When anger and irritation can be expressed right, it is unpleasant, but just. If someone says "you fool" - with all the negatives of the message, we still clearly understand that it is aggression, and we can decide in the style of Fight or Flight ("Bay or run"), or answer the same or Just refuse to enter the conflict, leaving it on conscience (not the fact that present).
However, most educated people hold direct aggression under the ban. The feeling of this does not go anywhere, and therefore we have 500 comments of passive aggression under the prickly posts.
Why is passive aggression much harder? First, because it is manipulative, and in fact does not give moral right to answer a straight aggression, not paying for this by his self-sustaining person. Sometimes she is so beautifully veiled, which is often difficult to catch it, but leaves a poisonous aftertaste. This is a manipulation, the purpose of which is to merge irritation and feel superiority.
Value violence is any expressions aimed at force us to feel worse. Passive verbal violence are the same expressions that are better or worse disguised as something else. But the masking does not change the essence, and that is why we often can't find, in what a catch, but we feel that we were attacked.
The conflict develops according to the scenario - the veiled humiliation - "Achotakova", "she herself carved himself." That is, the aggressor first carries out a hidden attack, then he is trying to prove that he did not attack ("I just express an opinion"), and then dumps the guilt for offense back to the sacrifice.
HOW TO FIND OUT?
How most often passive verbal aggression is masked?
Direct denial What is said by depreciation: "What a nonsense", "Brad write", "oh well, nonsense", "garbage".
Indirect denial What was said by fake clarification of sources: "Links to the studio", "where you took it", "who told you".
The aggressor assumes the right to stand up to the position of the reading teacher and demand an explanation. The fluidism in the hidden motives: "It is not clear what to boast", "it was possible and not shown", "well, buy yourself a medal."
The aggressor believes that he really caught you low, and it is necessary to open the world.
Evidence in the alleged lies : "And it is impossible", "we know."
The imposition of guilt : "And the children of refugees between those are starving."
Direct recommendation how to live : "It would be better", "you have to be easier", "score", "yes rejoice better", "be kinder", "the man you need," and everything, with the word "need" at the beginning.
Indirect recommendation how to live With reference to some truth: "All normal people", "But a real woman."
Fake sympathy : "I'm sorry for you," "poor children."
Clikouty : "And then surprised", "what to expect", "like this and grow."
Imposed unflattering comparison (White coat): "This is what, but", "and now I will never.
Depreciation : "Well, and that since", "and who needs it," "and why do you write it," "this is and so everyone knows", "too me"
Indirect condemnation : "Such as you".
Disadvised diagnosis of reasons : "And all because", "nothing amazing, because you".
Gramma Nazism. Giving public comments on the errors of another as ethically, how to publicly comment on the stains on the tie.
Just projections , often do not have anything to do with you and said. They differ in the fact that they do not have any logical connection with the above, but at the same time are aggressive, and you say to the position of excuse.
Talk about the author in the third person In the direct comments: "Such always", "she is simple."
Failure to react After passive aggression: "Such as she just want to stand out, but I will not argue, the world is the friendship of the gum."
Trolling - I will not write, it is so clear that it can already be considered direct aggression.
Why don't all these passages for passive aggression?
Because they a) are trying to give themselves for care, attention, discussion, meanwhile, being a hidden drainage of emotional aggression. b) pursue the goal to humiliate the addressee and exalt the speaker and c) are made without a request.
A characteristic feature is the lack of "I" in the majority (after all, the author is trying not to be aggressor), the statements go as if from the face of "all", impersonal.
How to react?
I react like this:
I designate that I consider what is happening the aggression in I-message. "I am unpleasant when you", "I do not like when."
If the classic coil of aggression continues in the style of "Achotakova", "I just express an opinion", "where you saw" - I can clarify that it hurts what kind of structure the phrase, turnover, the unborn advice is unpleasant to me. Sometimes people are ready to hear, I am personally ready to hear when someone offended.
If the coil of aggression continues in the style "do not need to be so sensitive", "these are your problems" - I answer that my business is to designate, your work to hear or not. And I go out of the conversation. Sometimes I go before. Sometimes I do not even indicate when the overall level of the interlocutor allows you to assume that this is a standard communication style.
How to distinguish from sincere pity, interest, anxiety?
A person who wants sincerely help, but expressed in an aggressive manner, most likely hear you and or apologize, or reformulate. If he went to the second or third round of aggression "I have the right to opinion", "there is nothing to be offended here, then see the point above.
How not to be aggressor?
It helps me to stop and think about your goals. If my goal is to express emotions of anger and indignation, I will try to stop myself, and get to more significant goals.
If my goal is to "help", make the world better, so to speak, it forces it to stop and think about how to write so that you heard. My goal is changing from expressing your emotions to achieve a dialogue in which you will hear. I have to speak the answer several times in my head before spinning the necessary, sincere words. And then something seems to be born:
"I understand your position, but my experience does not allow me to agree with it." (express disagreement straight)
"I don't want to climb with the tips, but in such a situation it helped me something and that if you want, I can tell" (give the right to get advice or not)
"I read one book, it was said" (read without advice)
"I can't compare, we have different situations, but in my case ..." (direct refusal of comparison, personal experience)
And if there is no strength to restrain the righteous anger, then at least recognize it:
"I know that I will sound convictedly, but for me it is terrible" (I a message, recognition of my aggression).
And finally. None of us is an angel, and I'm periodically ulcery and drag. And, knowing about it, I start with myself. The ability to talk about disagreement respectfully and straight is the possibility of a filled, interesting discussion, which in the format "Who is the right" would never have happened. And this is wealth.
