I aggravate myself, let alone anyone else. But, I think that the people who are the most smug aggravate so much because they cannot see their faults. Maybe, there is even the possibility of being smug with faults as well.

Admit it. Consensus is your enemy. Smugness is your friend. — schopenhauer1

Who cares? Or is that being snug? :wink:

There is wisdom within the crowds.

But what if a person is only perceived as aggravating by some other people?

But what if a person is only perceived as aggravating by some other people? — baker

That is probably just because the rest of the people don't know them. If they did they would probably perceive that person to be aggravating as well

That is probably just because the rest of the people don't know them. If they did they would probably perceive that person to be aggravating as well — Sir2u

As if "being aggravating" were an objective, inherent characteristic of a person, and have nothing to do with the way two people interact with one another?

As if "being aggravating" were an objective, inherent characteristic of a person, and have nothing to do with the way two people interact with one another? — baker

Did I say anything about that?

But to be truthful, when "some" People find another person aggravating it is because of some trait or characteristic they have that is the cause. It would be logical to suppose that other would find that person to be aggravating for the same reason.

Most people do not have "being aggravating" as an objective but it is usually a inherent part of then.

Admit it. — schopenhauer1

I used to be worse.

As if "being aggravating" were an objective, inherent characteristic of a person, and have nothing to do with the way two people interact with one another?
— baker

Did I say anything about that? — Sir2u

I infer that this is what you're saying. Esp. when you put it like that:

But to be truthful, when "some" People find another person aggravating it is because of some trait or characteristic they have that is the cause. It would be logical to suppose that other would find that person to be aggravating for the same reason.

Most people do not have "being aggravating" as an objective but it is usually a inherent part of then.

Do you think that if Tom thinks Dick is aggravating, this has nothing in any way to do with Tom?

And that Tom is completey helpless in the face of Dick's aggravation? Ie. that if Tom is in Dick's presence, Tom will become aggravated, and there's nothing Tom can do about that?

Do you think that if Tom thinks Dick is aggravating, this has nothing in any way to do with Tom? — baker

Of course it has something to do with them both. One has a low tolerance for a specific characteristic of the other. For example, I have a low tolerance for people that ask pointless questions, therefore those that have a tendency to do that irritate me.

And that Tom is completey helpless in the face of Dick's aggravation? Ie. that if Tom is in Dick's presence, Tom will become aggravated, and there's nothing Tom can do about that? — baker

Tom can quite easily walk away or just tell Dick to piss off. How is this relevant to what I said?

Of course it has something to do with them both. One has a low tolerance for a specific characteristic of the other. For example, I have a low tolerance for people that ask pointless questions, therefore those that have a tendency to do that irritate me. — Sir2u

So you neither feel nor take any responsibility for how you feel about (and react to) others.

It must be terrible to have one's state of mind so affected/directed by others.

So you neither feel nor take any responsibility for how you feel about (and react to) others. — baker

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Is it not obvious that I am the one that decided that I have a low tolerance threshold for people that ask pointless questions, or are you imagining that it is somehow genetic or programmed into me.

It must be terrible to have one's state of mind so affected/directed by others. — baker

Yes it is terrible having people ask pointless questions because they are either failing to understand what I am saying or purposely misunderstanding my words to try and provoke reaction.

But it does not really bother my state of mind, when I have reached the threshold I tell them to piss off.

There are three people in the room, a rich man, a sexy young lady and an hunky athlete.
The rich man spends a lot of time talk about his possessions.
The athlete spends the time talking about his exploits on the field and with the ladies.
The young lady listens to both with interest for a while and imagines what life would be like with lots of money to spend and with a handsome hunk. But then decides that they are both arseholes and walks out telling them that she will see them later on the golf course.

People can have tolerance for some aspects of other people while loathing others parts of their personality. Try to remember that everything is not black and white.

But then decides that they are both arseholes — Sir2u

So what? If they don't think they are arseholes, they are wrong, in denial?

We're talking past eachother ...

I'm saying that other people don't have characteristics that would exist or have relevance regardless of the observer.
Also, "aggravating" is not the same kind of personal characteristic like "Caucasian".

You're externalizing, you talk of other people as if you're the one who decides who they really are or what is true about them. You use you-messages, not I-messages. Most people are like that. But it still makes for very low quality interactions.

I'm saying that other people don't have characteristics that would exist or have relevance regardless of the observer. — baker

I am really sorry to say that this makes no sense. If people don't have characteristic that would exist regardless of the observer then there is nothing to talk about here.

Also, "aggravating" is not the same kind of personal characteristic like "Caucasian". — baker

Both are descriptive of people, one is physical the other is personality. Did you just figure that out or do you think I am not able to recognize the difference.

You're externalizing, you talk of other people as if you're the one who decides who they really are or what is true about them. — baker

Exactly where did I say something like that? I am the one that decides what I think about them, or is that not obvious to you?

You use you-messages, not I-messages. Most people are like that. But it still makes for very low quality interactions. — baker

Again I do not understand what you are trying to say. Maybe you could give an example of what I have said that makes you think something like this.

