Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jabberwock" data-source="post: 1858581" data-attributes="member: 539182">Well, I see no difference from using humour in R&amp;S and using it elsewhere, satirical or otherwise.&nbsp; This is normally called &quot;having a sense of humour&quot;, so your question essentially asks us to prove that &quot;having a sense of humour&quot; is NOT a way of dealing with emotional pain.Hmm... what sort of proof are you looking for?&nbsp; As a result of what sort of testing or measurement?&nbsp; How can the cause of a sense of humour be measured?Edit:&lt;&lt;Just come up with something that works as proof&gt;&gt;Why?OK, I do come from a science background, where we accept that nothing can be proven 100%, as there may always be new information around the corner.&nbsp; It works by people coming up with ideas or theories, and using observed evidence to test the theories.&nbsp; Whatever is established understanding at one time may still be overturned later if such evidence appears.A sense of humour is very much to do with human psychology, and that is a very inexact science.&nbsp; At the risk of flak, I might argue it&#039;s not even science at all (yeah, so flame me, ya psychs!).&nbsp; I certainly don&#039;t believe that anything can be proven 100% in psychology any more than elsewhere, so you are asking the impossible.I can&#039;t speak for others&#039; sense of humour, only my own.&nbsp; I find my normal everyday interactions with others involves frequent utterances of humour and wisecracks, very much including satire and hyperbole.&nbsp; This is not me in a sea of different others, this describes the society I am part of.&nbsp; If I extend this behaviour to R&amp;S, it doesn&#039;t suddenly acquire a new reason of personal angst.&nbsp; It&#039;s just me being the same as usual.I do try and keep it serious for sensible answers, but I have no qualms of using ridicule and satire if I am tackling something I find as daft or deluded.&nbsp; I would expect the same back. When I bash here, I&#039;m not bashing a person - only an idea.&nbsp; I&#039;m not trying to get at their inner psyche, I&#039;m showing how daft, ridiculous, illogical or just plain wrong their idea is.&nbsp; I certainly don&#039;t limit this to religious belief, but in R&amp;S that&#039;s what it&#039;s usually about, surprise surprise!So, I&#039;ve tried to avoid humour here and limit opinion to the minimum, but I can&#039;t give you what you ask as it&#039;s impossible, and feel very sure that your presumption isn&#039;t correct.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jabberwock, post: 1858581, member: 539182"] Well, I see no difference from using humour in R&S and using it elsewhere, satirical or otherwise. This is normally called "having a sense of humour", so your question essentially asks us to prove that "having a sense of humour" is NOT a way of dealing with emotional pain. Hmm... what sort of proof are you looking for? As a result of what sort of testing or measurement? How can the cause of a sense of humour be measured? Edit: <<Just come up with something that works as proof>> Why? OK, I do come from a science background, where we accept that nothing can be proven 100%, as there may always be new information around the corner. It works by people coming up with ideas or theories, and using observed evidence to test the theories. Whatever is established understanding at one time may still be overturned later if such evidence appears. A sense of humour is very much to do with human psychology, and that is a very inexact science. At the risk of flak, I might argue it's not even science at all (yeah, so flame me, ya psychs!). I certainly don't believe that anything can be proven 100% in psychology any more than elsewhere, so you are asking the impossible. I can't speak for others' sense of humour, only my own. I find my normal everyday interactions with others involves frequent utterances of humour and wisecracks, very much including satire and hyperbole. This is not me in a sea of different others, this describes the society I am part of. If I extend this behaviour to R&S, it doesn't suddenly acquire a new reason of personal angst. It's just me being the same as usual. I do try and keep it serious for sensible answers, but I have no qualms of using ridicule and satire if I am tackling something I find as daft or deluded. I would expect the same back. When I bash here, I'm not bashing a person - only an idea. I'm not trying to get at their inner psyche, I'm showing how daft, ridiculous, illogical or just plain wrong their idea is. I certainly don't limit this to religious belief, but in R&S that's what it's usually about, surprise surprise! So, I've tried to avoid humour here and limit opinion to the minimum, but I can't give you what you ask as it's impossible, and feel very sure that your presumption isn't correct. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Loading…