What do you call this type of behavior?
June 2, 2019 9:31 PM   Subscribe

I’m pretty sure it’s a variant of “passive aggressive.”

This is just an example for the sake of easy illustration. The actual argument I’m thinking of wasn’t about lunch.

Person 1: I would only like to have pizza for lunch.
Person 2: I would only like to have pancakes for lunch. I don’t like tomato sauce or cheese, so pizza isn’t a good option for me.
Person 1: I don’t like pancakes, I only want pizza.
Person 2: what about sushi, tacos, or cheeseburgers as a compromise?
Person 1: I only want pizza.
Person 2: ok, let’s have pizza.
Person 1: you obviously don’t want pizza. Let’s not even have lunch together at all.

What do you call the final statement by Person 1? How do you understand behavior like this to function, and how do you deal with it?
posted by unstrungharp to Human Relations (36 answers total) 3 users marked this as a favorite
 
Taking the discomfort you feel about doing the thing and thinking that you're sensing it in the other person instead of feeling it yourself.

Or maybe just being so stubborn and entitled that any pushback or disagreement is completely out of bounds and therefore unacceptable. They aren't being respectful of you as an equal with a right to negotiate. And just so oblivious to it all.
posted by bleep at 9:39 PM on June 2, 2019


The final statement is pouting.

Personally, my response to pouting is a cheery, "OK!" and a change of subject (or just ending the convo).
posted by rue72 at 9:41 PM on June 2, 2019 [24 favorites]


I think this example is too ambiguous. Person 1 could have wanted to avoid eating with Person 2 all along, and trying to use pizza as the way to get Person 2 to go away (that’s pretty passive aggressive). Person 1 could genuinely want pizza but also be feeling guilty that Person 2 will be unhappy with pizza, so Person 1 lashes out to cancel the lunch to run from the feeling of guilt (not passive aggressive, just bad social skills?). Person 1 could be someone who gets frustrated when dealing with planning minutia and overreacts by trying to escape the situation (similar bad social skills). Or Person 1 could be a jerk who’s kind of testing Person 2 in a power struggle to see if she can get her way, and when she gets her way the game is over (that’s manipulative, not passive aggressive).
posted by sallybrown at 10:14 PM on June 2, 2019 [6 favorites]


What do you call the final statement by Person 1?
I would call it you getting to dodge an annoying bullet.
posted by blueberry at 10:21 PM on June 2, 2019 [7 favorites]


Obstinacy and inflexibility, and also like a previous poster said, it’s a manipulation tactic. Something designed to make you feel bad, even if you’ve done nothing wrong. And, a cowardly way to undo lunch plans.
posted by MeFiMouse at 10:28 PM on June 2, 2019 [8 favorites]


Person 2 doesn't want pizza, they said so. Person 1 is being obstinate and inflexible through the entire convo, but their final statement doesn't seem to be manipulative at all. It's just the truth.
posted by muddgirl at 10:32 PM on June 2, 2019 [4 favorites]


I mean they're basically saying "I would rather eat pizza by myself than compromise" which is rude on it's own.
posted by muddgirl at 10:36 PM on June 2, 2019 [1 favorite]


I mean they're basically saying "I would rather eat pizza by myself than compromise" which is rude on it's own.

If it’s truly about the pizza (and not getting frustrated with the conflict or toying with Person 2), then I do think it’s passive aggressive. The way to make it not passive aggressive would be:

Person 1: I would only like to have pizza for lunch.
Person 2: I would only like to have pancakes for lunch. I don’t like tomato sauce or cheese, so pizza isn’t a good option for me.
Person 1: I’m sorry but I have been craving a piece of pizza all morning. I just need to have pizza today. You are welcome to come but I get that you don’t like pizza, so why don’t we catch up tomorrow and get something we both like then? Sorry again!
posted by sallybrown at 10:49 PM on June 2, 2019 [13 favorites]


I think it's what is sometimes called "taking your toys and going home".

That kind of captures both the childish tantrum-like nature of it and also the refusal to attempt any compromise.
posted by lollusc at 11:12 PM on June 2, 2019 [8 favorites]


I would call that 'throwing the toys out of the pram'.
posted by Too-Ticky at 11:19 PM on June 2, 2019 [3 favorites]


Person 1 is completely inflexible. It's not enough that they actually get their own way, they want you to suck up doing something you don't want to do, with a smile on your face all the time, pretending that you like it so they're not reminded that they're the one who forced you to do it. I'm very familiar with this kind of person. I don't have anything to do with them anymore, for obvious reasons. Life is too short.
posted by Jubey at 12:24 AM on June 3, 2019 [6 favorites]


This reminds me of a scene in The Office where Angela is at a catered event that serves Indian food and she says "I'm a vegetarian. What can I eat?" and the guy responds "It's all vegetarian..." and she annoyedly says "I'll just have some bread." He puts a piece a naan on her plate and she whines, "You used your hands." She just wanted to be annoyed and complain. I think it's just being a negative person.
posted by AppleTurnover at 12:38 AM on June 3, 2019 [8 favorites]


Person 1 wanted pizza, and wanted Person 2 to also want pizza. It's uncompromising and selfish.

