The Counterpuncher

Likely all of us have been a counterpuncher at one time or another. In fact, most folks I know are counterpunchers on a frequent basis, varying in intensity from very mild to aggressively hostile. Having counterpunched with the best for decades, I know the dynamics all too well, and still retain some of the impulses. My mostly negative characterization of counterpunchers does not mean that they cannot be good, kind, and loving people. They certainly can be. Except…except possibly when in the grip of the need to counter.

Counterpunching is the opposite of an uplifting conversation (see 1.4.17 post), which is respectful and expansive, even in the midst of significant disagreement. A counterpuncher makes an immediate and negative or critical response to anything he does not like or agree with. No thought is given to the issue. No attempt is made to understand in greater detail, or to ask clarifying questions. The counterpuncher knows all he needs to, and he does not like what he hears. Something has to be done about it, now. In this state, he sees all black and white. Subtlety, sophistication, nuance, and grayness usually characterizing even the most mundane issues are lost to him. Reflective thought is nearly impossible.

A counterpuncher’s observations or comments are not necessarily wrong. He may have solid, objective reasons for his view. The problem is the underlying negative motivation, such as to win or to punish. And the style, which is usually attacking to some degree, accompanied at best by an understated aggressiveness, and at worst by outright hostility. The greater the counterpuncher’s emotional investment (the more anger/fear) in the issue, the worse the response.

Whatever a counterpuncher’s area(s) of sensitivity, his threat detectors are usually on peak alert. Anything triggering those will likely produce an asymmetric response roughly corresponding to the level of fear (or the fear-driven outrage) generated and experienced by the perceived threat. Incidentally, the fear is normally below the level of consciousness and thus not recognized.

Counterpunching fails the water test. In Eastern thought water moves with wu-wei, effortless effort. It will get to where it is going, yet it forces nothing. But forcing is frequently the counterpuncher’s main weapon. Unhappy with what is happening, he seeks by nearly any means to change the situation to his liking, including ad hominem attacks, avalanches of facts or pseudo-facts, misrepresentations, or outright lies. But even when calm and at least superficially calm, underlying the counterpuncher’s actions is often a need to prevail in some way, and to force that outcome if needed.

We often rightly associate counterpunching with big-issue disagreements, such as ones about education, politics, capitalism, global warming, or religion. But if my experience is illustrative, most counterpunching takes place in our day-to-day existence involving family, friends, colleagues, people we care about. Some counterpunchers would as soon attack you for not liking the same novels they do as for voting the “wrong” way. I have seen couples subject each other to near-unending barrages of countering, the emotional ante rising with each exchange. Nothing positive is left standing at the “end.” A particularly common and deceitful trick is “deflecting,” or “reversing.” Perhaps a spouse says she feels a remark by her partner was disrespectful. The counterpunching partner ignores her issue completely, and attacks her with his own concern, such as telling her she never listens to him. Neither gets his/her issue dealt with, but the merry-go-round of emotional and relationship malfunction continues.

Another devious trick is used when a person offers a long or complex observation or opinion. Intentionally, if unconsciously, ignoring the context, the counterpuncher looks for one small avenue in that complexity to attack. Honestly addressing the issue raised by the other person in its fullness is a non-starter. That requires the counterpuncher to give up his emotionally-charged fixation on triumphing. A fellow I used to teach with was quite remarkable in his ability to ignore context, even one he established. I would say something that I knew from prior experience he agreed with. Every time I did this, he found something to disagree with. He never once batted an eye, lost in his own world of countering. Otherwise a very nice fellow.

Because counterpunching is generally framed in win-lose terms, it easily diminishes the quality of relationships. Even when not directly countering each other, couples (and friends, colleagues) may use seemingly casual and lightweight, but attacking, remarks to keep the other person off balance. These are borderline sarcastic or critical comments about anything the other person is doing or saying, often passed off as jokes, which they assuredly are not. “Why didn’t you put the potatoes back in the fridge?” Delivered one way, this is fine. Delivered another, as a not-so-subtle effort to put down the other person, it is not fine. Manipulative and controlling, the essence of most countering, direct or indirect.

Troubled and troubling they may be at times, most counterpunchers do us a rare service. They give us the opportunity in real time to practice our skill in constructively and respectfully managing interactions, and in disciplining our own less desirable behavior. We should be most grateful.

Thoughts for dealing with counterpunchers:

·       Do not underestimate the seriousness with which they take themselves and their issues.

·       Generally, do not express an opinion that is not neutral or supportive. If you must, choose your battles very carefully, and recognize the likely adverse outcomes.

·       Do not directly contradict or disagree with them. Indirect disagreement may work better, if at all.

·       Accept that most counterpunchers are in a state of need and non-learning, rationally unreachable.

·       Thus, never assume a sound rational argument will carry any weight at all.

·       Use careful and non-attacking questions to maneuver the conversation in a healthier direction.

Are we lacking courage if we do not challenge the counterpuncher? Not necessarily. More than 99% of the contentious issues that I fussed with, either as a counterpuncher or the recipient, never needed to be challenged or refuted, and certainly not in a hostile manner. Even when about at least superficially serious issues, the disputes meant little in the great scheme of things.

But what if you are interacting with someone whose views are truly odious, even hateful? Yes, what then?