Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon
To me those are two very different examples. I'm not going to touch wet paint because I don't want paint on my hand. The person who put that sign there is being helpful to me. In contrast, a person who, during an argument, tells me to shut my mouth is not trying to be helpful at all, they are trying to be controlling. Something like that is bound to piss me off and, yes, will lead me to do the opposite of what I'm told to do.
|
See I would touch the wet paint just because it says "Do not touch" Almost like the forbidden fruit in the garden of eden scenario. (Just an example dont want to go the religion beleifs/disbeleifs route) For some it seems a lot of things are only fun because they are frowned upon. The second they are approved it loses its appeal. So if someone in the midst of arguing decided to reverse the roll and said.."ok say what you got to say..let me have it" Then that would counteract the urge to engage any further into the argument. Unless you suspect that was their intention all along anyways was to use the reverse treatment just to get you to shutup. Depends on how well you know the person or how good you are at reading people in general. I dont think their always has to be a defining reason for this behavior. Other than some simply chose to act in that manner simply just because. Certain situations definatley intensify the trait but its really just a dominant characteristic anyway for some. If the sign said "touch wet paint" Then no..there would be no touching of the wet paint. Of course there are different extremes and degree's of this tendicie for each individual. But do you think one gender is more prone to this kind of behavior than the other? Drawing the line of course at inflicting harm or the breaking of laws that could land you in prison.
Threaded Mode