Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:57, 22 July 2007

The Child

The child is very cute but why is it always children in articles like this? --212.247.27.49 12:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's because children laugh a lot, and adults tend to have less 'pure' laughter, they tend to laugh when it would result in personal gain; young children don't fake it. They just laugh their hearts out. Varnis 10:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Varnis, please don't edit my posts without messaging me. That message was originally mine and was slightly shorter. Varnish1 10:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That child is the fuckin' spawn of satan... Look at his black eyes... It looks like he's about to rip your fuckin' neck open and feed... Please, this article needs a better picture. '― Wujucokola ― 13:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Original Research Tag

There are many complaints about the overly philisophical nature of this article in this talk page - I totally agree and tried to resort the sections to make this artcile start with the facts and then move, as it does, into the theories. Unfortunatly, the (now) later sections on "congnitive models" appear to me to be original research which has no home in Misplaced Pages. I remember a time when this was a simple, elegant article on laughter, not a stuffy (and punishably not-funny) tretise about what I should and should not laugh at. PaigePhault 12:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Upon further thought - I think this article should dispense with anything related to humor, comedy, jokes etc. and refer to those articles. This article should be quite limited to the description of what laughter is, and, present what is known about how it occurs (physiologically). The fact that laughter is pleasurable, and that societies try to create circumstances that lead to laughter is as far as this article should delve into the philosophical. But... I would like to hear others' opinions in this regard. PaigePhault 17:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does the article start out with a quote from Aristotle saying that laughter is confined to the human species, and then end with a paragraph about how other animals laugh too? Guypersonson 05:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Women produce "sing-song" laughter 50% of the time, whereas men grunt or snort as often as they make "sing-song" laughter.

This reads like they are both doing the same thing. Removed until clarification. --Eloquence 13:56 27 May 2003 (UTC)

I think it would read better as-

"Women produce "sing-song" laughter 50% of the time but rarely grunt or snort: men grunt or snort as often as they make "sing-song" laughter."

That should be clearer. -David Stewart 07:11 28 May 2003 (UTC)

It is, but if you are that specific, you should name the source. Great article, BTW. It appears that neither Britannica Concise nor encyclopedia.com nor Columbia have an article about laughter. --Eloquence 07:48 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. The source is one of the cited articles: I'll try and locate it. - David Stewart 07:52 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Laugher club

This article could do with some information, or a link to an article about, laughter clubs around the world.Sumthingweird 15:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Keke

Keke redirects to this page without explanation. "Keke" is never mentioned in the article. Could someone explain it?

"keke", or "kekeke" (which also redirects here), are both commonly accepted as how koreans say "hahaha". whether that is true or not, i cant say, but i'd bet money many wikipedians who are online gamers have seen that phrase before.

Is that, like, that sound you make when you're cracking up and you make carbonation sounds with air escaping over the tongue pressed against the palate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

What I find funny is that "kekekeke" redirects to Laughter, but "kekekekeke" redirects to Korean language. (Myscrnnm 23:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

Snicker?

How come snicker re-directs here but there is no mention of the word snicker in the article?

• Does it need to have such? It basically has the same meaning, if it was necesarry, we'd probably be forced to crack open a thesauras ever time an artical was made. -FallingSkies 19:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

laughter

A one yr. old child laughted everytime i spoke. He didn't laugh at anyone else. I think it may have been the sound of my voice.

Sections

The article of laughter said it needed sections inserted and I inserted them. Am i supposed to tell someone i did this? The article still says it needs sections inserted and is still on a lsit of articles needing headings. Ifixmanypages

Only Humans?

I've read that non-human apes also laugh. I'll try to find sources on this. --George100 11:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Introduction?

Why does the introduction to this article sound like a philosophy term paper?

15:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

causes?

I just wanted to point out that the word 'reasoning' is used incorrectly in this paragraph. -- july 28 2006

--Nick

exercise

i heard from my teacher at college that 5 minutes of laugher equates to 30 minutes of average exercise (ie walking) is this true, and if so, how does laughing burĈn calories?

