Laughing at human weakness

[Simon]

I find the latest notions that neuro-scientists are playing with about mirror neurons, although interesting - are merely half true. The hypotheses fails to adderss the darkside of human nature.

It seems kind of silly the way the following scientific article ends with a smug conclusion rather than a good question.

Consider the waythis articleends:

"It seems we're wired to see other people as similar to us, rather than different," Gallese says. "At the root, as humans we identify the person we're facing as someone like ourselves."

The article, like all of the articles I've read on mirror neurons, fails to address the obvious:

Humans do see other people as different, just as much or more than they see other people as similar.

You'd think they would at least pay respects to the obvious data which conflicts with their latest hypotheses.

But what I find interesting is the way that a mirroring system does actually seem to exist in humans, and it is likely the underlying mechanism responsible for empathy.

But how do we account for hatred and brutality?

And why do humans sometimes laugh at stupidity and weakness? Why is it appropriate sometimes and not at other times?

I think the key to understanding these questions, involves understanding the mirror systems role in the 'vicariousness' that humans exhibit in their attitudes, for example, in the way sports fans get excited about a sports team winning.

For example:

It seems reasonable that the guy who scored the winning goal, and his team mates who worked hard, should feel happy.

But why are the fans so happy? What did they do? They didn't do anything but sit.

Ah, but there they all are celebrating as if they just accomplished something great. In reality, they just sat in a chair and watched. But they may even exclaim "we won!".

No, you, sitting in a chair for hours watching other people play didnt win anything.

But if you try to convice the sports fan otherwise, he'll be quite puzzeled and irritated.

Mirror neurons seem to be responsible for a great deal of madness.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Simon wrote:

It seems reasonable that the guy who scored the winning goal, and his team mates who worked hard, should feel happy.

While I agree with the overall point of your argument, I would just like to add that the team itself also have no reason to feel happy, their emotional reward is based on a delusion – namely that what they are doing is something that is worth doing, but I would argue otherwise.

For instance: If a hockey team fully realized that what they were doing was a complete waste of time, energy, resources, and labor then they wouldn’t feel so happy to win anything.

Not to mention that most athletics are drug addicts – namely they derive further happiness from pushing their bodies to extremes as a means to reap the temporary chemical reward of their stunts.

[Simon]

Simon wrote:

It seems reasonable that the guy who scored the winning goal, and his team mates who worked hard, should feel happy.

While I agree with the overall point of your argument, I would just like to add that the team itself also have no reason to feel happy, their emotional reward is based on a delusion – namely that what they are doing is something that is worth doing, but I would argue otherwise.

For instance: If a hockey team fully realized that what they were doing was a complete waste of time, energy, resources, and labor then they wouldn’t feel so happy to win anything.

Not to mention that most athletics are drug addicts – namely they derive further happiness from pushing their bodies to extremes as a means to reap the temporary chemical reward of their stunts.

Yes, I see what you mean. But my point is that deriving happiness from your own personal achievement, by actually doing something, demands more masculinity, consciousness and action, and therefore it just seems more reasonable for an athlete to feel happiness - because he's actually working hard for his sense of achievement.

The sports fan just seems so much more absurd to me.

But I agree that the athletes themselves are deluded as well, but its just not nearly as silly as the behavior of a sports fan.

Vicariousness is femininity to a tee.

[Jamesh]

deleted the post- badly worded.

[Katy]

I find the latest notions that neuro-scientists are playing with about mirror neurons, although interesting - are merely half true. The hypotheses fails to adderss the darkside of human nature.

I'm not sure it does. The ability to recognize ourselves in other people is probably equally responsible for this. We hate in other people the same things we hate in ourselves. If we're so inclined, we react violently against those things.

[excelsior]

But why are the fans so happy? What did they do? They didn't do anything but sit.

I'd argue that the problem is choice. You choose a team because you like their t-shirts or their manager or you feel that they somehow represent you. Therefor you create(sometimes artificially) a bound between you and them and choose to celebrate their victory as your own. Of course, all these defy rationality, it's all about fun and relaxing. So I don't believe it should be judged as a logical or rational fact. As you choose rationality or logic as your mental conducts, you may very well choose brute will, instinct without anyone being able to convince you that it isn't the right "way".

[Simon]

I find the latest notions that neuro-scientists are playing with about mirror neurons, although interesting - are merely half true. The hypotheses fails to adderss the darkside of human nature.

I'm not sure it does. The ability to recognize ourselves in other people is probably equally responsible for this. We hate in other people the same things we hate in ourselves. If we're so inclined, we react violently against those things.

Yeah, but if you are reading what they are saying about these mirror neurons, you'll find that they are suggesting that humans feel happy when they see other people happy, the feel sad when they see other people sad.

