Annoyance: Perception vs Reality

What's up, guys? New to the forum - hope I'm posting this in the right place.

And apologies in advance for the long-winded post, but this has been on my mind for a while now, and just today decided to put it on paper. Found this forum via a Google search and decided to join.

I'd like your opinions on the following:

Is there a universally annoying person? Is there truth behind a person being annoying the same way there is truth that regardless of who you are (male/female, young/old, black/white), if a 100 ton boulder falls on your head, there is no way around it - you're moving on to the next life. I assume, "no." And here's why: If there was truth behind there being a "universally annoying person", then all people would feel the same way about said person - which I don't believe is ever the case. Regardless of how many people think a certain person is "annoying", there'll always be one that doesn't. One person loses sleep over how "annoying" someone is, while the next person doesn't give an ounce of energy to what the person did or said. Does it not boil down to people's over-time, developed idea(s) of what they, themselves, perceive as being "annoying?" What their friends, families, and society, over the years, have ingrained (whether consciously or subconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally) into their heads as to what "is" and "isn't" annoying?

I asked online earlier today, and some guy said that, "there are truly annoying people." And that he is, "...annoyed when someone swears in front of children."

There are people out there that may not find the person who swears in front of children as being annoying. They would simply see that it's not something they want their child to experience, and handle the situation on the spot - not get annoyed by it. But then there are others that will burn inside. So was that person truly annoying? Or was it that one man's perception? Is it an ultimate and congenital truth that dwells within our DNA that tells us, "this person" or "this thing" is annoying? Or, again, does it boil down to what each individuals life-long collection of thoughts/ideas says it is? Both, maybe? If so, why?

There are third-world countries that may deem swearing AT their own child (which I'm sure many would consider "worse" than swearing in front of their own children or in front of others' children) common ground - and when when such a thing is acted out in front of others (those with the same conditioned way of thinking - having the same theories, ideas, whatever), I'd bet not one soul in that room bats an eye. Why? Could it be that, regardless of what we are convicted of believing about a person, our perception of them has more to do with our own mind, body, and soul than it does theirs?

If the thoughts in our heads were true, would they not hold true for everyone the same way the above "boulder" scenario would? I think so. Which leads me to believe that it is a perception - and that it is just a mind full of conditioned thoughts developed over time due to good, bad, neutral life & societal experiences - not to mention adapting to other peoples ideas of what is and isn't "good", "bad", "annoying", or whatever else.

What are your thoughts?

 

Not normal to curse at our children and is in the 'third world.'

You must live in a strange world. It also seemed a little erratic. Can you summarize?

I don't think one type of person would be annoying to everyone. Carrot top was popular, some people must have liked him. Now he's kinda ripped, so I admire the steroids.

 

What makes something "normal?"

Don't understand the second part of your sentence, sorry.

Why do you say that?

Annoyance of someone/something: Perception or Reality?

Which would mean that you are in line with my belief: That annoyance is nothing more than a perception.

Some tend to think that there are those who have this (and I quote) "universally annoying vibe" about them. All I'm trying to get at is that it is their perception that the guy/girl/thing is annoying, and not that it is, somehow, an actual/universal truth.

 

Of course it's perception. Totally depends on the mind of the perceiving person. I don't imagine Jesus or Buddha would have described anyone as annoying.

 

Thank you for your response, Walsh - I appreciate it.

And I most definitely agree.

 

I'm too annoyed to answer.







Sorry. Couldn't resist....

 

I work with a woman that not one person I work with likes. We're all a pretty nice, easy to get along with bunch of people, but none of us can stand this woman. If there is a universally annoying person out there, she is it.

 

It's definitely percieved. But is it not possible that if there were 2 people left on earth, and an "annoying rock". Both people believe that this rock is indeed "annoying". Is annoyance only percieved or is it universally true?

In the world we live in today, there is general consensus that 2+2=4. We are told this is true. This is the belief that has been instilled into us. But if a man from mars believes that 2+2=5, then no, 2+2 DOES NOT =4.

That is why nothing can be universally true.

 

the guy who said that is universally annoying.

 

My boss suffers from extreme OCD and he is genuinely and completely annoying. Some people can't handle him at all. I can only because I tune out his insane craziness.