However, Person 2 didn't really respond productively to person 1's first statement, and person 1 then had to repeat himself 3 times. Person 2 is maybe more guess culture, and has responded as if Person 1 might change his mind if given more information about Person 2's preferences, but nothing in Person 1's first statement implies that this is true. Maybe a better conversation could have happened if Person 2 said something like "I don't like tomatoes or cheese, so pizza doesn't work for me. How can we compromise and find a place to eat where both of us eat food that we like?" Or, "I don't like pizza. It's my birthday, and I would like to pick the place we eat" or "I don't like pizza, if we go to pizza today, can I pick where we go next time?"
posted by kjs4 at 1:37 AM on June 3, 2019 [2 favorites]


My guess is that person 2 is assuming through most of the discussion that eating together, i.e. the personal relationship, is more important than what gets eaten. The pain person 2 feels at person 1’s last statement is that it flips those priorities, implying that the relationship is insignificant and they’ve just been talking about food. Exactly how you’d label the behavior depends on what person 2’s priorities really were, which isn’t entirely clear without more context, but I wouldn’t be eager to contemplate another lunch with person 1 regardless of the menu.
posted by jon1270 at 2:45 AM on June 3, 2019 [4 favorites]


Ok it wasn't about lunch.

There's no way to answer this.

Sure any of the other replies could possibly apply, but,
Replace "pizza", with a hug, or sex, or marriage, or having children... And suddenly person 1 is being perfectly reasonable and respectful with their own and the other person's wants and boundaries.
posted by OnefortheLast at 3:38 AM on June 3, 2019 [12 favorites]


In all seriousness, that’s what I call “being an asshole.” If I were person 2 the next line of dialogue would be “Don’t be an asshole.”
posted by STFUDonnie at 3:58 AM on June 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


Yah, I assumed it was about different sexual acts which puts it in a completely different light, though the person 1 doesn't seem interested in a compromise in this situation.
posted by newpotato at 3:59 AM on June 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


I have experienced variants of this conversation, though in my experience it’s much more nuanced. How it generally shakes out is Person 1 really wants pizza, but they also want Person 2 to want pizza with them otherwise it’s no good, but they don’t realize this point until after they have a few back-and-forth rounds and Person 2 grudgingly agrees. Then it feels like an ill-gotten victory, and Person 1 realizes they messed up and now they’re both cranky and in no mood for going, so Person 1 abruptly cancels the whole thing.

In the variations I’ve witnessed, it’s not always a clear Person 1/Person 2 dichotomy; often there are attempts to compromise and some inflexibility from both sides.
posted by Metroid Baby at 4:36 AM on June 3, 2019 [9 favorites]


To expand on OnefortheLast's answer- perhaps when Person 2 says "sure, pizza" Person 1 is like "sure, but I know you aren't going to enjoy it, so I won't enjoy eating with you." Of course this is silly when it comes to food- but if it's not about food, then maybe Person 1 is just badly saying "yeah, perhaps we aren't compatible for this." (And interprets Person 2's attempts at 'compromise' as not an option- pizza is what they want, they said it clearly.)
posted by freethefeet at 4:39 AM on June 3, 2019 [2 favorites]


Agree, the passive-aggressive move is in the last line:
Person 1: you obviously don’t want pizza. Let’s not even have lunch together at all.
For me this is equivalent to:
a) you haven't been listening to me/my needs (which may or may not be true)
b) I'm trying to start an argument about this without appearing to which (which is passive-aggressive)
posted by carter at 4:41 AM on June 3, 2019


Person 1 clearly stated their boundaries. "I only want pizza" Person 2 clearly attempted to violate their boundaries. "Let's have pancakes! Let's have cheezburgers!" Person 1 reiterated that they would not compromise and acquiesce to what they likely experienced as nagging. Person 2 finally agreed not to try to force Person 1 to do something they clearly stated they were not willing to do, however by this time a frustrated and annoyed Person 1 no longer trusts them as a lunch companion, likely figuring that that Person 2 would continue on the attack and during the meal suggest that Person 1 now owed them because they did not give in, or would complain about the pizza, or otherwise continue to behave badly.

