Talk:Passive-aggressive behavior

Pseudo-science?

I am NOT advocating that the condition does not exist - please, do not get me wrong - it is simply that the article is misleading.

Sadly, this article is good example of how strongly people want to believe in a phenomenon, rather than in facts. There is no scientific material available to back up a hypothesis that this is even a condition! PAPD is (as the text indeed points out) an unresolved matter in modern psychiatry, but "passive-aggressive" as a supposed behavior trait, is merely a pop-psych term. Even the book used for reference here, "Living with the Passive-Aggressive Man", is not a serious medical/psychiatric evaluation - it is a dimestore paperback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparviere (talk • contribs) 17:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Attempting to assess some sort of cohesive, scientific treatment on this subject has lead me to the same conclusion - certainly also too much pop-psych nonsense written at this point for it to have much useful meaning.Wikibearwithme (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Treatment

This article only offers two sentences by way of treatment. Is there anyone in this community that might be able to offer more content regarding the details of treatment for this disorder? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsaacD (talk • contribs) 20:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hilarious

Having read this article for the first time tonight, I find it to be extremely hilarious in the way that it tries to characterize the idea as a psychological phenomenon. While it may have found its name in this area of science, I doubt that the information here is representative of the idea as a whole. I won't change the article yet. Rest assured that I will be working on it. I find this article to be absofuckinlutely hilarious. Raluboon (talk) 09:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt at all that passive aggression is a very important phenomia. Whle i have done a lot to convert this article from a joke to something half-decent, it could still do with improvements. --Penbat (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that the original poster has a misconception of the role psychology as a whole and individual personality traits play both in medicine and social currents, e.g. popular science literatur. But suffice to say that ICD recognition more than warrants the approach taken in this article. While myself not in the subject, some sentences might be included as to how such patterns in behavior make it hard for peers to recognize, and assist with, the underlying themes like a narcissistic hurt, etc. This would in a sweet way address the original concerns. But why I came originally to comment here: could we remove or work on the words "negative personality trait". This kind of judgement runs a bit contrary to how the understanding and dealing with such phenomena today is favored to be portrayed.Daspostloch (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think it was a personality disorder. It is negative, obstructionist, behavior used by people when outright confrontation is not an option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.178.26 (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Somebody should figure out if passive-aggressiveness is a trait or disorder. JohnQposter (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A major point the article is missing is what the Passive Agressive person is doing. They are giving the impression that they are trying to comply/agree/help with a situation when in fact they are trying to achieve the opposite. The article goes on about HOW this is done (ambiguity, procrastination, excuses etc), but is very vague on WHAT is being done. 207.34.136.141 (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Aliquid

What a bunch of head-shrinker horse-shit.

Copyright problems with diagnostic criteria

The American Psychiatric Association has not released its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders into public domain, but claims copyright. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter of complaint (Ticket:2010030910040817, for those with access) about the use of their diagnostic criteria in this and a number of other articles. Currently, this content is blanked pending investigation, which will last approximately one week. Please feel free to provide input at the copyright problems board listing during that time. Individuals with access to the books would be particularly welcome in helping to conduct the investigation. Assistance developing a plan to prevent misuse of the APA's material on Wikipedia projects would also be welcome. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Biased?

Isn't "Living with the Passive-Aggressive Man" just a self-help book? It does not seem a very credible source for an article in an encyclopedia, especially since it views passive-aggression from a narrow point of view. It focuses on males only, "from the bedroom to the board room", in one specific culture, right? In most cultures, females are not permitted to express aggression openly, so to focus only male passive-aggression in this article and completely ignore female passive-aggression is a big problem. I think this article could be greatly improved by finding better source material, especially for the "Signs and Symptoms" section. Thanks, PB.

Can't help but feel this article is unfairly biased against the passive-aggressive personality trait. Sure, it's not fun to be on the receiving end of it. But it's hella fun to do. Besides, there are times when it might be called for, or the only avaiilable action besides open confrontation, which may be undesirable.

Would suggest a rewrite to remove the 'negative' definition, or at least tone it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.17.220 (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That comment is just too funny to me. I immedicately thought the article was unfairly biased from the very beginning because it calls passive-aggressive personality a 'trait' instead of a 'disorder'.

