281. Contradictors

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.  

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.  

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.  

136. Unsuitable Men 6: The Willpower Deficit

Unsuitable Men 6:  The Willpower Deficit

In entry 133, I wrote:  Not hurting requires two components.    The one, who hurts, needs to know, that he is hurting, and he needs to be motivated not to do so.  
After reading and thinking about willpower and depletion, it seems, that I omitted the third factor, willpower and self-control.  

There are the men, who may well be theoretically motivated not to hurt a woman.   But their individual general supply of willpower is so low and their selfish impulses are so strong, that they cannot help it but hurt the woman against their own wish or attitude.   They have developed psychological mechanisms to successfully trick themselves into not feeling bad about it.  

http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/staff/msh/pdfs/Hagger%20et%20al.%20%282010%29%20PB.pdf
"numerous capacity-based theories of self-control also conceptualize selfcontrol as a dispositional, traitlike construct that differs across individuals"
"This implies that people high in dispositional self-control will have more resources at their disposal.  Such individuals will have more resources remaining after engaging in a self-control task of a given duration and resource demand than will individuals lower in trait self-control. Trait self-control may therefore serve to insulate a person from the depleting effects of self-control tasks and moderate the ego-depletion effect"

In entry 134 I described how the coercion to get advantages from her can deplete the willpower of a woman.
When a man has a personal disposition of only a low amount of willpower, and he attempts to control his selfish impulses, he also depletes himself by doing this.   In reality, he may be only slightly or intermittently successful, in his own perception, he feels as if making huge efforts, while his partner experiences him nevertheless as a hurting and selfish person.   
She needs from him the ability not to hurt her, and subjectively, he struggles to do so.   For her it is not enough, while he perceives his attempts and efforts as not appreciated.  

It is the old dilemma of what is fair compromising and what is giving up basic human rights and reasonable requirements concerning a relationship.   Between one, who prefers hiking, and the other, who wants to visit a museum, an arrangement can be a fair compromise.    When a woman gets hurt less, she is still getting hurt.   Any amount of hurting is no correct treatment.   Therefore any compromise between hurting a lot and not hurting, that results only in hurting less, is not fair and not acceptable.

A man, who receives a woman's feedback, that she feels hurt by his behavior, and who consciously would not want to hurt her, would feel shame and guilt.  He certainly does not like to feel the loser and wimp, who hurts someone, whom he would prefer not to hurt.  

Therefore he uses some psychological strategies to cope with this.  
1.  He prevents himself from consciously knowing, that he indeed is hurting her.     He uses denial to avoid her feedback ever reaching his mind.    He defines her feeling hurt as her defect and flaw.   He blames her to fail her duties to him so he believes his behavior to be justified.
2.  He does the same as the penitents in Sevilla, described in entry 135.   Subjectively he buys himself the license for all the transgressions, that he feels too weak to avoid by self-control.   
He attempts to compensate by doing things for her, that he subjectively considers as caring.   Valuing the fulfillment of his own needs as something of a paramount importance, he projects his own needs upon her and does for her, what he enjoys himself, or what he assumes, that she wants.  Then he expects a lot of appreciation from her for what he does.    
But he is oblivious of what she would consider as caring, of what she really needs and wants.   It does not even occur to him to ask the woman, what is really important for her.   The efforts, that he invests in his compensating activities, are only enough for his own having the illusion of doing more for her than he gets from her, she does not perceive it this way.   Because he is not making any progress towards ending his transgressions, his compensations are not a personal sacrifice for him, and she continues to experience him as using her for his own selfish advantages.  

This leads to an insurmountable impasse, if they differ in a basic attitude.    If in her value system moral transgressions cannot be compensated for, while he considers compensation a reasonable procedure, then they are not compatible and there is no rational compromise to solve the conflict.     
If the woman is like me, she considers moral transgressions like hurting as absolutely not acceptable.   The man is not suitable, because he is hurting her, she may consider him a jerk, a wimp, a moron, depending on his reasons.   There is no way to compensate for hurting.    Nothing he does, has any value, as long as he continues his hurting transgressions.   
When the man in his own perception has not only compensated, but even overcompensated for his transgressions, when he feels to have already paid a high price for his license to continue hurting her, then he starts to think, that he is entitled to get this license and that she owes him to forgive the transgressions of the past and to tolerate his future transgressions.   When the woman refuses this deal, he feels rejected, even outraged.   

It really is an impasse.   She is as convinced of her right to not be the target of transgressions as he is convinced that he has the right to be allowed the transgressions in return for the imposed compensations.

A man, who would hurt me, is not suitable for me, no matter, how much he is willing to compensate for hurting.   If he wants to be suitable, he has to refrain from hurting me.