Consider this exerpt from the article that I linked to on my first post:

You're walking through a park when out of nowhere, the man in front of you gets smacked by an errant Frisbee. Automatically, you recoil in sympathy.

Ok, I actually know some people who would laugh at an old man getting hit in the head by a frisbee. In America they have a show called: "America's funniest home videos"

It's basically just clips of people falling down, getting hit, slipping, etc.

Rather than recoil in sympathy, people sometimes find it quite funny when someone slips, falls, gets hit.

All of the articles on M.neurons fail to address this.

[Simon]

But why are the fans so happy? What did they do? They didn't do anything but sit.

I'd argue that the problem is choice. You choose a team because you like their t-shirts or their manager or you feel that they somehow represent you.

Sorry, why is the problem 'choice'?

Therefore you create(sometimes artificially) a bound between you and them and choose to celebrate their victory as your own.

Yes, it's insane.

Of course, all these defy rationality, it's all about fun and relaxing. So I don't believe it should be judged as a logical or rational fact.

What do you mean it shouldnt be judged as a logical or rational fact?

Regardless, I don't think it is necessarily all about fun and relaxation. People take their sports quite seriously. Consider this pic:



and this one:

As you choose rationality or logic as your mental conducts, you may very well choose brute will, instinct without anyone being able to convince you that it isn't the right "way".

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that a person can believe that he is choosing rationality as his conduct but unconsciously chooses animality?

[excelsior]

But why are the fans so happy? What did they do? They didn't do anything but sit.

I'd argue that the problem is choice. You choose a team because you like their t-shirts or their manager or you feel that they somehow represent you.

Sorry, why is the problem 'choice'?

Not "problem" stricto senso. I meant issue, thing.

Therefore you create(sometimes artificially) a bound between you and them and choose to celebrate their victory as your own.

Yes, it's insane.

Actually it is only a different perspective. "Insane" is too harsh.

Of course, all these defy rationality, it's all about fun and relaxing. So I don't believe it should be judged as a logical or rational fact.

What do you mean it shouldnt be judged as a logical or rational fact?

Regardless, I don't think it is necessarily all about fun and relaxation. People take their sports quite seriously. Consider this pic:

Again it is a question of perspective. But, I actually tried to explain what I feel during a match: Stress liberation, fun, mind relaxation. Needles to say that I don't cry or have a bad day only if my favorite time lost. That, I agree, would be stupid, but not "insane":)

As you choose rationality or logic as your mental conducts, you may very well choose brute will, instinct without anyone being able to convince you that it isn't the right "way".

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that a person can believe that he is choosing rationality as his conduct but unconsciously chooses animality?

I'm saying that knowing my rational unanswered questions, I wouldn't condemn someone for choosing brute will, instinct in some proportion over rationality.

I believe that the main difference between our perceptions is my tolerance.

[Simon]

Excelsisor,

Again it is a question of perspective. But, I actually tried to explain what I feel during a match: Stress liberation, fun, mind relaxation.

Letting your mirror neurons take you for a ride, I'm sure is a good way of forgetting yourself - I'm not condeming it.

The watcher of pornography I think is very similar to the sports fan. He vicariously loses himself in the motor movements of others to the point where it feels like he is a part of what he's watching. He is vicariously the porn star or the athlete.

Needles to say that I don't cry or have a bad day only if my favorite team lost. That, I agree, would be stupid, but not "insane":)

Ok, rather than insane, how about 'unconscious'? Unconsciousness, stupidity, insanity - - there's not much of a significant difference in the meaning of those words.


BTW, I don't feel contempt for sports fans, and I'm not trying to be harsh, I'm just trying to provoke some discussion, by taking a stronger than usual stance.


So excelsisor, what is your theory on why humans laugh?

[Shahrazad]

Excelsior,

Again it is a question of perspective. But, I actually tried to explain what I feel during a match: Stress liberation, fun, mind relaxation. Needles to say that I don't cry or have a bad day only if my favorite time lost. That, I agree, would be stupid, but not "insane":)

You are assuming too many things in making this assessment. You assume crying is an off-limits emotion for everybody. Or iow, that all sane, intelligent people choose to avoid crying, because it involves suffering. Also, that people who have different priorities in life than you are necessarily stupid or insane. This is an assumption that most posters of this forum make. They think that choosing a different path in life entails stupidity. Dangerously close to what fundie religious people do. They are involved in herd behavior. The only difference is that the herd they follow is a smarter herd. But a herd is a herd.

Some people believe thinking philosophy is fun. Other people think that the nervous tension they get from emotions is fun, and that a life without them would be dull and boring. For those people, getting excited over sports is a smarter choice than to get their emotional thrills from relationships or love affairs. The latter is what women are taught to do, and it produces real, long-term suffering.

