Annoying: The Science of What Bugs Us by
Joe Palca
My rating:
3 of 5 stars
Okay. I could be snarky and talk about everything about this book that is a bit annoying, but the reality is that this a strange and interesting start into researching what annoyance is, how it is defined, and what qualities or factors help make something annoying.
Unfortunately, there is not even proof that annoyance actually exists as a true emotion, and that it isn’t just a mislabeled gradient or combination of other emotions, such as a low level of anger or frustration. On a language scale, we all agree annoying exists, and we know exactly which things annoy us, even if don’t all define annoying in the same way. On a science scale, defining annoyance is an entirely different matter.
This book goes off on some long tangents in random directions, and it tries to justify why certain things are so annoying in terms of senses (sounds, smells, tastes, etc). I would have liked more information on the human/behavioral aspects of annoyance than what I got, but this isn’t a bad overall perspective on annoyance. I found some of the side research that is referenced quite interesting, particularly the commentary on those with perfect pitch, even though it wasn’t the kind of information I expected to receive from this book.
The book does try to count/label the different things that tend to annoy people, but the reality is that what is annoying is different to everyone. Sure, there are underlying factors such as pitch/tone, repetition, past experiences, uncertainty, culture, bodily functions, etc, but there’s no way to quantify how much of something it actually takes to annoy a certain person in any moment. Basically, there are so many variables when it comes to annoyance, so there’s no quick answer.
If you were hoping to read this book to figure out what makes people in your everyday life so annoying, just forget it. You’re more likely to figure out what makes you so irritated by others, rather than what makes them so annoying. So what it boils down to is that the human factor controls annoyance. Even when researched, what is attractive to a person in one moment could become annoying to them in the next.
The thought I liked the best is that extreme traits, which are often a strength, can become annoying, because of how often that trait is exposed. For example, someone who is kind and agreeable can later be seen as a doormat, and someone who is strong and outspoken can often, after many times of speaking out, be seen as stubborn or domineering. While these initial traits are admirable, they can start to appear the opposite, the more times someone experiences those. The problem is, those are still good traits in people, but the constant repetition of them becomes tiresome or frustrating to people. In reality, if we appreciate these traits in people, then we should not be annoyed when they display these traits. However, we are human, and our annoyance is not always logical. We are predisposed to be annoyed by the repetition, so sometimes we are annoyed, whether it is fair or not.
One example of this would be when a person says they love how funny their partner is and that he/she is so laid back and doesn’t overreact to anything, but then later they decide that they hate how their partner is immature, makes childish jokes, and doesn’t take anything seriously. In a small dose, these traits were admirable. The repetition is what makes an admirable trait become annoying with time. So basically you are guaranteed to annoy the person you are in a relationship with, and if it’s a fatal attraction, you’re going to annoy them with the very thing you used to attract them in the first place.
Good luck, people. It’s a cold, hard world, and unfortunately, this book did not find that annoyance will keep you warm at night.
Book 45 read in 2018
Pages: 272
PS: If you were not annoyed by my review, then I probably didn’t make it long enough and should have repeated myself a few more times, while humming a dissonant tone, and burning an acidic stick of incense, while standing too close to you. ;)
From time to time I decide that I should read or re-read a classic or modern classic. This is considered by many to be a modern day classic, and I decided I should read, for reasons I no longer remember. After slogging through it, I'm afraid I consider it a LOT of wasted time. 
