'Am I Annoying?' This Checklist Should Help You Tell, According to Psychologists
Obnoxious reality alert: It can be really hard to figure out whether or not you're annoying."Our brains tend to filter information in ways that protect our self-image, which makes it easy to overlook or minimize subtle social feedback," explains Dr. Thomas McDonagh, Psy.D., a clinical psychologist and owner of Good Therapy San Francisco.Yet, Dr. McDonagh says it's worth stepping back now and again and asking yourself, "Am I annoying?""Annoying behavior is typically something that repeatedly disrupts, irritates or drains the emotional or mental energy of others, often unintentionally," he says. "It's not about being disliked but about the mismatch between how a person is acting and what the situation or social context calls for."To help you read the room, Dr. McDonagh and other psychologists share 13 signs people might find you annoying. Cringing at how many boxes you check? Worry not—"annoying" isn't a permanent state. Psychologists also share tips on how to become less annoying.Related:
There's a time and a place for loud voices, like when your favorite baseball player hits a walk-off grand slam. However, many people prefer you save the "10/10" volume for these very specific situations. Otherwise? Indoor voices, please."For some people, loud speakers are perceived as aggressive and rude," explains Dr. Jan Miller, Ph.D., a Georgia-based licensed psychologist with Thriveworks. "Others may be bothered by the volume due to hearing sensitivity. Being attuned to how others react to the volume of your voice, such as whether they wince or back away when you speak, can help you avoid this annoying behavior."Related:
How loud your voice is isn't the only thing that speaks volumes."If you talk a lot without giving others space, especially if people seem distracted or struggle to interject, it's a sign you may be overwhelming the social dynamic," Dr. McDonagh says. "This often stems from anxiety, a desire to connect or a lack of awareness. Even if you don't mean to, it can still leave others feeling unseen or exhausted."Related:
Whether or not you're prone to dominating conversations, Dr. McDonagh shares that a filter is important."Sharing vulnerably is a strength, but when someone reveals intimate or heavy details early on, it can feel overwhelming to others," he points out. "This kind of emotional intensity challenges boundaries, especially in new relationships where trust hasn't yet been built."Related:
Dr. Miller defines a know-it-all as someone who "may frequently interrupt conversations, offer unasked-for advice and create a one-sided and dismissive dynamic." She notes that people often find all three to be annoying. "This often leads to others feeling disrespected and unvalued," she says.Dr. McDonagh agrees, emphasizing the "unsolicited advice" part."Unsolicited advice can come across as condescending or controlling, even when well-intentioned," he clarifies. "It signals that you're more focused on your own thoughts than listening, and people may feel dismissed or judged rather than supported."
Annoying behavior isn't just "loud" and "cocky.""Lacking confidence and being too unsure of oneself can also be an irksome character trait," shares Dr. Michele Goldman, Ph.D., a psychologist and Hope for Depression Research Foundation media advisor. "Self-doubt, low self-esteem and feeling very insecure about oneself can be challenging for others to tolerate and be around."
This one is like nails on a chalkboard in terms of how annoying it is for some people."Being on your phone in social situations is often interpreted as rude and disconnected," Dr. Miller says. "It creates a barrier between you and your surroundings, which prevents you from being involved in your social environment."She says signs you're turning people off with your always-on habits include overt comments about your phone use or people trying to distract you from your device by pulling you into conversations."If you notice these things happening, you may benefit from putting your phone away and engaging with your surroundings," she suggests.Related:
Perhaps when you're "always on your phone," you're sending your second follow-up text to a pal about the happy hour you invited them to an hour ago. This type of behavior can be super annoying to many people."Being overly persistent, whether that is texting multiple times, repeating requests or forcing interactions, can come across as clingy or pushy and therefore annoying," reports, a licensed clinical psychologist. "It suggests that you are not attuned to other people's boundaries and may not be taking a subtle no for an answer."Related:
No one is expecting you to be happy all the time. However, people generally don't like a perpetual killjoy."Constant complaining brings down the moods and energies of others, making interactions draining," Dr. Miller says. "You may notice that others avoid certain topics with you or stop engaging with you altogether. It could be helpful to check in with yourself on whether your view is consistently negative, and if so, you can work to bring more balanced perspectives to interactions."Related:
Remember, it's only a joke if everyone is laughing."If people go quiet or change the subject after you joke, it may be a sign the humor is landing wrong," Dr. McDonagh warns. "Repeated 'teasing' can feel like low-grade criticism, which builds resentment over time."