For me, watching a sports match is no different than watching a movie. People get into them even though they know this is not real or important. They are a cheap way to get the thrills you crave, and very safe because you know that in two or three hours, it will all be over and you can go back to the comfort of your dull, boring life.

Mind you, I'm not a sports fan myself. But there is one sport and one team that I have supported in the past, and am likely to support in the future.

Crying for me is just a sign that I am undergoing very intense emotions. These emotions can be very enjoyable. Those who don't like having intense emotions should stay away from them. But don't just assume that those who seek them out are inferior to you or dumb.

In the end, I will judge how successful a person is by how happy they are. Life is way too short to devote it to something that will not bring you happiness, short-term or long-term.

Ok, you can now tear my argument apart.

.

[excelsior]

Simon,

So excelsisor, what is your theory on why humans laugh?

I don't think it's a question of "why". Naturally, I believe that laughter is triggered automatically by some emotions varying in intensity from an individual to another. Of course, you can force laughter upon yourself, but I don't think you meant this.

Shahrazad,
Actually, I believe you misunderstood me. I was only talking from my perspective. Concordantly, if I were to be very sad or cry if my team has lost I would consider MYSELF stupid, because I've chose n rationality and logic as guidelines in my life.
I don't forfeit strong emotions, on the contrary...

In the end, I will judge how successful a person is by how happy they are. Life is way too short to devote it to something that will not bring you happiness, short-term or long-term.

It's your opinion, I respect it, but I don't share. For me, success=power. Don't ask me to convince you, it is only a personal choice.

[Shahrazad]

Sure.

[Faust]

Vicariousness is femininity to a tee.

not really, it's pretty dual.

[Shahrazad]

Excelsior,

I am unable to reconcile this:

I was only talking from my perspective. Concordantly, if I were to be very sad or cry if my team has lost I would consider MYSELF stupid, because I've chose n rationality and logic as guidelines in my life.

With this:

I don't forfeit strong emotions, on the contrary...

Why would you single out crying as a stupid emotion (forgive me for paraphrasing you here), while claiming to embrace other emotions? Would it really be so much more stupid to cry because your team is losing than to cheer because it is winning? If so, please explain.

I admit I'm looking at this from my perspective. There is very little suffering when I cry.

It's your opinion, I respect it, but I don't share.

That's ok. I don't think there's another person in the world that shares it. Luckily I don't have a need for my opinions to be accepted.

.

[excelsior]

Excelsior,

I am unable to reconcile this:

I was only talking from my perspective. Concordantly, if I were to be very sad or cry if my team has lost I would consider MYSELF stupid, because I've chose n rationality and logic as guidelines in my life.

With this:

I don't forfeit strong emotions, on the contrary...

Long story short: I said that watching soccer(my case) is relaxing, fun, enjoyable, therefor implying that these are the reasons why I do it. If it would have brought so strong negative emotions as to trigger crying, I believe it would have canceled the causes.

[Shahrazad]

If it would have brought so strong negative emotions as to trigger crying, I believe it would have canceled the causes.

Ok, so I take this to mean that for you to cry would take a very negative emotion. If this is so, I get your point.

You must be a male.

.

[excelsior]

asl? :P

[Cory Duchesne]

Consider the way this article ends:

Quote:

"It seems we're wired to see other people as similar to us, rather than different," Gallese says. "At the root, as humans we identify the person we're facing as someone like ourselves."

The article, like all of the articles I've read on mirror neurons, fails to address the obvious:

Humans do see other people as different, just as much or more than they see other people as similar. You'd think they would at least pay respects to the obvious data which conflicts with their latest hypotheses. But what I find interesting is the way that a mirroring system does actually seem to exist in humans, and it is likely the underlying mechanism responsible for empathy. But how do we account for hatred and brutality? And why do humans sometimes laugh at stupidity and weakness? Why is it appropriate sometimes and not at other times?

I think we can resolve this problem by considering the roles of identification in contrast to competition, and the dynamic the two create.

Joy and happiness result from winning, sorrow from losing, and so, it seems that we laugh at human weakness because unconsciously we are celebrating a win. We laugh in response to watching the weakness and loss of another, and this is because we are happy to be on the winning side, and this requires that we acknowledge a loser. Comedy is when we acknowledge a loser, and feel like the winner. And generally we are unconscious of this logic.

[Simon]

I think we can resolve this problem by considering the roles of identification in contrast to competition, and the dynamic the two create.

Joy and happiness result from winning, sorrow from losing, and so, it seems that we laugh at human weakness because unconsciously we are celebrating a win. We laugh in response to watching the weakness and loss of another, and this is because we are happy to be on the winning side, and this requires that we acknowledge a loser. Comedy is when we acknowledge a loser, and feel like the winner. And generally we are unconscious of this logic.