I am really sorry to say that this makes no sense. If people don't have characteristic that would exist regardless of the observer then there is nothing to talk about here. — Sir2u

One can always talk about one's own perceptions and formulate one's verbal expressions accordingly. It's a whole other world of interacting with people.

Also, "aggravating" is not the same kind of personal characteristic like "Caucasian".
— baker

Both are descriptive of people, one is physical the other is personality. Did you just figure that out or do you think I am not able to recognize the difference.

That's not the difference I'm talking about.
Whether someone is Caucasian or not is not up to you (except if you were in some racial identity comission or some such).
But whether someone "is" aggravating or not is 1. up to you, and 2. how you interact with that person.

The same person can "be" aggravating or not, possibly depending on how one treats them. Which just goes to show that it's not their personal characteristic, but an interactional one.

You're externalizing, you talk of other people as if you're the one who decides who they really are or what is true about them.
— baker
Exactly where did I say something like that?

In the way you formulate your statements.
As if "Tom is aggravating" would ontologically and epistemologically be the same type of statement as "A cube has 6 surfaces."

I am the one that decides what I think about them, or is that not obvious to you?

Except that you don't formulate it as your thought, as your opinion, but as if it were an objective fact about the other person.

You use you-messages, not I-messages. Most people are like that. But it still makes for very low quality interactions.
— baker
Again I do not understand what you are trying to say. Maybe you could give an example of what I have said that makes you think something like this.

Have you read the link?

You said things like "this makes no sense", "people that ask pointless questions". You didn't say "I don't understand this" (until now, after all my trying to change the mode of the conversation).

Whether someone is Caucasian or not is not up to you (except if you were in some racial identity comission or some such). — baker

Well that is pretty obvious.

But whether someone "is" aggravating or not is 1. up to you, and 2. how you interact with that person. — baker

When I find someone aggravating, it is because of that person having a quality I do not like. It is possible that that person has acquired that specific trait because they have cultured it themselves or because it has been imposed upon them through nature or nurture. The ones I find most irritating are the self cultured traits such as snobby accents, exaggeration of intellect and the worst of all is the overbearing belief that some people have in their own superiority.

In the way you formulate your statements.
As if "Tom is aggravating" would ontologically and epistemologically be the same type of statement as "A cube has 6 surfaces." — baker

Now this is sort of silly. Where did I make a statement like that?

except that you don't formulate it as your thought, as your opinion, but as if it were an objective fact about the other person. — baker

OK, so you think that they way I am saying that I think Tom is a dickhead actually means that he is the head of a dick?

When someone says "I think" at the beginning of a sentence it is not to be counted true statement.

For instance, when I say that I find you to be a very irritating person, does that mean that you are one?

I do not know the truth about that, you may be a nice person. But based on the way you are interacting with me, I think I can safely say that you are irritating.

So either get used to everyday use of language and stop thinking that every interaction between parts of the universe HAS to be analyzed philosophically or find a better playpen.

Have you read the link? — baker

No, I just asked for fun. Anyone that uses the wiki as a serious reference leaves a lot to be desired as a bearer of knowledge.

What I asked, maybe not clearly enough is that I still don't understand what you mean by this. How does this apply to the topic? Are you trying to tell me that you think I am aggravating because of the way I speak and its nonconformity to someones theory about how to use language?

You said things like "this makes no sense", "people that ask pointless questions". You didn't say "I don't understand this" (until now, after all my trying to change the mode of the conversation). — baker

A person usually speaks what they think, it meant exactly what it said. "This makes no sense". Is it so confusing?

the worst of all is the overbearing belief that some people have in their own superiority. — Sir2u

Will the irony never end!


Anyway, I'd like to see the OP's reply -- ! -- that's why I posted in this thread to begin with.

Will the irony never end! — baker

Well I think that irony is preferable to plain bullshit, but that is only my humble opinion.
And it is always better to get an ironic reply to questions that none at all.

Anyway, I'd like to see the OP's reply -- ↪schopenhauer1
! -- that's why I posted in this thread to begin with. — baker

Which reply? Are you waiting for him to come and explain it all?

It's not like we're at a philosophy forum or anything, dude.

It's not like we're at a philosophy forum or anything, dude. — baker

Oh, that's right.

So why are we discussing Psychology and sociology? I was sure that peoples' interaction with each other came mostly under those headings.

No, I was discussing an epistemological issue.

No, I was discussing an epistemological issue. — baker

Well yes, everything comes under that title.

But your sad attempt to psychoanalyze and explain peoples' behavior using interpersonal communication theories goes a little beyond the scope of an epistemological issue.

But I guess that you could entertain us with an epistemological view of the issue.

Your attitude is not conducive to meaningful communication.

Admit it. Consensus is your enemy. Smugness is your friend. — schopenhauer1

Smugness is definitely my friend. I am not sure about the consensus part. Agreement can be conditional to factors one is not able to experience directly.
Communicating what is simple to oneself to others immediately runs into these other ways of ordering experience. We have a great body of common knowledge but keep talking about it in a way that requires a mind blowing amount of effort to not be misunderstood by others.

Our current society: