I have been taking a really neat rebuilding after divorce, loss and trauma class at the local college here and we received this:
CRAZYMAKERS: INDIRECT AGGRESSION
Learned usually from parents
What's your conflict style? The following lists some unproductive ways you may be handling your conflicts. Bach explains that there are two types of aggression - clean fighting and dirty fighting. Either because they can't or won't express their feelings openly and constructively, dirty fighters sometimes resort to these crazymaking techniques to vent their resentments (often unconciously). Because these sneak attacks don't usually get to the root of the problem, and because their power to create a great deal of hurt, crazymakers can destroy communication.
1. The avoider
The avoider refuses to fight. When a conflict arises, they'll leave, fall asleep, pretend to be busy at work, or keep from facing the problem in some other way. This behaviour makes it very difficult for the partner to express their feelings of anger, hurt, etc because the avoider won't fight back. Arguing with an avoider is like trying to box with a person who won't even put on gloves.
2. The pseudoaccomodator
The pseudoaccomodator refuses to face up to a conflict whether by giving in or by pretending that there's nothing at all wrong. This really drives the partner, who definitely feels there is a problem, crazy and causes them to feel both guilt and resentment toward the accommodator.
3. The guiltmaker
Instead of saying straight out that they don't want or approve of something, the guiltmaker tries to change their partner's behaviour by making them feel responsible for causing pain. The guiltmaker's favorite line is "its okay, don't worry about me".....accompanied by a big sigh
4. The subject changer
Really a type of avoider, the subject changer escapes facing up to aggression by shifting the conversation whenever it approaches an area of conflict. Because of their tactics, the subject changer and their partner never have the chance to explore their problem and do something about it.
5. The distracter
Rather than come out and express their feelings about the object of their dissatisfaction, the distracter attacks other parts of the partner's life. Thus he/she will never have to share what's really on their mind and can avoid dealing with painful parts of their relationships.
THERE IS ABOUT 14 MORE TO GO BUT I AM TIRED OF TYPING FOR A WHILE LOL SO WILL POST THE REST LATER.
Instead of allowing their partner to express their feelings honestly, the mind readers goes into character analysis, explaining what the other person really means or what's wrong with the other person. By behaving this way the mind reader refuses to handle their own feelings and leaves no room for their partner to express themselves.
#7 The trapper
The trapper plays an especially dirty trick by setting up a desired behaviour for their partner, and then when it's met, attacking the very thing they requested. An example of this technique is for the trapper to say "let's be totally honest with each other," and then when the partner shares their feelings, they find themself attached for having feelings that the trappre doesn't want to accept.
#8 The crisis tickler
This person almost brings what's bothering them to the surface, but they never quite come out and express themselves. Instead of admitting their concern about the finances they innocently ask "Gee, how much did that cost?", dropping a rather obvious hint but never dealing with the crisis.
#9 The gunnysacker
This person doesn't respond immediately when they're angry. Instead, he or she puts their resentment into a gunnysack, which after a while begins to buldge with large and small gripes. Then, when the sack is about to burst, the gunnysacker pours out all their pent-up aggressions on the overwhelmed and unsuspecting victim.
#10 The joker
Because they are afraid to face conflicts squarely, the joker kids around when their partner wants to be serious, thus blocking the expression of important feelings.
#11 The trivial tyrannizer
Instead of honestly sharing their resentments, the trivial tyrannizer does things they know will get their parther's goat - leaving dirty dishes in the sink, clipping their fingernails in bed, belching out loud, turning up the tv too loud and so on.
#12 The beltliner
Everyone has a psychological beltline and below it are subjects too sensitive to be approached without damaging the relationship. Beltlines may have to do with physical characteristics, intelligence, past behaviours, or deeply ingrained personality traits a person is trying to overcome. In an attempt to "get even" or hurt their partner the beltliner will use their intimate knowledge to hit below the belt where they know it will hurt.
#13 The blamer
The blamer is more interested in finding fault than in solving a conflict. Needless to say, they usually don't blame themselves. Blaming behaviour almost never solves a conflict and is an almost surefire way to make the receiver defensive.
#14 The contract tyrannizer
This person will not allow their relationship to change from the way it once was. Whatever the agreements the partners had as to roles and responsibilities at one time, they'll remain unchanged. "its your job to......feed the baby, wash the dishes, discipline the kids....."