What is peculiar is that some humans will take a more masochistic stance, and, by exhibiting themselves as the loser, they give laughs to others. The loser vicariously lives through the laughs of others. He figures out a way to win by losing.

It seems he does this because he seeks security in the group and identifies more with the emotions of the group. So in a sense he is ingratiating himself into the group or anothers favor by giving the group a sense of winning, by presenting himself as losing. And of course, by doing this, he transcends the negative emotions of being the loser by vicariously living through the pleasure of the group. Well, at least temporarily.

[Cory Duchesne]

So in a sense he is ingratiating himself into the group or anothers favor by giving the group a sense of winning, by presenting himself as losing. And of course, by doing this, he transcends the negative emotions of being the loser by vicariously living through the pleasure of the group. Well, at least temporarily.

That's right Simon, temporarily indeed. You see, the tragedy(or unintentional comedy) of the masochist is that, despite his attempts to ingratiate himself into the group by giving the group a pleasurable sense of being winners in contrast to him, the loser, is that he never becomes part of the group, as his own method of trying to be a part of the group, perpetually seperates him. Dave Chappelle's little phase where he abandoned his duties to comedy central to go to Africa is a good example of this. He recalls that he suddenly felt like having so many white people laugh at his depictions of human weakness, particular the weakness of his own race, was not so fun. Dave's attempt at being part of the group through masochism, was only a drug that lasted for a limited time, it ultimately functioned to keep him seperate and distinct. An object of other peoples laughter - other people who he no longer identified with and thus no longer derived joy from living vicariously through them.

[Cory Duchesne]

Here's an amusing quote by Kierkegaard:

A strange thing happened to me in my dream. I was rapt into the Seventh Heaven. There sat all the gods assembled. As a special dispensation I was granted the favor to have one wish. "Do you wish for youth," said Mercury, "or for beauty, or power, or a long life; or do you wish for the most beautiful woman, or any other of the many fine things we have in our treasure trove? Choose, but only one thing!" For a moment I was at a loss. Then I addressed the gods in this wise: "Most honorable contemporaries, I choose one thing — that I may always have the laughs on my side." Not one god made answer, but all began to laugh. From this I concluded that my wish had been granted and thought that the gods knew how to express themselves with good taste: for it would surely have been inappropriate to answer gravely: your wish has been granted.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

it seems that we laugh at human weakness because unconsciously we are celebrating a win. We laugh in response to watching the weakness and loss of another, and this is because we are happy to be on the winning side,

Some people do this, but not all. Sometimes I laugh at such things because I recognize the meaninglessness of it all, other times because I see the solution is so simple and it can be fixed. I would not call that laughter joy or happiness, although sometimes I might call it a band-aid.

There is no winning side or losing side. Another's loss is our own, and another's gain is our own. I believe most of us are born with this knowledge of us all being one because children will laugh just because everyone else is (unless they have been put in situations where they may suspect they are being laughed at), and children will cry just because everyone else is sad. To a lesser extent, this often carries into adulthood.
.

[Cory Duchesne]

Here's an amusing quote by Kierkegaard:

"Most honorable contemporaries, I choose one thing — that I may always have the laughs on my side." Not one god made answer, but all began to laugh. From this I concluded that my wish had been granted and thought that the gods knew how to express themselves with good taste: for it would surely have been inappropriate to answer gravely: your wish has been granted.

The irony of course is the excessive degree that Kierkegaard was lampooned and made a parody of in paper that was distributed community-wide. I guess the competitive instinct in the herd moved the community to band together to re-generate the sense of oneness that Kierkegaard's work was destroying, he was destroying the communities generic paradigms for experiencing community, oneness.

[Simon]

The irony of course is the excessive degree that Kierkegaard was lampooned and made a parody of in paper that was distributed community-wide. I guess the competitive instinct in the herd moved the community to band together to re-generate the sense of oneness that Kierkegaard's work was destroying, he was destroying the communities generic paradigms for experiencing community, oneness.

Kierkegaard was a Sadist with no partner perhaps?

The feminine individualist is mostly masochist, and is an individual involuntarily. He can't help but be different. The masculine individualist is mostly sadist, and he is an individual by choice. But both are outsiders.

The herd, adapting more comfortably as insiders are an unfocused mix between masochism and sadism, all bound together. Often one exceptionally masochistic fool holds a group of sadists together. Sometimes the sadists will bend a bit and be a bit masochistic as well.

The 2 main types of 'individualists', being outsiders, are both concerned with the group. The former, the masochists, with submitting to it, becoming part of it -

While the sadist is more concerned with remaining an outsider by transforming it.