Every time you say âprinciple,â it feels like something is being hidden. Honestly, you might be looking for an opportunity to load something onto it outside of this wage issue. A rent increase justifies you, but question where you stand on other matters; are there subtle ego games going on in this house?
Does what he calls âprincipleâ serve as a kind of âboundaryâ against the possibility of putting you in a tough economic situation after the hike? In other words, even if you donât make an unfair increase, does he send the message, âI donât have to accommodate thisâ in his eyes? Perhaps he thinks the matter is purely commercial and doesnât include any aspect of friendship.
The word âprincipleâ might be a defense mechanism indicating that you donât want to prolong the matter at all. Itâs like saying, âletâs not discuss this, my decision is final.â But the funny thing is, while trying to avoid a discussion, you might be triggering an even bigger argument. Is there stubbornness between you?
Maybe they really donât understand the rate of increase logically; concepts like the market are abstract for them. Have you tried explaining it in a more tangible way? For example, can you clearly say something like, âWeâre paying this much to the landlord, and the increase is this muchâ? Because not everyone enjoys diving into detailed calculations, and they might pretend not to understand when it suits them.
I donât think itâs a matter of logic; it seems to resist from an emotional place. I mean, when it comes to principles, it could be the mindset of âI canât lose control.â They probably feel like if they lose something, they will end up losing everything.
If so much detail is being discussed, I think thereâs something else going on in the background. Maybe they have low trust in you, meaning they might even doubt if you reported your raise correctly. Did they ever say, âLet me talk to the landlord about the rent as wellâ? 
Hasnât the landlord ever tried to ask about the rate of increase? Because if they donât want to verify the source directly, it seems like they werenât really planning to have a discussion from the start. Is it really a principle, or is it just glossing over something they donât like?
I would tell you to call the landlord and ask about the increase rate, but wouldnât they say something like, âwhy are you interfering, it goes against my principles?â It seems thereâs a gap in communication from the start. Their reaction isnât clear.
Perhaps what he calls principle is not just economic but related to the division of roles in cohabitation. With the increase in rent, he may feel he has âmore control.â I wish you could dig a little deeper into this principle issue, because it seems to move beyond being just an economic matter.
Could they be trying to guide you by saying âprincipleâ? I mean, regardless of the rate increase, itâs an attempt to frame the discussion the way they want. They might be seeking control from an emotional place. What if you came up with another âprincipleâ and hit them with the same thing? Letâs see what theyâll do.
The issue of âprincipleâ may be hollow, but if itâs truly that assertive, I have to ask why itâs taking the path of outright rejection instead of questioning the increase. Is it stubbornness, indifference, or a lack of understanding of the topic? Because letâs be honest, there is no world governed by principles.
So, is this âprincipleâ issue just a mask? I mean, could it actually be related to a dissatisfaction with the whole roommate situation rather than the salary increase? Maybe they donât want to step out of their comfort zone, or perhaps theyâre looking for a reason to leave. Have you ever tried looking at it from this side of the table?
If they are hiding behind the principle, it could actually be a situation where they donât want to bear the burden of the costs but canât express it directly. Have you ever had situations where work was placed on you regarding another issue before? Because this really looks like a âconflict avoidanceâ tactic.
Could it be that when they shout âprinciple,â they assume the matter will be closed? How clearly defined is what they mean by âprincipleâ? Or is it a tactic that leaves the content vague, forcing you to take a position? If so, even the ground for discussion is slippery 
Hereâs what Iâm thinking: Your roommate might be more disturbed by the way you brought up the issue than by the raise itself. Because when they talk about principles, what they really mean could be a boundary in your dynamic rather than a financial detail. Have you considered how you phrased your suggestion to research the raise percentage?
I think the critical point is whether what he calls a principle is a real boundary or merely an attempt to tie up the beginning of the event. But thereâs also this: if you stopped talking directly without receiving information about the increase in the rate and rent, what is this bold âprincipleâ based on? If itâs not based on information, where is the consistency?
Could there be a discrepancy in the division of labor or the perception of responsibility rather than a principle issue? I mean, why is there such resistance to sharing the burden of time? If there has been a tendency to slack off in household chores before, with this kind of âprincipleâ excuse, it doesnât seem like a one-time resistance.
If theyâre saying itâs a matter of principle while locking things down, it seems their intent isnât a solution. But the real oddity is their avoidance of openly discussing the price increases. This wonât work without clearly understanding what theyâre saying ânoâ to. Clearly, itâs not just about calculations; something else is going on. Just ask directly: âWhy does this topic stress you so much?â You can gather clues from their reaction.
Is what he calls a principle, for example, a framework in practice rather than in thought? I mean, he says thereâs no raise, but the actual issue isnât the rent; itâs expected that you take on the burden. Things like that always start with a principle, and in the end, someone is left with a bill. Can he seriously sit down and assess real confrontations like raise rates or moving out? First, try to test that.
But what if the principle he talks about is sometimes just a tool he uses to be able to say ânoâ? In other words, could the concern be more about losing control than the financial aspect? Because in these kinds of stubbornness, usually more than just money is at stake. Have you ever thought about this, could he be just training in resistance against you?