or maybe even a histrionic drama-llama.
posted by glasseyes at 4:43 AM on July 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
However a person who is inflexible about holding others to a high standard is a stickler (note, a stickler is not necessarily unreasonable. Just strict.) An unpredictable person around whom other people are constantly worried in case they have done something wrong is unreasonably demanding, or maybe even a histrionic drama-llama.
posted by glasseyes at 4:43 AM on July 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
I know someone who has a lot of personal rules about what others do and gets very upset when people inadvertently break those rules; in the privacy of my mind, I think of this person as the "behavior police".
posted by neushoorn at 6:02 AM on July 8, 2015
posted by neushoorn at 6:02 AM on July 8, 2015
Best answer: Without getting into whether I think your examples are bad ones, I will say that I think the phrase "taking umbrage" has the kind of meaning you're looking for.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:29 AM on July 8, 2015
posted by jacquilynne at 7:29 AM on July 8, 2015
If your purpose is to wrap your head around why these overreactions happen, you might want to consider if from the perspective of the person having that reaction. Do they have sensitivity or sensory issues (that you may or may not know about) that make loud or irregular noises hard to deal with? Are they sensitive about proximity because of an assault or mugging? Have they had to deal with someone who gaslighted them or pushed their boundaries in uncomfortable ways? It is likely that to the person reacting to these etiquette breaches, their reaction is not arbitrary, and in some cases, not an overreaction.
Several of the things you describe would push my buttons and having some other stressor (bad day, bad week, bad news, bad sleep . . .) on top of it might make me snap angrily about the person talking on their cell phone in a quiet space instead of letting it go (or quietly fuming about it for five minutes and then letting it go).
posted by carrioncomfort at 7:54 AM on July 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Several of the things you describe would push my buttons and having some other stressor (bad day, bad week, bad news, bad sleep . . .) on top of it might make me snap angrily about the person talking on their cell phone in a quiet space instead of letting it go (or quietly fuming about it for five minutes and then letting it go).
posted by carrioncomfort at 7:54 AM on July 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
If someone's complaining to you about a third-party's behavior, when that behavior would usually go unremarked by them, it could be an instance of "waking up on the wrong side of the bed" (so they're just in an irritable mood and any small thing will set them off) or a case of "the straw that broke the camel's back" (where the offending party can be annoying to the complainer for whatever reason).
So the response you're seeing appears capricious, but it's actually more about other external factors rather than the apparent triggering incident.
If the complainer is ramping up about someone or some incident, remarking "Man, sounds like you had a rough day," might knock them off the "Bob's the worst!" train before it hits full throttle and defuse it a bit. That way you're acknowledging they're upset, but not reinforcing that the transgression or person is really horrible enough to warrant such a disproportionate reaction.
posted by ghost phoneme at 8:02 AM on July 8, 2015
So the response you're seeing appears capricious, but it's actually more about other external factors rather than the apparent triggering incident.
If the complainer is ramping up about someone or some incident, remarking "Man, sounds like you had a rough day," might knock them off the "Bob's the worst!" train before it hits full throttle and defuse it a bit. That way you're acknowledging they're upset, but not reinforcing that the transgression or person is really horrible enough to warrant such a disproportionate reaction.
posted by ghost phoneme at 8:02 AM on July 8, 2015
Isn't this just 'pearl-clutching'?
(Also-"sometimes I see this overreaction in myself and don't like it. Thanks to those who restricted their answers to the question asked." Tee hee.)
posted by mdrew at 9:02 AM on July 8, 2015
(Also-"sometimes I see this overreaction in myself and don't like it. Thanks to those who restricted their answers to the question asked." Tee hee.)
posted by mdrew at 9:02 AM on July 8, 2015
Response by poster: mdrew--definitely an element of this dynamic in this post, perhaps from me (although I'd dispute that given that AskMe guidelines are explicitly to stay on subject), but definitely from those defending their own upholding of the hypothetical examples given, accusing me of not acting courteously, and the general failure to assume benign intent. All very meta and instructive.
posted by mchorn at 9:45 AM on July 8, 2015
posted by mchorn at 9:45 AM on July 8, 2015
Capriciousness. Irritability. Capricious irritability.
posted by serena15221 at 12:05 PM on July 8, 2015
posted by serena15221 at 12:05 PM on July 8, 2015
I'm sort of shocked no one has said rules lawyering yet. This definitely fits in that category for me.
People who freak out about this kind of stuff disproportionately always seem to be the kind of people who hold up a member agreement and get costco to accept a return of month old rotten produce.
...And observing that causes exactly the same kind of sympathy embarrassment/anxiety for me.
posted by emptythought at 6:37 PM on July 8, 2015
People who freak out about this kind of stuff disproportionately always seem to be the kind of people who hold up a member agreement and get costco to accept a return of month old rotten produce.
...And observing that causes exactly the same kind of sympathy embarrassment/anxiety for me.
posted by emptythought at 6:37 PM on July 8, 2015
« Older Parents of teens: would you allow co-ed sleepovers... | Living in Sydney is awesome, right? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by adamrice at 5:29 PM on July 7, 2015 [5 favorites]