Unfortunately, Silas' original example is under-specified, so there are many different situations that could lead to it, or potential power plays on both sides. I'm going to make a guess that the scenario (in Silas' imagination) occurred because of something Bob did or didn't do that Alice didn't like.

Alice is fuming, and she very much wants Bob to know. She feels that Bob should know better. That's why she won't tell him what it is. She wants him to figure it out for himself, and apologize to her. If he asks what is wrong as if he doesn't know, and she has to tell him, then she admits that there was ambiguity in the original situation, or lack of knowledge on his part, that completely or partially exculpates him.

Alternatively, she might agree that there are exculpatory factors, but she still want to see if he will now realize what he did wrong and apologize without her having to spell it out for him. This approach might be especially important if he forgot something (maybe their anniversary), and she wants to see how long it will take him to remember.

Another possibility might be that she doesn't want to tell him what he did wrong because she doesn't want to look accusatory or nagging. So instead she just blast accusatory nonverbal communication at him until he understands that he is supposed to start admitting guilt.

If Silas is imagining the same scenario that is evoked in my mind, Alice is not trying to disengage from communicating with Bob all; she is trying to show her displeasure with him, and get him to (a) admit that he is at fault, and possibly also (b) apologize to what he is at fault for without her having to explain it, proving that he has either "learned his lesson" or that he isn't trying to "play innocent."

This interpretation leads me to agree with you that Alice is not lying, and that she is using implicit communication, but I think she may be doing it even more than you realize. Note that I take no position about who is in the right or in the wrong.

From Alice's perspective this is a bit smug. She is thinking "I fucking know it doesn't sound like that".

Yes.

But he knows that something is wrong and that she is not saying what-- it is reasonable to expect a socially competent person to by now understand that what she really means is something like "I don't want to talk about it, at least not now.

If Bob has good reasons to expect that she is unhappy with him, then it's not clear at all that she really doesn't want to talk about it.

Alice: "NOTHING. EVERYTHING'S FINE." Bob has clearly figured out Alice is saying something like "I don't want to talk about it, at least not right now." He is now assuming he did something wrong and begging to be told what it was. But why is he persisting?

Under the scenario I'm imagining, it's obvious why he persists. He doesn't believe that Alice is serious about not wanting to talk, based on the context, body language, and tone of voice. He interprets her communication to mean "I don't want to talk about the thing you did wrong unless you stop playing innocent about it and start groveling." That's why he starts groveling by admitting that he did something wrong... That might satisfy Alice, or she might want him to guess or admit exactly what he did wrong without her having to explain it.

In heated arguments, people often say and do things that they don't mean, or to test the reaction of the other partner. Alice could be sincere that she doesn't want to talk, but she could also be testing to see if Bob cares enough to find out what she is unhappy about, or if he will admit full culpability and apologize.

And while communication is extremely important not everything needs to be turned into a huge, dramatic discussion or debate.

Some personality types feel differently.

Alice may know she'll be over it in a little while but starting a fight would lead to week-long estrangement.

Wait, what makes you think that Alice isn't trying to start a fight? She could be defending a Schelling Point.

Depending on the nonverbals, her behavior could be an excellent way to start a fight, while pretending that Bob is the one instigating it by pestering her. If she really didn't want to start a fight, she could either hide her displeasure better, or making it sound absolutely cold and serious that she doesn't want to talk. The fact that Bob is following up with questions suggests that he thinks she is trying to either start a fight, so he tries to roll over on his belly by asking what he did.

I am not in agreement with TimS that Bob is trying to dominate Alice... I just think he's being stupid.

This only way Bob is being dominating is if he knowingly did something majorly fucked up or abusive, and is pestering Alice and playing innocent while trying to cope with it. Short of that, there actually may be good contextual reasons for Bob to believe that Alice wants to continue communicating with him, but just wants him to take an apologetic role, or (if they both know she is upset by something other than him) a supportive role. If Alice is using passive-aggressiveness to try to put him into an apologetic and groveling role, then she is the dominating one (of course, whether this is justified depends on context). Unless Bob is obviously in the wrong, then he is being stupid by letting her get away with this power play, which gives her an incentive to get upset in the future any time she wants concessions from him.

Of course, this is only one possible reading of the situation; I just suspect that it's a bit closer to what Silas intended that most of the other readings.

I'm coming to realize that dominate is too strong a word for what I'm trying to say. I think Jack made basically the entire point I'm trying to make here. My only criticism is that "stupid" is a very broad description of Bob's failure. Is there a more precise way of stating Bob's error?

This conversation is a lot like that moment in Top Gun. "I object" "Overruled." "I strenuously object!" That's not going to work. Why should Bob expect it to work?

No, I mean she is not saying "Nothing" with the intent to deceive Bob into thinking that, in fact, nothing is wrong.

