Contradictors
Contradictors are persons, who contradict everything, that is said to them. They do the contrary of what others ask them to do. The do on purpose, what others ask them to refrain from doing.
There are at least two types of contradictors, those with a purpose and those, who automatically contradict, as if they would not know any other option.
1. Automatic Contradictors
There is a psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM, called ODD, Oppositional Defiant Disorder. It is considered as only an affliction of children. The description is here.
Contradictors are persons, who contradict everything, that is said to them. They do the contrary of what others ask them to do. The do on purpose, what others ask them to refrain from doing.
There are at least two types of contradictors, those with a purpose and those, who automatically contradict, as if they would not know any other option.
1. Automatic Contradictors
There is a psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM, called ODD, Oppositional Defiant Disorder. It is considered as only an affliction of children. The description is here.
http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Oppositional-defiant-disorder.html
I have read people wondering, what becomes of children with ODD, when they grow up. Some then develop to be psychopaths, sociopaths or cases of antisocial disorder. But maybe the milder cases of childhood ODD just become automatic contradictors.
2. Hierarchy Instinct
Some people experience others automatically as competitors in a hierarchy. If they are not below, then they are above. All interactions serve the purpose to get above those, who can be pushed down, and to challenge those, who are still in a higher position. Equality is something unknown to them.
In entry 39, I already described verbal fencing as a replacement for the duel with a sword. Verbal fencing is a duel of wits, but contradicting is a much cruder behavior, when it serves as a weapon to gain a higher position in a hierarchy, which implies also to gain power over resources.
Contradicting is part of forming a hierarchy based upon the main assumption of being superior by knowing better or by believing to know better. A contradictor attempts to proof to know better as his way of proofing his entitlement to the higher position. The contradictor believes, that he knows everything better, so he has no reason to listen to the other or to be interested in what he has to say.
The contradictor waits all the time for an occasion to give evidence of his superiority, so he scrutinizes, what others say, without listening to his real message, but luring for a handle for a contradiction. He just checks the other's utterances for anything, that he can react to fast enough with a contradiction. As soon as he has succeeded in jumping in with his contradiction, he stops to listen and never really hears or learns anything of what others say. He often does not understand or is clueless, what the other is really talking about.
The contradictor considers agreement and consent never as an expression of closeness, but as the submission of those below him on the hierarchy. He would never agree to anything, because he wants to move up the ladder by challenging those above him, and he expects them also to contradict him to keep him below. He lives in a world without consent.
I have read people wondering, what becomes of children with ODD, when they grow up. Some then develop to be psychopaths, sociopaths or cases of antisocial disorder. But maybe the milder cases of childhood ODD just become automatic contradictors.
2. Hierarchy Instinct
Some people experience others automatically as competitors in a hierarchy. If they are not below, then they are above. All interactions serve the purpose to get above those, who can be pushed down, and to challenge those, who are still in a higher position. Equality is something unknown to them.
In entry 39, I already described verbal fencing as a replacement for the duel with a sword. Verbal fencing is a duel of wits, but contradicting is a much cruder behavior, when it serves as a weapon to gain a higher position in a hierarchy, which implies also to gain power over resources.
Contradicting is part of forming a hierarchy based upon the main assumption of being superior by knowing better or by believing to know better. A contradictor attempts to proof to know better as his way of proofing his entitlement to the higher position. The contradictor believes, that he knows everything better, so he has no reason to listen to the other or to be interested in what he has to say.
The contradictor waits all the time for an occasion to give evidence of his superiority, so he scrutinizes, what others say, without listening to his real message, but luring for a handle for a contradiction. He just checks the other's utterances for anything, that he can react to fast enough with a contradiction. As soon as he has succeeded in jumping in with his contradiction, he stops to listen and never really hears or learns anything of what others say. He often does not understand or is clueless, what the other is really talking about.
The contradictor considers agreement and consent never as an expression of closeness, but as the submission of those below him on the hierarchy. He would never agree to anything, because he wants to move up the ladder by challenging those above him, and he expects them also to contradict him to keep him below. He lives in a world without consent.
Contradicting is for the contradictor a power tool, not a means of communication. His life is emotionally isolated, while he outwardly is busy struggling with others over the hierarchy. He fights to keep those below from challenging him, he fights to challenge those above, and those on the same level are his competitors, who also are fighting for the level above. Therefore the contradictor is isolated behind an invisible wall, contradicting is a method to pushing people away and keep them at a safe distance. As he knows nothing but the hierarchy struggle, he expects only challenges and contradictions from others.
For a contradictor, a relationship with a woman is just another hierarchy, where he of course usurps the position as the dominator. The contradictor contradicts, whatever the woman attempts to say, as a method to keep her in the inferior position, that he has assigned to her. He can never find out, who she really is or what she thinks and feels. The contradictors baseline is emotional isolation, even in a relationship.
Contradicting or agreeing as a goal represent two distinct attitudes towards a partner in a relationship. Contradicting is not the same as disagreeing. Egalitarian partners get bonded and close by agreement, consent and thinking alike. There baseline is agreement and when they discover disagreement, then they both experience it as a task for communication. They acquire, supply and exchange all information and all evidence, until they can find an agreement, that is convincing to both. Disagreement makes them uncomfortable, they both are motivated to restore the harmony of agreement.
When an egalitarian woman gets accidentally involved with a contradictor, they get into an impasse. Figuratively, when he sits on a step of a flight of stairs, and she sits down at his side to be close and communicate, he either moves one step up, or he pushes her one step down. If she attempts to get back to his side, he pushes her away and forced her to remain on the lower step.
