Now that I'm done being a slave of the Old Gods.


I of course am likely to be a dominant person. It's just the nature I've formed in myself after never being satisfied with the way other people ran things. That being said, I would rather be a leader followed by respect rather than by force, and for that reason, have been trying to make myself a better person overall during the past month.

It's my hope that once I move out of my current state in July, I will just... feel so much better, and be a better person overall because of it.

I'm not talking about delegating a hospital unit or a construction crew. You have no choice but to work with people to get anything done. School projects, though, don't need to be solo experiences. Maybe it's just you're surrounded by unmotivated students who wonder what the [censored] they're doing in university? I found the importance of delegation among peers more valuable recently in my second degree nursing because I was surrounded by people who had previous careers, so they're naturally motivated individuals. I mean we all had poor clinical abilities in the beginning. But, when it came to group projects, I realize that synergy among peers works better than hierarchy.

Also, I so hate sugar-coating. It's absolutely non-assertive and passive aggressive way of saying please "don't be there." It may bring unit harmony when you're attaining your goal, but it's not respectful and it's not conducive to trust either.

I'm quite submissive and make the most reluctant leader. But I also don't follow blindly, which seems to irritate people sometimes.

Well, naturally it will be different in different environments. Undergrad has a wealth of underachievers. Taking it on myself doesn't happen every time, but I don't need my GPA to get tanked because someone failed to do their part. I anolyze the group and make decisions based on my interactions and observations of these individuals throughout the semester. Generally, I will assign even those I think are useless some tasks and then edit everything together myself to make it passable for presentation to the class/teacher. There is a difference between tendency and absolutism. I tend to do projects myself IF the group seems incapable. Not sure where you take issue with this?

Sounds like a personal problem. I fail to see it as non-assertive and passive aggressive. It is simply not being an asshat. What I am supposed to do? Tell them they are an idiot? That is far worse for any project because it is sparking drama. It is being far more respectful to keep one's opinion to themselves than to call someone else in the group incompetent. Trust isn't necessary for a project. It can help it, but it is not necessary. Also, how would they know I don't trust them? Most are relieved someone else is doing the work.

Well, I tend to do it a bit differently. I had to write a group paper in philosophy once. We divided the paper up into sections, and when it became obvious everyone wasn't as talented at writing or as into the project as everyone else, I just had them write their sections and edited them. Heavily. While they were watching, and with their permission.

While my doctoral program is / was primarily online, I generally make edits with permission, but I've never really had anyone question my work, even when I completely rewrite it and their work is pretty much gone.

Undergrad was a totally different beast, though. Lots of section writing and hashing out a single paper in hours-long sessions. So glad I don't have to do that anymore.

passive aggressive i think

Yes and no to the undergrad wealth of underachievers. I'm a biology major, and I was surrounded by people who wanted to be in research, dentistry, or medicine. They were very motivated and independent people who worked their butts off, so it was easier to delegate tasks. That was the case in high school and in nursing too. Maybe it's just the people who you're surrounded with?

Also, I'm not telling you to call your peers idiots. That's not being assertive. Assertive means being honest while clarifying your expectations. Passive aggressive on the other hand seems to show some resistance of seemingly being the only one to finish the job. I mean you seem to want to call them idiots without the drama. I mean I'd rather you clarify expectations on a task you assigned to me than tell me "Don't worry. I'll do it." As I said, maybe you're surrounded by the wrong people. But, not everyone is like that. Because someone tells me that, and I really was trying to do a good job, I'd be pissed.

Well your experiences and mine do not match up. Plain and simple. Might be your school or the time period you were in school. Either way, my experiences differ considerably. Sounds like you got unbelievably lucky. Who I am surrounded with is kind of irrelevant, I am not doing projects with my friends. Generally they are assigned at random in a class. If I was doing projects with the people I chose to surround myself with, I would be having a wonderful time.

Actually, that would be assertive, and it would be inappropriate behavior.

Assertive: characterized by bold or confident statements and behavior. Honesty doesn't come into play and I am not exactly being dishonest, I am just omitting my opinion about their ability to deal with the specific tasks. I am not about to say they are idiots in everything they do, just tell them where there strengths lie, as I see it. You catch more flies with honey.

Passive Aggressive: indirect expression of hostility. I am not being hostile. I don't want to call them idiots, why you think that seems like a misunderstanding. I just want to not get a bad grade. Maybe I need to really break this down so you understand.

I take on the tasks I feel others are unsuited for after assigning tasks suited to their perceived strengths. Usually the tasks they volunteer for are suited to their strengths. I don't see it as necessary to cause drama in the midst of a project by giving my honest opinion on someone when it really isn't conducive to completion of the tasks. People usually volunteer for roles and I simply make suggestions. I don't domineer like some kind of Tyrant. I assert my expectations, I give my opinion on how the project should be done, I listen to their thoughts, I give my thoughts again based on this new information, they agree or disagree, we debate the points, I then take control of the project and delegate tasks appropriately based on strengths and weaknesses. If someone manages to make me feel they are useless for the project, they deserve to be omitted from it completely. Such as a guy who shows up to class five times throughout the semester and comes to one of the project meetings and none of the others. Or if a guy shows no interest in the project, I will assign him easy, unimportant things to do, so he doesn't put it at risk. Another example is if we have someone who is just genuinely bad with the subject matter. Then we cannot place trust on him to accomplish the tasks. In any of these cases, I then will usually assume their tasks or delegate their tasks among the remaining groups members. I am not seeing the issue here. I wouldn't take someone who seems competent and deny their work. I would use and adapt it into the project. Unfortunately, I don't get many of those.