From Person 1's standpoint the 'negotiation' has probably thoroughly robbed them of their appetite and they wish to withdraw from any contact with Person 2 as there is now a not substantial possibility they will not enjoy their pizza, even while alone.

This usually happens with people who are polite and introverted. From Person 1's perspective Person 2 was covertly using a supposed bid to be friendly and social as an attempt to dominate and control.

I would describe it as Person 1 suffered from emotional distress due to the conversation being unpleasant and withdrew from interacting further. I would expect to see Person 1 hiding in media after this and going no-eye-contact.

Person 2 will probably complain to others that Person 1 is emotionally distant and rejecting and might even triangulate to get others to condemn Person 1, as they appear to be someone who wants social interactions and people to agree with them and affirm them. This is a case of neediness on the part of Person 2. They both want Person 1's companionship, and are not content to tag along, but want to make Person 1 put themself out. They very likely feel rejected and frustrated and abused because they feel both entitled to a compromise, and to Person 1's companionship.
posted by Jane the Brown at 4:45 AM on June 3, 2019 [11 favorites]


If this really is about sex, or some other potentially emotionally fraught topic, then the answer changes dramatically, because people don’t just use passive aggression to be controlling, they also use it when they’re afraid to be assertive. It’s manipulative/annoying to be passive aggressive about lunch. But if someone is being passive aggressive about sex or within the confines of a romantic relationship, it could be a signal that they’re afraid of open communication, they’re afraid of being hurt, and you’d want to consider whether there’s a power imbalance or other good reason for that. (Think of how dramatically this situation changes if Person 1 is saying they don’t want to have sex without a condom and Person 2 is trying to pressure them around that.)
posted by sallybrown at 5:43 AM on June 3, 2019 [12 favorites]


Person 1 is being a simple, straightforward asshole without any passivity whatsoever. They are inflexible, rude, and do not wish to spend time with Person 2... and they make no bones about it. There is no cover-up or misdirection there which would lead us to call their aggression "passive."

Person 2 is being passive-aggressive. The 'aggressive' part is Person 2 being relentless in the pursuit of their goal, which is spending time with Person 1. The 'passive' part is Person 2 doesn't say what they actually want (spending time with Person 1), but instead cloaks their intentions by pretending to negotiate what to eat, only to later make an apparent sacrifice by agreeing to pizza... the final flourish in their covert game which would, under normal circumstances, get them to their goal, if only they hadn't been trying it on a complete jerk who doesn't care about niceties or about hurting Person 2's feelings.
posted by MiraK at 5:48 AM on June 3, 2019 [3 favorites]


Both people in this conversation are communicating poorly, though Person 1 is the one who is being the outright jerk (and yes, their last statement is passive aggressive). Person 2 is trying to placate Person 1 instead of stating their needs and being firm. What about this? I'll keep using your pizza example.

Person 1: I only want pizza for lunch.
Person 2: I can't eat pizza, so we either need to get a different type of food or get lunch on our own and meet up later. Which option works for you?
posted by capricorn at 5:57 AM on June 3, 2019


Without hearing the tone of voice, it's impossible to tell.
posted by smcameron at 6:11 AM on June 3, 2019 [3 favorites]


Elaborating on capricorn's theme, another sample conversation might go:

Person 1: I want pizza for lunch.
Person 2: I want pancakes for lunch, can't do pizza because I don't like sauce or cheese.
Person 1: I only want pizza.
Person 2: Huh. I was looking forward to spending time with you, but I hate pizza. Can you be a bit more flexible?
Person 1: I only want pizza.
Person 2: Wow, you're being a jerk. *walks away*
posted by MiraK at 6:14 AM on June 3, 2019


Response by poster: Just to be clear: this was definitely not about sex. It was about what card game we were going to play. I switched the names to food in case people here weren’t familiar with the card games we were talking about.

Both people had stated that they wanted to play a card game together. As one of the non-pizza lunch options, person 2 actually did suggest doing a solitary activity, separately (this took place on an airplane.) When person 2 would not play the card game person 1 wanted to play, person 1 got upset and said “let’s not even play a card game.” in a huffy tone, with eye rolling.
posted by unstrungharp at 7:20 AM on June 3, 2019


Best answer: Person 1 is being a total child. I mean, jeez, why couldn't y'all have taken turns? My kids, who are 7 and 10 years old, have more mature negotiations over which games to play.

But I worry for Person 2! The mark of emotional health in an adult who is faced with a travel companion such as Person 1 is the ability to call them a jerk and move on. Person 1 sounds like a brat... but what makes them dangerous is that Person 2 doesn't disengage. This relationship (whether it is as romantic partners, or as friends, siblings, roommates, etc) is rife with risk of Person 1 behaving like an asshole and getting rewarded for it because Person 2 puts up with their assholery, albeit in a resentful, teeth-gritted way, possibly because Person 2 is habituated to doing all the emotional labor to keep up the relationship and likes to think of themselves as being "more mature" or whatever.