There may be a reason why your happy hour and dinner invitations always get turned down: You're not very nice to the servers."Being rude to service workers often alienates others as it is seen as aggressive and manipulative towards those who have a power-down position in the inherent power hierarchy of customer-service worker," Dr. Miller explains. "You may get feedback from others to be nicer or refusals to join you in situations where there are service workers."Related:
A Pinterest-perfect home is an unrealistic expectation. However, Dr. Miller shares that loading the dishwasher or sweeping up dirt dragged in from a hike isn't too much to ask. She reveals that not tidying up "can leave some people feeling like they need to clean up after the person, which can be physically exhausting."
In addition to building awareness about how your behavior is annoying, psychologists also emphasize the importance of understanding social cues. Dr. Goldman says individuals often cut conversations short with someone they find irritating."This might be because people do not want to be interacting with you because people feel that you talk too much or because people don't think you really hear what they're saying during a conversation," she explains. "These are all habits that can be quite annoying to people and, therefore, might impact people's interactions with you."Related:
A red flag that you're turning others off is that they try to spend less (or no) time with you. "If you are constantly the one initiating contact and others rarely return the effort, it may indicate your presence feels draining to them," Dr. Schiff says.Related:
Dr. Goldman shares that self-reflection is critical to determining whether or not you have annoying traits. "This is also especially important because in some relationships, one trait is annoying while in another relationship, that exact same trait is acceptable," she clarifies. "For example, in some friend groups, saying, 'I don't know, we can do whatever you want' is a sign that someone is easy-going and flexible—a positive interpretation—but in other friend groups, it's seen as an inability to make a decision—a negative interpretation."Related:
People may not come out and tell you that you're annoying (it's kind of awkward, to be fair). You may need to pick up on nonverbal cues, such as body language."Pay attention to body language, tone shifts or whether people seem to change the subject or disengage," Dr. McDonagh says. "These are often subtle signs of discomfort."However, he notes that you can use your improved ability to pause and check in with yourself to your advantage as you learn to notice these hints.
This one can feel uncomfortable for you and perhaps the other person. However, you may learn a valuable lesson about yourself that will benefit you (and them) in the long term."If you are open to gentle, constructive criticism, it can give you insight into how your behavior affects others," Dr. Schiff explains. "This way, you don't have to guess or feel stuck in insecurity—you can grow."Up Next:Dr. Thomas McDonagh, Psy.D., a clinical psychologist and owner of Good Therapy San Francisco
Dr. Jan Miller, Ph.D., a Georgia-based licensed psychologist with Thriveworks
Dr. Michele Goldman, Ph.D., a psychologist and Hope for Depression Research Foundation media advisor
Dr. Holly Schiff, Psy.D., a licensed clinical psychologist
'Am I Annoying?' This Checklist Should Help You Tell, According to Psychologists first appeared on Parade on Jul 1, 2025
This story was originally reported by Parade on Jul 1, 2025, where it first appeared.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
42 minutes ago
- Washington Post
How an empty North Carolina rural hospital explains a GOP senator's vote against Trump's tax bill
WASHINGTON — Though patients don't rush through the doors of this emergency room anymore, an empty hospital in Williamston, North Carolina, offers an evocative illustration of why Republican Sen. Thom Tillis would buck his party leaders to vote down President Donald Trump's signature domestic policy package. Martin General is one of a dozen hospitals that have closed in North Carolina over the last two decades. This is a problem that hospital systems and health experts warn may only worsen if the legislation passes with its $1 trillion cuts to the Medicaid program and new restrictions on enrollment in the coverage.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
MAHA's Focus On Improving Nutrition Is At Odds With Trump Policies
WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 22: U.S. President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert ... More F. Kennedy Jr. attend an event introducing a new Make America Healthy Again Commission report in the East Room of the White House on May 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. The commission, which is tasked with studying the potential causes for the "childhood chronic disease crisis," recommends reassessing the nation's childhood vaccine schedule, scrutinizing ultra-processed foods and studying pesticides used in commercial farming. At the same time, the Trump administration has proposed a FY2026 budget of $94 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services — a reduction of about 26-percent from the 2025 level — cutting programs and staff at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Photo by) In introducing the first Make America Healthy Again Commission report, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the focus is childhood chronic disease prevention, with a particular emphasis on nutrition. But several key Trump administration policies appear to be inconsistent with this goal. And the report does not include several notably absent topics that are known to cause certain chronic diseases. The first MAHA Commission report released in May identifies multifarious drivers of childhood chronic disease, including poor diet and specifically the shift over time to ultra-processed foods, overuse of pesticides in