To potentially save oneself time and energy in dealing with problematic people, one should determine early on whether they could be any different. Although the melodrama that they live is played out as disagreeable, due to a near-complete absence of joy in their spirit, if favourable circumstances that they claim to want actually came about, it would be something of a stalemate. Some people’s instinct for enjoyment goes only so far as their need for conflict. They are not secure in themselves to have fun.
A problematic person will acknowledge a happy person’s superiority insofar as they find any given manifestation of happiness in them repugnant. They may understand any trace of happiness in themselves as a sign of weakness and vulnerability and attained by others by ‘illegitimate’ means. Therein lies their saddening desire to find any little thing wrong with the happy person. The problematic person will try to engage happy persons in arguments because they cannot detect in them much, if any, foolishness or idiosyncrasy; they see it as their calling in life to have a hand in trying to un-dignify them and thus prove that they are in fact illegitimately happy i.e. a problematic person is a self-styled rebel against supposedly corrupt establishments.
If there is one honest trait in a problematic person it is that they will not pretend to be happy when they are not. That said, this is because they are subject to the negative emotions that rule their brain. Furthermore, when interacting with person’s with whom they are not necessarily on bad terms, they may try to deceive specific happy persons by exaggerating their behaviour as sociable, therein personalising their quarrel as the happy person’s problem and not their own. But because they are not so naïve as to believe that the happy person will buy into this charade, given that their all-seeing-eye is specifically why they dislike them in the first place, this is shameless dishonesty. The happy person need only play possum because the problematic person’s efforts, for want of a better word, are based on their knowing that they have inspired in them suffering that they are all too aware of in themselves; they would then only be obligated to forget their regressive actions that have regressed further.
And whether the problematic person befriends fellow sickly persons or fights them, nevertheless they prefer them to the happy person. They are friends insofar as they have a disposition in common, though they may have a take it or leave approach to such relationships anyhow. There is no individual growth in the union, only a reciprocal justification for a growth stunt.
If one calls on a problematic person’s blatant demonstrations of negativity, in not so many words they may pose the question ”show me where it says I have to be positive?”. Their error here is that their apparent belief in the absence of an objective reality is passed off as meaningful in itself which is contradictory. They are not necessarily unaware that they are therein exposed as intellectually bankrupt; that they persist in antagonising others at all is as much to say ”I am not defeated unless I say I am defeated”. This is an abuse of the power of speech which is ultimately useless to them, meaning that the problematic person has not so secretly accepted that, for whatever reasons, they are helpless. But still, with any remaining energy that they possess, they persist in their folly, and because they take out their problems on those who are not responsible for them, their suffering is just, and one need not empathise with them.
Lastly, there are some baseless instances of disavowal. They may attribute abominable acts as being influenced by evil supernatural forces, though this belief does not stop them from being angry at those who, in their eyes, commit abominable acts when logic would dictate that it should inform them to use their discretion. Another abuse of power given that they have admitted to being potentially possessed by at least one demon.