To say someone is universally annoying in all aspects is tough, though. But I don't think that any one person is never annoying at all either

 

Annoying is an inability to process ones own reaction to stimulus.

 

Thanks for the response, guys.

Thanks for the good questions, trippy.

You say, "...left on earth." If by "left", you mean that there once was a group of people with similar mentalities as there are now, then I would say that their annoyance was due to a collective idea of what annoyance is. If you're going the "Adam & Eve" route, then no, I personally don't think they would find a rock annoying.

If the former, tho', I believe the idea was previously and slowly embedded into their minds as to what annoying is. It's not that an inanimate object of any form can actually have an energy that causes, without fail, all men and woman to feel the same way about it - at least with regard to annoyance the way we know it today, can it? I'm not speaking from a place of -knowing-, btw, but rather of inquiry.

What can be a bit scary about that is that if those two people decided to raise children, their children would view that rock as being "annoying", as well, regardless of what their true feelings relayed to them: that the rock is nothing more than a pile of mass, energy, whatever, and doesn't affect them the way their parents said it did.

Think KKK. What is it about a person of color that pisses these people off so damn much? Is that not a good example of being lead down a road that you most likely wouldn't have walked down yourself if it wasn't for such a strong family and social influence?

I'm not an expert of numbers, so I don't know whether or not there is a universal truth with regard to that. But I've heard, "God in numbers" a few times before. If there truly is a divine source that created all, who is "perfect", then who's to say (regardless of what is perceived by a different species) that 2+2 truly doesn't actually = 4? Maybe there -is- a universal truth to such a thing. We can't dismiss that idea because we simply do not know. What I believe we -do- know, is that everyone doesn't find "annoying guy" over there in the corner...annoying.

With regard to thoughts, I'd have a very difficult time disagreeing with what you've said, because I just don't know.

Can we hold a thought "true" the same way we hold true the law of gravity? I mean regardless of how "good", "bad", or "annoying" someone might be - or whether you're a man or woman, if you walk off of a 90-story, high-rise building ledge, you're plummeting to your death. That's something that we can all agree is not a single person's perception.

Like if a child was raised in a home the entire course of his life without having any outside influence, and it was a normal occurrence to tap the wall of their home and bark at 6:00 O'clock every single day of their lives, then that would be his or her reality - that would be "normal." But to those of us who have been raised to believe that barking is "not" a normal act, then, well, we would look at the others as being, "out there."

Or how about if there was no religion, no previous understanding of what "good" and "evil" is. Or better yet, if we could somehow test (living outside of time), on a parallel universe, what a group of people would act like if the very first person on that (let's call it...) planet was instilled with the exact opposite beliefs that we here on earth deem "honorable", "normal", etc - would they stray from that train of thought? Or would the absolute majority get better at being what this planet deems as "hurtful" or "greedy" or whatever else?

I've been led to believe that all man instinctively knows good and evil "deep within", but this is not something that I can say I truly KNOW and have concluded on my own based on deep personal, spiritual and worldly research, but rather because it's what I've been told.

I mean I do believe that good prevails over evil, but I question the basis of that belief. Would I have come to that conclusion myself without someone instilling it in my head? Again, I don't know. I sometimes wonder if a seed was planted or if the seed is a natural part of who we are. An -annoying- case of, "what came first..."

Which brings me right back to where I started: What came first? Annoyance? Or the thought of annoyance?

 

Is this a thought/idea or a fact/truth, in your opinion?

 

Can you elaborate, please?

 

I think that to someone somewhere any one person is annoying at some point.

For instance, I don't find my best friend to be annoying at all...she's sweet and loveable and I just wanna squeeze her cheeks. But my brother finds her niceness to be annoying sometimes. Its all a matter of the person. No two people are alike, so opinions and tastes differ

 

So then, I would tend to believe that it would be just a perception, no? And not that your friend is, in fact, "annoying."

 

It is not their state that you are annoyed with but your own.

 

turning the topic of annoyance into a drawn-out and deeply philosophical debate vaguely annoys me.

 

Don't draw it out. Annoyance comes from the way you organize your own thoughts, the way you interpret stimuli.

If the cause of your annoyance is outside of yourself, then you have no power to do anything about it.

 

Quite right. The same can be said with any external stimuli that causes a negative reaction. When the stimuli causes a negative reaction and there is no way to change the stimuli, you can only change yourself.