Did I claim deceit? "Nothing" is inaccurate. (I understand that labeling an inaccuracy a 'lie' is a political statement.)

Notice that, by TimS's interpretation, she actually is attempting to deceive him- she hopes that he believes the lie that nothing is wrong so that she won't have to discuss the issue now. If you want to question whether or not deceit is involved, bring it up with TimS.

You are ignoring the information Bob receives from her tone of voice and body language.

Mmm, I think that's in there (as signified by the "and change"). It also depends what level we're looking at. If we assume that Bob gets message 1: "Alice is mad" from her body language, then he asks her what's wrong, and he gets the message 2: "nothing is wrong," then he could suspect it is a falsehood solely from its mismatch with message 1. (This is probably made easier by a "falsehood" tag hung on message 2, but it isn't necessary.)

Yet by trying to talk about it on the meta level he is going against her wishes and starting a fight.

Notice that any judgment about when the fight started is a political statement. Could we not say that Alice started the fight when she went against Bob's wishes and didn't explain what was wrong?

it is reasonable to expect a socially competent person to by now understand that what she really means is something like "I don't want to talk about it, at least not now.

Is it reasonable for Alice to assume that Bob is socially competent, particularly when it comes to this understanding?

Alice is clearly pissed.

About what?

Bob and Alice clearly both have deficient models of each other. I get that, and the things Alice could be pissed about. You don't need to explain basic human interaction to me (though both Bob and Alice could use some help). The problem is that, in this example, Bob wants to fix his model and Alice doesn't put any effort into fixing her model. (Remember, the original contention was over taryneast putting forward the suggestion that "Bob is too lazy to take the time and effort to understand Alice." SilasBarta concocted this hypothetical to suggest that the laziness of understanding is the other way around for many couples. TimS argued that Bob's lack of laziness was actually a vice.)

but Alice wanting that and trying to communicate it is not lying.

Alice wanting that and not being able to communicate it effectively is fixable, though. If your man is too literal to pick up on your hints, tell him directly!

Alice may know she'll be over it in a little while but starting a fight would lead to week-long estrangement.

In which case try out "I'll get over it, give me some time." (If it's true, start with "It's not anything you did.") If pressed, respond with "Talking about it will just make me madder, and I'd like to not be mad as soon as possible."

No, he means that Alice fails to satisfy the literal definition of lying, in that she is not intending to deceive.

Emphasis mine. My dictionary contains four instances of "lie" as a noun; #3 applies, and #1 (the one you're using) applies under the interpretation espoused by the person whose comment I was responding to (i.e. TimS suggested she wants him to conclude, for now at least, that nothing is wrong).

This is true, but as it is different from other fights about when to talk about it, the point stands.

Which point? As I understand it, Jack gave a large number of plausible reasons why she might respond the way she did. I selected the two most self-destructive and criticized them. It's still true that they're plausible reasons, and so in that sense "the point stands," but they aren't reasons that should be cultivated.

I'm not too interested in apportioning blame

Then it's not clear to me why you're posting in this tree? If you go up to the root, taryneast posted blaming the man for being lazy; then Silas posted about blaming the woman for being uncommunicative; then TimS posted about blaming the man for being domineering; then I posted blaming the woman for being unhelpful/dishonest; then Jack posted blaming the man for not understanding women; then I posted blaming Alice for not understanding her audience.

Perhaps you're trying to move from 'blame' towards 'consequences,' and sure, I support that move. But I don't think the comment tree as is will move very easily.

And my only point was that Bob's explicit request for Alice to say what's wrong is not really trying to understand Alice.

It seems like you're using Alice's perspective to identify Bob's intentions. Since they're having this fight, I don't think that's a reliable model to work off of. Bob wants to clear up his confusion, and he's confused about Alice. Alice sees Bob's attempt to clear up confusion (what's there to be confused about?*) as dominating the conversation- obviously she doesn't want to talk about it!

*Consider the emotional reaction that some women have when the man doesn't know what the issue is about- "he should know (without telling)." While the first part is spoken, the second part is clearly the message- if the important thing were knowledge transfer, she would say what the problem is!

But when you say someone is lying, that's an accusation that a norm has been violated.

Thanks for playing along! Notice that this has been a demonstration of social conventions, as alluded to:

It's not clear that Bob inferring that Alice is repeatedly lying would reflect better on Bob.

It is incontestable that Alice is providing verbal content that is the opposite of the information she believes. Can that be labeled a "lie"? Well, that depends on consequences, not the definition. The label of 'lying' is one she would hotly deny- despite it being literally true- because of the subtext involved. If Alice is labeled a liar, then her status-seeking strategy (conscious or unconscious) has failed- and so she'll probably double down by exploding. The convention is for Bob to not challenge Alice on that because it rarely ends well for either of them.

Very well, I concede that there could be more powerful self-aware plays.