The good-hearted person prefers a situation in which his neighbor has an apple and he has none to one in which neither has an apple. The envious person prefers a situation in which neither he nor his neighbor has an apple to one in which his neighbor has an apple and he does not. The spiteful person prefers a situation in which neither has an apple to one in which he and his neighbor both have apples. The spiteful person is therefore a tough case for the positive person who wants to understand everybody and everybody’s point of view. The positive person wants every interaction to be a win-win but the spiteful person doesn’t like that. For him, if the positive person wins that is a loss. Is this even logical?
Of course it is logical because we can simply say for the spiteful person a win-win is a loss. Therefore the only way to satisfy his desires is to lose to him. If you prove to the spiteful person that you won and he won too, then he has lost. So therefore if you show him how he benefits you, you thereby damage him.
But why would somebody be like that? Maybe he is fed up with me and my goodness and my positivity. Maybe people like me have been oppressing people like him for too long, and he doesn’t want us to have the tasty apple of self-satisfaction. Maybe, in fact, self-satisfaction is precisely what he suspects we most want, more than any of the goods we are supposedly dickering over. He suspects deep down we would rather walk around feeling that we are good and rational than anything else. And he takes that as an injustice and a hurt, and wants to take it away from us. And that makes sense.