I'm curious if Submitter B has similar experiences to the "creepy behavior" that they would describe as discussions, or if every similar experience has come across as an argument. That is, the line between putting forward differing interpretations and denying the data may not be a crisp one, and there may be communication techniques both B and the people B converses with could use to make that line clearer.

One of the things that I've noticed about myself is that for quite some time, unless it was something frequently discussed so I had good calibration data (like happiness), I had the one example problem where I would model my range as the full human range. To use an example with made-up numbers, was I a punctual person or not? Well, I was on time sometimes, and late sometimes, and so I didn't see punctuality as part of my identity. But discussing it with other people helped me discover that I was on time 95% of the time, and the general population was on time 50% of the time, and so in the eyes of other people I was "punctual" because I was "more punctual than most," not because I met my own standards for punctuality.

but when they're skeptical about things I say about myself, this is ingratiating.

I suspect this sentence is missing a 'not.'