Basically, you are reading too much into what I was saying. I started out with normalized generalizations and for some reason you seem to have decided to get hung up on them. Simple logic should have told you how I would react in cases where someone demonstrated competence.

Same here. I've always been more of a 'follower', though like someone else said, I won't do it blindly. I won't do something to hurt someone else or anything that goes against my values. But yeah. I'm worst when it comes to arguments and debates, since I just end up not giving any points and just letting the other person talk. I guess I do what others say since it's my way of avoiding "conflict", and because I've been taught that obedience is the way/is respectful :/

I'm submissive until the point I blow up and everything I had to take and accept comes out. But usually I just wait until everyone knows what they have to do and I'll just do what's left. I'm not dominant at all. But I won't follow blindly. If I don't agree with something or if it's done bad then I'll say so and make my point and they'll listen to me.

Now according to some (I never realized this.) I'm a really dominant person when it comes down to a certain activity with the other gender (about which we're not allowed to speak here). apparently it's like I'm a completely different person...

Neither. I deal with conflict by deflection and diversion. I'd sooner quit the field of battle than submit or conqueror.

That is pretty much submission though...

Submission is giving in. Deflection is making them focus on someone or something else.

Distraction, can only work so long. What happens when you cannot deflect attention?

I don't know how to answer this.. most people think I am intimidating.

I prefer being a follower in most situations because I'm very good at being supportive. In dire situations however, whenever everyone else is at a loss and I am sure I can bail us out, I tend to take charge.

You can always deflect attention. That's why it's neither submissive nor dominant. It takes a certain measure of control over your opponent in order to successfully deflect them away from you so you don't have to deal with it.

No, you pretty much cannot always deflect attention. Either way, you are avoiding the issue at hand. Avoidance is submissive in another form. You are scared of dealing with an issue, either through laziness or cowardice, and seek out ways to avoid it. That is submissive.

I disagree. Cowardice and submission are different things completely. Running away from a fight is not the same as submitting yourself to the opponent.

Infact there are many cases in which avoidance and running and deflection are straight up resistance to submission. Take resistance movements in Nazi occupied France and Germany for instance.

Yeah, avoidance doesn't imply cowardice, submission, laziness or any other trait, it's simply what it is. And is often the sensible and pragmatic approach. I have known people who take a very binary, hierarchical view of the world, winners and losers, dominators and the domineered, but it's a simplistic world view that I don't subscribe to.

I'm neither when it comes to day to day regularity but in the bedroom I'm very submissive.

I'm not a leader type, don't like the attention or responsibilities that come with it, but I don't follow orders just cause someone else is dominant either. If I don't like to do something then I will object but I don't like to open my mouth and speak my mind about things to a group either, rather I like to pull someone aside and tell them how I feel if I have an objection as to what is going down.

So I'm neither when it comes to work or social life or even dealing with strangers.

I think having a little bit of balance is ideal. Being too dominant is obnoxious, and being too submissive is pathetic.

I suppose i'm submissive. Its not like i don't have ideas though, i tend to suggest them with terms like 'maybe' 'perhaps' probably'. I like to avoid conflict whenever possible.

People who piss me off deeply will get marked. And plotted against. And sooner or later, their downfall shall come I'll stab em silently.

But then again, i don't have much experience yet of working in a team. So...we'll see.

Submissive and submitting are not the same thing either. So just because you don't submit immediately and directly, doesn't mean you are not submitting later on indirectly. Such as doing nothing, which allows someone else to do as they wish around you, even if you come to no direct harm from them. If you were the dominant type, you would not let them go about that, but you can distract as a tool. Distraction, by itself, is just a tool for delayed submission or dominance. If you plan to buy yourself time to deal with the situation, then it is not as submissive. If you never plan to deal with it, that is submissive. Avoidance can be cowardice, but cowardice is submissive, that does not make avoidance inherently submissive. Cowardice is literally submitting to your fears. So cowardice is quite literally submissive.

They made a tactical retreat so they could deal with the problem in a more desirable circumstance. That really is not a comparable situation.

Point being, distraction is just a delay between submissive and dominant tendencies. So, if you keep delaying something, that is submissive in a way, excepting some rather specific circumstances. If you distract to buy yourself time so that you can deal with a situation on your own terms, then that becomes a dominant tendency.

It depends entirely on what you do with the avoidance. My point was that eventually, distraction or delaying tactics WILL fall into dominant or submissive zones. It is sometimes the sensible and pragmatic approach. You cannot avoid everything, nor is it often conducive to avoid things. It is far better to at least approach an issue and get a feel for it before you jump ship.

It is a simplistic worldview, but the only one that is usable. People fall within spectra on different things, at different times. No one is operating under the illusion that reality is as simple as dominant or submissive. What they are looking at is general trends or tendencies, which is the exact point of this thread. Are you more dominant or submissive? Notice that it isn't asking if you are dominant or submissive.

I hate deflection so much. That's even more annoying than passive aggression.