agriculture, food dyes in products for sale in grocery stores and a cumulative overload of chemicals in the environment. The document offers a potpourri of high-level policy recommendations to counter these trends. In a tweet, Kennedy touted on June 19th that 'artificial dyes and additives are being removed from America's food supply.' Thus far, however, only Red Dye No. 3 has been banned and this occurred under the Biden administration. Manufacturers have until Jan. 2027 to remove this specific dye from their products. The HHS budget for 2026 proposes $14 billion in discretionary funding for programs that aim to reverse what Secretary Kennedy calls the 'chronic disease epidemic,' as it consolidates entities housed under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention into the Administration for a Healthy America, namely the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion and the Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity. AHA is being called the 'primary federal agency committed to transforming the health of all Americans by addressing the root causes of chronic disease, promoting preventive care, advancing mental health and substance use services, and increasing access to a healthy environment and foods.' But only $2 million is being allocated to nutrition, an amount experts suggest is inadequate. They believe the figure should be doubled to at least $4 billion to achieve the objectives laid out by Secretary Kennedy. And despite the MAHA report raising concerns about American agricultural products, other Trump cabinet officials insist that the nation's food supply is safe. Differences in views on glyphosate, a commonly used chemical sprayed on crops, illustrate the disconnect. Glyphosate is cited in the report as a major contributor in the rise of chronic disease. It is a substance that may cause serious health problems, including cancer. But the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Zeldin, doesn't want to further regulate glyphosate. On food safety generally, Kennedy appears to be at odds with director Zeldin's decisions to deregulate pesticides. The MAHA report makes dozens of references to dietary guidelines and food standards in Europe that prohibit the use of certain pesticides in agriculture. However, Zeldin has promised no more regulations, arguing that European-style mandates would stifle economic growth. Furthermore, Congress and the Trump administration back cuts to assistance programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, that would seem to undermine efforts to improve people's access to food, whether of high or low quality. Food and diet researchers are also criticizing the direction the National Institutes of Health are going in possibly stifling debate regarding the merits and demerits of different foods. According to STAT News, more than 70 top U.S. nutrition scientists signed a letter last month demanding that NIH director Jay Bhattacharya address alleged censorship at the agency, writing that their colleagues 'need the freedom to present their findings in scientific meetings without political oversight, and to author and co-author freely in the scientific literature.' The letter is in part a response to censorship allegations from former top NIH nutrition scientist Kevin Hall, whose research on ultra-processed foods was cut short when he resigned in April, complaining of interference from his superiors. The MAHA Commission report attributes adverse health effects to nutrient depletion owing to 'ultra-processed grains, sugars, and fats,' as well as intake of more calories and inclusion of food additives. There is empirical support for this. For example, a 2024 review of the evidence, which included dozens of analyses, linked 'higher consumption of ultra-processed foods to poor cardiometabolic health, increasing the risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular disease.' At the same time, the scientific evidence for how ultra-processed foods affect our health isn't unequivocal. In fact, according to a story by the New Scientist covering a recent meeting of the American Society for Nutrition, scientists don't agree that simply opting for less processed foods guarantees a healthy diet. Additionally, former Director of FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition during the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations from 2015 to 2023, Susan Mayne, says the report omits other well-accepted drivers of chronic disease, such as high intake of sodium and saturated fat. Instead, it criticizes the current set of U.S. dietary guidelines for 'problematic reductionist recommendations' in reference to advice to 'reduce saturated fat' or 'limit sodium.' But in the case of sodium, this seems to ignore decades of research showing that sodium is over-consumed in the U.S., contributing to chronic disease. There are other conspicuous apparent oversights regarding HHS policy. For instance, STAT News notes that the MAHA Commission report includes no mentions of eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa or binge-eating. Such eating disorders have been on the rise for decades, especially among young women and girls. Evidently, research on these eating disorders is being disproportionately affected by ongoing federal grant terminations, according to experts in the field. Also, Reuters reports that despite rising levels of alcoholism, which is conducive to a myriad of chronic diseases, revisions to the U.S. dietary guidelines under RFK Jr. may loosen federal guidance on alcohol consumption that currently advises no more than one to two daily drinks.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Democrats Push Back on Cuts to Medicaid, SNAP benefits
Suzan DelBene, democrat congresswoman from Washington and chair of the DCCC, says that potential cuts to Medicaid and nutritional assistance in the Trump tax bill could spur backlash and allow Democrats to retake control of the House in the midterm elections. (Source: Bloomberg)