Vandalism

Was there ever a legitimate picture of a child laughing? For a minute I thought I was on Uncyclopedia! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.68.148.253 (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC). lol

General Question to laughing

I have for some time resolved to myself that laughing is in response to surprise.. when something happens you don't expect... someone falls over.. a joke that says something you dont expect (against convention), being kidnapped by someone might make you laugh, its something you dont expect, its absurd. Almost all sources of laughter seem to be revolved around this, although sometimes laughter is harder to understand (tickling), though this maybe a lower level unexpected firing of sensative nerves interpreted by your brain, is there any more reserch supporting my ideas? Id hate to think I was wrong about anything ;) I mainly formed this idea when I sat down one afternoon to understand why something is considered funny. It seemed as if it was composed of these basic points.

1) How unexpected the thing you are laughing was (whether it was truely a surprise or just against convention) 2) How disgusted you were by the surprise (the reason you dint find someone having their head cut off compared to them falling over) 3) How precharged you were to being surprised (humored) by what has already happened, its a sort of counter intuative expectation of unexpected. The reason a commedy show gets funnier over time or the reason warmup acts make the main act funnier.

Ive always thought much of human interaction is completely removed from who we interact with, I find it hard to think of many situations where we communicate where dont know what to expect in result, in fact we tend to avoid questions when we dont know the answer or at least dont want to know the answer. Ive always attributed this as an optimization by our brain to reduce its work. If we didnt premedidate the future we would be continually pausing to decide what to do. Its why I think when someone says something truely unexpectided, such as you wife is dead, you dont know what to say, you just stand mute. You didnt expect it and it fails the #2 rule of being too disgusting to find amusing.

It seems like most interactions we undertake are underpined by expectation.. what happens if we push a door, what happens when we touch something hot.. what happens when we tell someone we hate them, its when the result doesnt meet expectation we have emotional responselike laughing and crying.

Anyhow, im ranting now, but just was a bit frustrated to keep hearing that laughter is somehow a positive thing.. much like crying is a negative thing, we do both of these things in opposite situations, crying when happy and laughing when sad / scared.

Contagious?

Well...First of all, when my friend laughs the others begin softly laughing but I don't? Is it like some laughters are contagious to certain people? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.120.0.58 (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Orgasm?

I've heard of people sneezing after orgasm, but lately I've been laughing almost psychotically afterwards. Am I messed up or does it just tickle a lot? (Or is orgasm just that funny?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Death by Laughter

There are some accounts of this in the Fatal hilarity article. Might be worth a mention. --130.92.9.58 12:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Gelotology

The Gelotology article is almost identical to parts of this article. I think the Gelotology article should be reduced to a simple explanation that it is the study of the physiology of laughter and any other details can be moved into the Laughter article. Clerks. 19:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Photos

We have two photos for the lead, one of a baby that could either be laughing or smiling, that appears to have copyright issues due to it being from a stock exchange website, and one with no copyright restrictions of a child laughing uproariously. Some votes on which the page prefers, please? --David Shankbone 11:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Young child picture is much better, the other one looks like a sufferer of spasticity.

• Unfortunately, the young child is not "free media" per it's license and is to be deleted off the Commons. I also don't know what "sufferer of spasticity" means, but the child is clearly laughing.--David Shankbone 13:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

i don't much like the photo of the "child laughing uproariously". he looks like there might be something really wrong with him, or that he is being forced into the photograph. child abuse? 71.112.142.5 05:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's a kid being tickled by the photographer, who has one hand on a large DSLR camera. What more can say laughter? It's clearly not a look of horror or upset, but playful laughter. Given the amount of room behind him, he's free to run away and it's doubtful one mhand would be able to keep the kid from running, especially as the others maneuvers with a large camera. It's simply a child being tickled and laughing. --David Shankbone 14:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

there are other hands in the picture, you have to look closely. it isn't just the kid and the tickling hand. i don't know what the third person is doing but they might be restraining the boy. zoom in on the face and you'll see what looks liek someone in a lot of pain

They are not restraining the boy. The operator taking the picture is tickling the boy with one hand, as additionally two younger hands are tickling the boy near the kidney. No one is restraining the boy. If you are not in favour of the current picture, you are welcome to find one you find more appropiate, but I see no reason to. Paul 20:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Both pictures are annoying and demonstrate self-evident emotions. --nlitement 23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The photo sucks. Get out the damn kid, that's not what laughter is.--BMF81 10:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC) PS. If you have a picture of that same kid anally raped, that would be more appropriate, at least it'd make me laugh.