Processing stimuli into stress
It's been observed, through studies, that nobody inherently makes us mad, rather it is ourselves that do so. The basis for this claim being, that we do not always evoke the same emotions from a stimuli. For example, the simple task of another person acknowledging you upon passing might vary depending on who does it. For one instance one might be happy that this event has occurred, whereas somebody you view that is different than oneself, you might question their motives.
Looking back at our evolutionary roots, we have a split second thought process that determines whether a particular stimuli is a threat or not. This phenomena proves that we are the root to our emotions. The sentiment that we control how other people make us feel is supported (Patterson 26).
This thought process can be rather simplistic or it can be a string of thoughts cumulatively. The shorter ones are more innate, whereas the longer ones are categorized as stories. Humans create a story and create a causal relation between a particular event and an outcome. In the latter case, we might observe that we don't like a person or idea, and this can be true; oftentimes though there are gaps in logic, that we do not notice. We can have a gap in logic and overlook it, or even rationalize a bad thought into a good enough one for us, to warrant our unique perspectives (Patterson 28).
We can easily conclude that another person has ulterior motives behind a conversation, but had we asked the question that perhaps they might not then we would take that into account as well. It is here, that we can avoid confrontation, but if we consider them to have no motives we will have less stress on the content in which we speak (Patterson 29).
We can easily conclude that another person has ulterior motives behind a conversation, but had we asked the question that perhaps they might not then we would take that into account as well. It is here, that we can avoid confrontation, but if we consider them to have no motives we will have less stress on the content in which we speak (Patterson 29).