Disorder as in a personality defect, there is something 'wrong' with people who display passive aggression. But of course I also think of cowardice as a personality disorder or at the very least a character flaw, and cowardice seems mixed up in the passive part.

The inappropriately aggressive portion, inappropriate because of the underhanded and sneaky way it is usually exhibited, shows some sort of character flaw as well. A lack of integrity and honesty is also at the heart of passive aggression.

So yes, I find this bias at the first mention of the word 'trait' instead of 'disorder'. To me this is all indicative of a person without appropriate communications or coping skills who skulks around doing bad things. It is almost petulant childlike. I am sure noone would say a sociopath 'trait' would they? Trait? That is just rich.

Very difficult people to deal with, they need some sort of treatment to correct their disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.38.146 (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the typical behaviour of Zionist Manipulators, which sickipedia is so full off! They want you to be a good Sheep, to respond directly and honestly, so that they can have you Dealt With! Passive Agressive is an essential tool for The Resistance..!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.166.107 (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The gambling connection

Casino gambling puts a person's fate in the hands of luck which the person knows is biased in favor of the casino. This appears to be passive-aggressive conduct.

No it is to do with reinforcement theory.--Penbat (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section?

What happened to the criticism section? Conflict theory and Marxist philosophy would posit that so-called passive-aggressive behavior is a rational response to a society wherein the structures of production exploit the individual and leave him or her no legitimate means of resistance. Passive aggressive behavior is a rational response to human exploitation and mistreatment by inhuman institutions.

74.160.194.39 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

dunno although obviously obstructionist resistance can be used in all sorts of contexts. --Penbat (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of the term is that it is in fact inappropriate to use the term passive-aggressive when talking about a situation where it is an appropriate response--it is Passive Resistance under those circumstances. It is passive-aggressive in contexts where it creates conflict or undermines efforts to resolve it--when it is used by an individual to exploit others by refusing to permit them to accommodate the individual. Basically? It's when an individual turns an effort to determine what they want into a guessing game. This is also what makes it aggressive. 75.177.89.14 (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced material

A series of edits with no edit summaries deleted a reference for material and introduced a significant amount of unsourced material. I am reverting those edits under WP:BRD. I don't object to the material per say, but changing referenced material to unsourced, and adding more unsourced material is problematic to maintaining WP:Verifiable content. I am requesting sources of the material before re-adding. Ward20 (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction in terms

How about the history behind the term "passive aggressive" which is so obviously a contradiction of terms. A bit like saying you are "positive negative". Most people know a positive and a negative make a negative. So how can you possibly be passively aggressive? What a silly notion by silly pseudo scientists called physchologists who like to pretend that their fake careers are based on real science. Ha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.136.150 (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a total oxymoron - and deliberately so, just to gain attention.

If I tell you to do something and you don't agree, what choice do you have? If you object, then I'll say you're being aggressive. If you try to avoid the aggression, then I accuse you of being passive aggressive. In many cases it is just a form of bullying, to call a person passive aggressive.(Doc Adam (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC))

The book Living with the Passive–Aggressive Man

I don't think this book deserves such an important place in this article, it isn't scientific at all. It is for unhappy women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.39.144 (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is it called passive-aggressive?

I've always thought it meant that you act passive in some situations (where you feel like you don't have control) and then aggressive in others (where you do) -- like taking your anger out on someone else. If this isn't the case, can someone explain why it's called "passive-aggressive?" This might be a point of confusion for other people as well.

Thanks, Semitones (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You are being "passive aggressive" when you do not promptly/eagerly, and to the full extent of your ability, obey/forsee the command/wishes of someone in natural/proper authority over you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.211.190 (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You are using passivity in an aggressive way, or passively resisting others because outright aggression wouldn't work, or is not your personality. Eg agreeing to do something to get them off your back, w/o any intention of actually doing it. — kwami (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It can also be because you're using passivity aggressively because direct, overt expressions of aggression would have social consequences. For example, somebody in a situation where the group needs to reach a consensus refuses all others' proposals and yet does not give any indication of what might possibly be found acceptable, with the group unable to simply leave this person out of the decision.