#15 The kitchen sink fighter
The person is so named because in an arguement he or she will bring up things that are totally off the subject. 'Everything but the kitchen sink' (the way their partner behaved last new years eve, the unbalanced checkbook, bad breath - anything)
#16 The withholder
Instead of expressing their anger honestly and directly, the withholder punishes their partner by keeping back something - courtesy, affection, good cooking, humour, sex. As you can imagine, this is likely to build up even greater resentment in the relationship.
#17 The Benedict Arnold
This character gets back at their partner by sabotage, by failing to defend them from attackers, and even by encouraging ridicule or disregard from outside the relationship.
Our homework assignment was to identify two crazy making techniques that we often use and discuss the communication breakdown process. As well we were to describe how we could begin to change our behaviour.
What a great list, Kid! That does a pretty good job of covering the ways that we don't "fight fair".
>>But I want others to be able to recognize these mind games too and bust their spouses by saying I am not playing your game anymore.<<
For many of us, the hard part is putting that knowledge into practice at the right time and at the right place. For me, that took alot of practice. I don't think that job will ever be finished.
After d-day, there were at least two parts of the problem that were very difficult for me to solve. Whenever I was blamed for "problems in our marriage", I almost always took the bait. At the very least, I would spend weeks examining my role in our conflicts. Now, I realize that my X knew how effective that tactic was. At the time, I was not able to bring myself to believe that she was not "fighting fair". It was unthinkable, to me, that she could be so devious.
I still wonder why I was so naive and so blind. I think that part of it had to do with the fact that I was still so shaken by my discovery of her affair. That in itself was unthinkable. Also, for a couple of years after d-day, it was difficult for me to bring anything into sharp focus. My mind was mush. Another problem that I had was that I had never before noticed anyone fighting in that way. Not to that extent. I don't know if that was because I had never experienced fighting of that kind before or if I had simply not recognized it when it happened. These days I focus like a lazer beam on anything that looks like that kind of fighting. I probably recognize it too quickly and exaggerate the extent of it.
Another reason that it was so tough to stop getting drawn into those mind games is that I was an emotional wreck. At that time, a novice "dirty fighter" could have pulled the wool over my eyes. I was an easy target because I was so emotionally reactive. For me, that part was especially hard to cope with because under normal circumstances I am the opposite - I tend to be much more aware of my cognitive reactions to things. I tend to be slow to become aware of my emotional reactions.
I have plenty of avoidant behaviors of my own, of course. I sometimes use humor as a way to talk about things that are difficult or unpleasant. Or to avoid talking about those things. I'm sometimes more interested in blaming others than resolving a conflict. There are times when I'm a gunnysacker - clamming up when I'm really annoyed about something and only later allowing my anger to show (and often about an unrelated subject). As I said, it is a work in progress. I don't think the job will ever be done.
Another thing that I had trouble with was understanding what "focus on yourself" really means. To me, "focus on yourself" meant stop looking at what your partner is or isn't doing and start looking at your own role. "Focus on yourself" meant that I should not "blame" my partner for engaging in some serious dirty fighting. The problem somehow had to lie with me. I decided that I was exaggerating her role in our conflicts and that she was not "fighting dirty". If she appeared to be "fighting dirty" then there must be a problem with the way that I was looking at our conflicts.
Or .... if she WAS fighting dirty then it was my fault for forcing her into fighting dirty. If I could change the way that I engaged in conflict then she wouldn't have to fight dirty. For example, if I wasn't so upset and angry then we could begin to work towards resolving some of the conflicts.
At times, "focusing on myself" seemed to me to become an endless loop. At the risk of sounding like a saint an martyr, the worse things got, the more responsibility I tried to take. The more I tried to stop focusing on her and focus more on me, the more I excused the inexcusable. I've been trying to describe some of this to Sage during the past week or so.
I've spent alot of time in the past couple of years focusing on "focus on self". I still don't understand the theory very well. One possibility is that the theory itself is flawed. There are certainly many good reasons to encourage people to "focus on thyself" but it seems to me that the risk is that they may become less inclined to stop, stand up for themselves, and say "hey wait a minute ... that is not acceptable".