True maturity in this case would be to let Person 1 suffer the consequences of being a jerkwad: Person 2 tells Person 1 they're a jerk, and disengages from the relationship until a proper apology is offered and amends are made.
posted by MiraK at 7:46 AM on June 3, 2019 [6 favorites]


Person 2 is at best a manipulator and at worst a liar. Statement 2 says only pancakes. Then statement 4 says non-pancake options. Person 1 is consistent, but also illogical. Statement 5 does not jibe with statement 7. (This is meant tongue-and-cheek, not to call OP a liar.)
posted by Pig Tail Orchestra at 9:24 AM on June 3, 2019 [2 favorites]


How it generally shakes out is Person 1 really wants pizza, but they also want Person 2 to want pizza with them otherwise it’s no good,

That's not my read on it. I think Person 1 just wants pizza, doesn't particularly care if Person 2 joins them, and possibly prefers to eat without Person 2. I think Person 2 wants to eat together but avoid pizza. They have different goals.

However, Person 2 seems expect Person 1 to compromise and Person 1's goal is only to have pizza--likely without Person 2--and sees no benefit to compromise. Person 1's problem is for whatever reason not being able to state their wishes fully and clearly. Person 2's problem is not respecting Person 1's boundaries and pushing until Person 1 had to find a clumsy way to get out of the situation. A clumsy way which to some people seems rude and passive aggressive.
posted by fuse theorem at 10:00 AM on June 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


Yeah I feel like I would just call this behavior "stubborn," I guess? But on both sides. Person 2, upon hearing that Person 1 would only eat pizza and no other things, should probably have just disengaged. Maybe after offering one compromise bid. But at a certain point, "How about c, d, e, f, g?" becomes "I'm not listening to you; I don't care what you have said, surely you don't mean it."

It is kind of weird for Person 1 to agree to card games when in truth they only want to play 1 kind of card game, but I don't know that it's passive aggressive. It's only passive aggressive if their aim was to get out of playing card games entirely without rejecting Person 1's bid. But I agree that the "let's just not play cards at all" is a way to deflect guilt over a sudden realization that they steamrolled Person 2 a little.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 10:14 AM on June 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


Ah, that initial agreement to play cards together changes it. When it was a meal I was typing up a thing from Play Theory Studies about P1 playing Action [eat pizza] and P2 playing Activity [eat together]. The two play styles can frustrate or alienate each other when either or both fails to read the larger game, or the other's play style.

But maybe I can salvage it:
P1's final quitting statement is generally called Withdrawal from Unaligned Play and specifically Juvenile Disengagement, AKA "I don't like this game, I'll just take my ball and go home".

But they're doing it because, as evidenced by their penultimate 'you don't actually want to', P1 perceives P2's final statement to be a Bad-Faith Capitulation in light of their previous statements, and a sign that they don't trust P2 to be a good future Play Partner because they don't respect either P1's preferences or their own.

After five refusals (and perhaps inferring from prior play experiences?), P1 sees P2's declaration as bad faith; they will not be playing together, but instead P1 is incurring a Play Debt to P2.
"Oh, so you WILL do it, but you won't enjoy it, and now I'll owe you one, and you'll resent me for all three. No Thanks, I opt out." I don't blame them.

So P1 should ease up on the consistency and cooperate more; it keeps playmates. Read the room if someone wants to play with you.
And P2, is stepping all over their own boundaries and creating obligations that both players resent. If you offer someone tea you've made and they decline, don't get up and go make them coffee because maybe they'd prefer that. Just shrug and enjoy your tea; they don't get any. You'll respect each other more.
posted by bartleby at 11:07 AM on June 3, 2019 [11 favorites]


This person is being pedantic.
posted by coevals at 11:53 AM on June 3, 2019


It’s also worth considering the context. I have some friends who seem to reflexively not want to do anything that I suggest, so if they suggest something that appeals to me, I’ll do it, but otherwise I’m fairly inflexible and not even remotely interested in negotiating, based on two decades of experience with them.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 12:54 PM on June 3, 2019 [2 favorites]


I think you might enjoy S01E03 of What We Do In The Shadows.

Person 1 is either an Energy Vampire or an Emotional Vampire.
posted by doctor tough love at 2:41 PM on June 3, 2019


I call it being a "sore winner." They've been obstinate to the point of forcing concession, and still act pissy even after they have gotten their way.
posted by Rube R. Nekker at 9:38 AM on June 4, 2019


« Older Competitive games that require memory work and...   |   How to get a food product manufactured Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.