Notice that in this situation, it is a democratic group lacking stratification and needing a unanimous consensus: there is no 'someone in natural/proper authority' over anybody. However, by consistently refusing both others' proposals and to give any indication of what you might agree to, you both have managed to ensure no agreement can be reached and done so without direct, overt aggression, which might likely have enabled the group to justify the simple solution of no longer involving them in making the decision.

Consider as well how outsiders might view your complaining about this person's behavior... Werhdnt (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Ref improve section|June 2010|date=June 2010 removed

{{Ref improve section|June 2010|date=June 2010}} Anyone think this tag should stay? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Passive–aggressive behavior → Passive-aggressive behavior – (change in punctuation) The dash is used incorrectly here. "Passive–aggressive behaviour" with a dash would be behavior that ranges from passive to aggressive or alternates between the two. This is something different: Behavior that is simultaneously passive and aggressive. A normal hyphen is all that is needed. — kwami (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. And support the proposer's reasons. At WP:MOS, see WP:HYPHEN and WP:ENDASH; and see current discussion in this section at WT:MOS. Noetica^Tea? 08:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Man.... That's a mighty technical point, but after researching, it appears the rationale is correct. NickCT (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. --Penbat (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Confused – if it's aggressive behavior that's also passive, why not just a space? And how do you explain the sources that use en dash? I know that in the technical field of machine learning we use passive–aggressive algorithms that alternate or choose between passive and aggressive learning steps; but I guess I don't know exactly what the term means here that would lead to it be hyphenated. Dicklyon (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Because it's not two independent characteristics, but one that is simultaneously passive and aggressive. Or at least that's how I read it. — kwami (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Right. But more than that, there is a hierarchy: it is aggression primarily, but qualified as passive aggression. See these sources: [1], [2]. Not all sources are clever about this. Several use the unjustifiable form "passive-aggression". Heh. They are content experts, not style experts. Typical enough. Noetica^Tea? 08:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at google scholar, "passive-aggressive" is much more common than "passive aggressive". http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22Passive+aggressive%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 --Penbat (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. -sche (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed lead photo

A passive-aggressive note

I removed this photo from the lead paragraph because it doesn't represent passive-aggressive behaviour. Passive aggression is where a request is made indirectly to give the pretense that it isn't really being made. "I would have had a great day if I hadn't been cleaning up someone's mess" rather than "can you please clean up your mess?". The fact that it's in a note or any other medium doesn't really have a bearing, and in the case of the photo I don't think there's even a reasonable alternative medium. This seems to be a common enough misunderstanding that I think it'd be worthwhile mentioning it in article. Quietbritishjim (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree! Lova Falk talk 08:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

So do I, but there is clearly confusion. See my section above (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Passive-aggressive_behavior#Why_is_it_called_Passive_Aggressive.3F). I strongly believe this article should have a section exploring what passive-aggressive behavior is NOT, or at least come to terms with the fact that the term is now used more broadly than it originally was. --Semitones (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Section: In psychology

The first paragraph in this section said the following:

It occurs in the workplace or interpersonal contexts, but behavior is not considered passive-aggressive if exhibited during a Major Depressive Episode or cannot be attributed to Dysthymic Disorder.

The source of this sentence was DSM-IV. I checked, and saw that the text in DSM-IV is not about passive-aggressive behavior, but about the diagnosis Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder which is not made if the passive-aggressive behavior is part of depression/dysthymia. However, it still is passive-aggressive behavior! So I moved (and copyedited) the sentence to the section Diagnosis as a personality disorder. Lova Falk talk 06:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Pervasive across the entire article is the lack of distinction between the personality disorder (a specific diagnosis, controversial or not) and "passive aggressive behavior" which has a clear enough meaning in ordinary English and requires no particular scientific proof. Personality disorders are not the same as behaviors. You can get pissed off at your boss or spouse and behave passive aggressively without having Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder. Without going and looking, I'd venture a guess that this problem occurs in all the wikipedia articles about personality traits which have the same names as diagnoses, it occurs because of the nature of mob-think-editing which characterizes wikipedia, and against which i work at least tirelessly if not passive aggressively. 69.201.168.196 (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