On the other hand, the theory may be fundamentally sound. I may have made a mistake in the way that I tried to put theory into practice. It seems to me that I may have misinterpreted "focus on thyself" and allowed myself to take it to a ridiculous extreme. "Focus on thyself" cannot mean that a person should continue to allow other people to abuse your "self". "Focus on thyself" must also mean being aware of your own limits and your own boundaries. As Harriet Lerner has said, boundaries are not something that you decide as much as they are something that you discover.
I no longer care what the X was or is. It's nibor-the-woc's problem now. However, there was a ton of avoidance.
As for myself, I think I'm the CROCKPOTer.
I put all kinds of issues that confuse or bother me into a crock pot on LOW heat for days or weeks on end. At some point I turn the heat up to MEDIUM. I frequently take the lid off to see what's happening. What's it turning in to? Eventually, I turn the heat on HIGH. I take the damn lid off the stuff and leave it off. Oh oh. Will it burn? Set off the smoke alarms? Will the constant focus ruin the stew of issues and emotions? Will it be rendered inedible (unresolvable)? Will it eventually cool, be ignored, and become moldy? I analyze it. Pick the peas out. Cut them open. Squash a couple. Count the barley grains.
I sort of try to find my own resolve and whomever is close to me, or I perceive as partially responsible for my dischord, ends up hopelessly subjected to this.
Q I think we all use some of them some of the time. It really opened my eyes however because I honestly didn't recognize them as a type of game or dirty fighting until I saw the list and they were in black and white. It hit me like a ton of bricks since my ex exhibited almost all of them, and often I thought it could be me that caused him to react the way he did. I have since realized that he is just horrible at handling any type of conflict and always was. I just failed to see it (and that is my problem, not his).
I tend to clam up when asked and say "nope nothing is wrong" even though I obviously am not happy about something. My favorite phrase is "im fine" ..... hahahaha wow haven't used that one in a while
But it gives us all a starting point, somewhere to head in the future. Even if we don't get all the way there I think recognizing our own conflict style and others as well will help us to gradually take baby steps to change our unproductive ways of managing conflict. I have already found it helpful at work
Thanks for sharing the conflict styles. My favorite is the "gaslighting" one that is a compilation of most of what you have already mentioned. There was a movie in the 1920's entitled, GasLighting....where a man was having an affair and drove his wife literally "crazy" by turning down the "gas light" (name for lighting before electiricty). Anyway, she would say, Gosh it's dark in here and of course he would deny it...funnny.
I have been thinking about my own style of conflict and mine is more put it on the table...of course, the X would ALWAYS change the subject...I have to go to work, I am at work, Oh, you should have seen my putt on No 8...ALWAYS changed it. I never realized it until about a year ago. He simply REFUSES TO ENGAGE...of course he gets drunk and he is a prize fighter...usually the gunny sack stuff...I think that's why I am in such a state of shock...traumatized...he brought up stuff that happend 20 years ago...I had no control over making it better at this point...14 years down the road...whew. We didnt' ever really FIGHT...we just get into unsolvable arguments now...he said that I never agreed with him...whoa.
About the self...the pay attention to the self...I think that he means focus on your self and what comes up for you at the moment...stay in the moment...stay focused in the moment. I don't think the theory is flawed...I think we tend to overgeneralize it...it's so easy...simply stay present in the moment and pay attention to what comes up. I don't think anyone would disagree that conflict is inevitable and almost a functional part of a relationship...you get things out and hopefully resolve them. BUT, you have to have two people that are on the same page. How you control for lies or inauthenticity, I don't know. Most people state their own truth...but it seems rediculous to us at the moment. I haven't figured it out yet....I don't have anyone to fight with. I know that several months ago my very dearest friend was so ugly to me and was treating me like a piece of shit. I called her on it....she simply retreated into herself and didn't talk to me for days. I have really reexamined my relationship with her and I am not as "intimate" with her. She somewhat spoiled that for me by bringing up something that she knew was a very sensitive topic for me in front of a lot of people....sometimes I am the "fall guy" for people....they tend to be somewhat hateful...and I simply take it. I always say to myself, "consider the source"....that means...this person is not a healthy person and doesn't know any better. Anyway, I am rambling. I can't wait to get into a fight and see what kind of fighter I am.
I guess alot of it has to do with "what am I responsible for vs what am I not responsible for". Or maybe "what can I control vs what do I have no control over". We often remind each other that "we can control our own behavior but not our spouses". I guess that by itself is reason enough to "focus on thy self".
