The hostess queried dryly, "You can't ?"
After my friend told this story, I indicated to him that his hostess was at Antagonism. He was surprised by my quick evaluation; but he confirmed it. The tip-off was not only the words used, but the occasion and manner of use.
The primary characteristic of Antagonism is rebuttal. The emotion is overt hostility. He never fields the ball; he always bats it back. He twists facts to suit his Antagonism. He expresses verbal doubt. Defending his own reality, he attempts to undermine the reality of others.
All of these characteristics were evident in the hostess who was unwilling to accept a thank you with graciousness. Her challenging question was expressing verbal doubt, trying to undermine a statement made by the guest, twisting the facts by refusing to understand the guest's intention and hurling the communication back.
That's getting high mileage out of two words. Right?
While he can differentiate lower tones, he interprets all higher-tone
communications to be the same as his own. If you try to give him a compliment,
he turns it into an insult: "You did a great job here."
He says, "Yeah? What do you mean by that crack?"
He nags, threatens and bluntly criticizes. He thrives on an argument.
He challenges and cross-examines.
" What's it to you?"
" I can lick you, loud mouth."
"Yeah ? Let's see you try."
Antagonism can't resist a dare. If you want him to do something, suggest the opposite. If you want to sell him something, inform him that he can't have it. Give him something to challenge. He will.
The best way to get him fired up is to give him a contest to win: "Bet you can't get these done before two o'clock," or "Bill will probably get more done than you." Competition is his game. He'll be persistent if there's a chance to best the "enemy."
You zig; he must zag. He's the one who votes "no" when everyone else votes "yes." He's the person who wants to go to the dog show when everyone else wants to attend a concert. He must disagree. He must rebel. His whole survival (he thinks) depends on finding and engaging an opponent. Where Anger bluntly overrides you, the 2.0 prefers to debate about it. (Anger doesn't bother arguing; he knows he's right). Antagonism encourages a long argument in order to prove himself.
A high-tone person is not a blind follower. He often opposes the group-think. But he does so only out of personal conviction and only for a definite purpose. Antagonism, however, goes against others just for the pleasure of going against.
He never plays for the fun of it; he only plays to win. It's serious. He likes to dominate every activity; where he can't, he'll quit. If he can't quit, he'll try to spoil it for others. He's a poor sport. In a card game, he groans if he's given a bad hand; he's bitter if he loses a trick; he blames others for his bad luck. When he wins, he gloats and brags. He'll cheat if he dares. There's a driving compulsion to win at all costs; it's winning, not playing, that counts. An upscale person enjoys winning too; but he plays the game with a light, unserious touch . . . and it's OK if he loses.
At 2.0 the person is so convinced that he's either a victim or a victor
that you can't keep him from fighting his fellows (in a family or group)
unless you find a common enemy elsewhere for him to oppose.
Try to give him a job, and he'll argue about it: "Why don't we wait
until next month. This'll just bring us more headaches." He's a master
at inventing reasons why he shouldn't do a job.
We've made it through the worst of the obstacle course now. Antagonism is the dividing line. Above it, a person is rational most of the time. Below 2.0 the person is irrational a larger percentage of the time. The irrationality of the downscale person is evident in his limited viewpoint. He may be gullibly for, blindly against or forever indecisive; but he's seldom flexible. Above this position, the person looks at things from many different viewpoints. Let's mosey out into the sunshine.