DSM-V

Where, if anywhere, does PAPD appear in DSM-V? Is it still in an appendix? Has it been removed altogether? --Lezek (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfair

Interpreting this phenomenon should clarify that it is not an action, it is a reaction. A reaction from a receiving end. From what end? From an offending end. It mighty not be the most desirable or constructive reaction, but it does not warrant being classified as a flaw or disorder. Apparently, those who would classify this as a disorder would expect one to behave as one is told without objection, which is clearly a disorder in itself. Accusations of it might even be construed as hypocritical and passive-agressive acts themselves, which makes it a juxtaposed oxymoron and likely an abuse of psychiatry. As mentioned extensively in this section, it lacks scientific sources and that should be mentioned in the article itself. This term belongs only in episodes of dr.Phil and not in scientific articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.42.228 (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Warner ? questionable legitimacy ?

Under the heading "In the workplace" there is a line "Warner in the ad for his online ebook says". I would like to know, who the fuck is Warner and why does his ads deserve encyclopedic status ?

This entire article is about a concept invented by snake oil vendors to explain how buying their ebook will solve your "bad employee" problem without having to do anything because, surprise, your bad employee is having a mental health issue from the DSM ! Of course it isn't because you treat them like crap, they're the ones in the wrong. Thanks WARNER ! 141.119.184.10 (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

art, culture

suppose the donkey in Winnie the Pooh deserves a mention.

i'd also prefer a line on how passive-aggressive behaviour is favored (and is therefore selected for) by most societies to an openly aggressive one. (even though constructive behaviour is more welcome, indeed. (but perhaps there's a selective pressure against cooperation in some societies/environments as less adaptive.) also there could be a word about manipulation which might overlap w/ passive-aggressive behaviour.) 176.63.176.112 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC).

So, according to the lead

this behavior, which is a personality disorder, an indirect expression of hostility and all the rest of it, consists (with the exception of the "deliberate" part, which, though, is only an alternative) simply of failing to do one's utmost? This can't be it. ("You hate me!" - "What makes you think that?" - "Well, just look at your performance!" - "Well, I'm sorry all right for that, and I've said so, but as for - heavens! - hating you, I've never had the slightest itch to"... "You're being passive-aggressive!" Seriously?) Not wishing to cover up my own faults, but ever since Adam, perfect men have been a rarity to say the least.--2001:A61:20FC:7B01:5D77:6EAE:E500:E90E (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Fork of material to an article on Passive–aggressive personality disorder...

About 8K of material was recently cut and pasted, creating a new article entitled Passive–aggressive personality disorder.

Near as I can tell this fork wasn't subject to a discussion, prior to the cut and paste.

I don't have a considered, informed opinion as to whether this fork as a good idea, but I am pretty sure an 8k fork is to large to justify by WP:BRD.

I will wait a relatively brief amount of time, and revert thecut and change the new article to a redirect, unless someone leaves a good justification for the fork.

The implementor did leave an edit summary "(Moved to Passive–aggressive personality disorder. A person with passive-aggressive behavior can be without personality disorder diagnosis)"

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Geo Swan! You know, in psychiatry passive-aggressive behavior is not the only sign/symptom of the passive–aggressive personality disorder. Please, read the article personality disorder for a start. I moved that text to a new article, because it's scientifically incorrect to combine this two concepts into one article. I didn't know that we must have some discussion before doing such obvious thing.

Also, we have 5 separate interwiki articles exactly about the passive–aggressive personality disorder:

• de:Passiv-aggressive Persönlichkeitsstörung
• en:Passive–aggressive personality disorder
• no:Passiv-aggressiv personlighetsforstyrrelse
• ru:Пассивно-агрессивное расстройство личности
• tr:Pasif agresif kişilik bozukluğu

Best regards, — Лорд Алекс (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there a role for cross references between these topics. Using a “See Also” heading. I don’t know enough about these topics to do any related changes that would help here. CuriousMarkE (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)