Bob thinks that if he admits that he has property X, then that will render him [I understand “him” to indicate the totality of his traits] (more) invisible to Alice (or onlookers). By admitting that he is X, Bob adds support in the common-knowledge context to the image of him as X. If there’s common-knowledge that Bob is X, then Alice will: be emboldened to model Bob as X; treat Bob as X; expect Bob to expect Alice to treat him as X; ignore, or perhaps punish or resist, behavior by Bob not in line with X.
All of this is true not only of defensiveness but of all interactions. All exchanges of meaning, including non-verbal, carry potential updates to have some property X, Y, or Z. It is just more apparent with defensiveness.
All of this is true not only of defensiveness but of all interactions. All exchanges of meaning, including non-verbal, carry potential updates to have some property X, Y, or Z. It is just more apparent with defensiveness.