Funny women

This is for discussions about news, politics, sports, other games, culture, philosophy etc.
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Funny women

Post by fightinfrenchman »

Yesh
Attachments
U40MkE5.png
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image
User avatar
Germany QueenOfdestiny
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2139
Joined: Aug 9, 2016
ESO: QueenOfdestiny

Re: Funny women

  • Quote

Post by QueenOfdestiny »

I'm funny.. When I fart Kaiser laughing
shit juice :hmm:
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Funny women

Post by deleted_user0 »

Jam wrote:
lejend wrote:
Research indicates that the endorsement of sexist ideology is linked to higher subjective wellbeing for both men and women. We examine gender differences in the rationalisations which drive this effect in an egalitarian nation (New Zealand). Results from a nationally representative sample (N=6,100) indicated that the endorsement of Benevolent Sexism (BS) predicted life satisfaction through different mechanisms for men and women. For men, BS was directly associated with life satisfaction. For women, the palliative effect of BS was indirect and occurred because BS-ideology positioning women as deserving of men’s adoration and protection was linked to general perceptions of gender relations as fair and equitable, which in turn predicted greater levels of life satisfaction...

The increase in life satisfaction is one such quality which makes the ideology particularly palatable. BS is not typically categorised as a ‘sexist’ or ‘prejudicial’ set of attitudes (Barreto and Ellemers 2005). In fact BS presents ideals which are often viewed as appealing. On average, women rate descriptions of benevolently sexist men as more attractive than men described as
hostilely sexist, and in some cases as more attractive than non-sexists (Bohner et al. 2010; Killianski and Rudman 1998).
Classic. If you quote journal abstracts you should at least have read the articles to actually understand their context and conclusions to ensure they actually support the argument you are trying to make.

Here are the articles you have quoted for everyone to read if they are interested:

http://www.jeffhughes.ca/storage/Hammon ... sexism.pdf
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1007/s11199-009-9712-7


lejend can't read, so that will be difficult.
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Funny women

Post by lejend »

Dolan wrote:Dude, look, I haven't read much thru the thread replies, so I'm just gonna say this:

This is nothing new. Researchers have known for decades that humour is a sexually dimorphic trait and it's most likely dependent on the the influence of testosterone on the organisation of brain circuitry.

I remember when I was talking to some neuroscientist on Facebook (like a few years ago), when I was still using that shit, about humour. My theory on humour was that it was a form of aggression, at its most basic level, though obviously filtered through cultural cues, semantic fabrics and, ultimately, it was a violation of outcome expectation in speech. But the purpose of humour was putting oneself in a position of controlling the semantics of the narrative context, distorting it to the point where you create enough tension for a humorous discharge to take place (when people realise the seriousness of how the whole story was staged was fake). His theory on humour said that it was a rhythmic discharge of accumulated anxiety. Now I think these theories looked at the same phenomenon from different sides, just like in the blind men and the elephant parable.

If my theory was correct, or even close to empirical data on sexual dimorphic traits in male and female brains, then testosterone does play a role in humour. If not, I still think it's not a coincidence that behaviourally we see more men cracking jokes and getting a social effect out of it than women.

If you want to argue the empirical underpinnings of this, go ahead. But you'd have a lot to explain in how a neutral theory of humour would not be related to sexual dimorphism in the brain. And that would match social observation on that.


A decent post, finally.

Now that you mention it, I read something like this once. In a book on body language the authors theorized that laughter is a submissive act. Guys practice telling jokes the same way they practice insulting and fighting each other, in order to strengthen each other against the outgroup.

If true, it would explain the dearth of female comedians. Since women don't need to dominate other people, they simply never develop the ability to be jokers.

Comedians are also by definition better than the average. If average men are funnier than most women, the number of women funnier than most men should be very low. Just like how almost not a single woman can compete with top male athletes. Men are more predisposed to be good at it, whether due to culture or biology. Kinda like this:

Image

Believing that someone isn't funny doesn't mean you think lower of them. Someone can be unfunny and still have infinite worth. Last I checked our worth is due to the Imago Dei, not Imago Seinfeld. If human worth were measured by humor, that would mean that Jam is the best person here, which he isn't. (Spanky is).
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Funny women

Post by lejend »

Jam wrote:
lejend wrote:
Research indicates that the endorsement of sexist ideology is linked to higher subjective wellbeing for both men and women. We examine gender differences in the rationalisations which drive this effect in an egalitarian nation (New Zealand). Results from a nationally representative sample (N=6,100) indicated that the endorsement of Benevolent Sexism (BS) predicted life satisfaction through different mechanisms for men and women. For men, BS was directly associated with life satisfaction. For women, the palliative effect of BS was indirect and occurred because BS-ideology positioning women as deserving of men’s adoration and protection was linked to general perceptions of gender relations as fair and equitable, which in turn predicted greater levels of life satisfaction...

The increase in life satisfaction is one such quality which makes the ideology particularly palatable. BS is not typically categorised as a ‘sexist’ or ‘prejudicial’ set of attitudes (Barreto and Ellemers 2005). In fact BS presents ideals which are often viewed as appealing. On average, women rate descriptions of benevolently sexist men as more attractive than men described as
hostilely sexist, and in some cases as more attractive than non-sexists (Bohner et al. 2010; Killianski and Rudman 1998).
Classic. If you quote journal abstracts you should at least have read the articles to actually understand their context and conclusions to ensure they actually support the argument you are trying to make.

Here are the articles you have quoted for everyone to read if they are interested:

http://www.jeffhughes.ca/storage/Hammon ... sexism.pdf
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1007/s11199-009-9712-7


Was I quoting just "the abstract"? No. I was quoting the relevant data points. The NZ study and the others. The feminist authors go to great lengths to explain why women prefer traditionalism over feminism. (spoiler: "internalized misogyny") But where do they deny it? Can you quote where the paper says that women aren't happier with traditionalism and traditionalist men?
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: Funny women

Post by Kaiserklein »

queenofdestiny wrote:I'm funny.. When I fart Kaiser laughing

I laugh a lot, until I smell them. Then I start crying
Image
Image
Image
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: Funny women

Post by spanky4ever »

Kaiserklein wrote:
queenofdestiny wrote:I'm funny.. When I fart Kaiser laughing

I laugh a lot, until I smell them. Then I start crying

Now you got me laughing 2 times :lol:
I think this kind of humor is exactemently the kind OP deserve - just the right amount of sarcasm :!: thank you both :uglylol:
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
Germany QueenOfdestiny
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2139
Joined: Aug 9, 2016
ESO: QueenOfdestiny

Re: Funny women

Post by QueenOfdestiny »

iwillspankyou wrote:
Kaiserklein wrote:
queenofdestiny wrote:I'm funny.. When I fart Kaiser laughing

I laugh a lot, until I smell them. Then I start crying

Now you got me laughing 2 times :lol:
I think this kind of humor is exactemently the kind OP deserve - just the right amount of sarcasm :!: thank you both :uglylol:

Wait Wut you laugh about our jokes? :huh:
shit juice :hmm:
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: Funny women

Post by spanky4ever »

:P sure did @QueenOfdestiny
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
Canada Jam
Jaeger
Posts: 3107
Joined: May 16, 2015
ESO: Hyperactive Jam

Re: Funny women

Post by Jam »

lejend wrote:
Jam wrote:
Show hidden quotes
Classic. If you quote journal abstracts you should at least have read the articles to actually understand their context and conclusions to ensure they actually support the argument you are trying to make.

Here are the articles you have quoted for everyone to read if they are interested:

http://www.jeffhughes.ca/storage/Hammon ... sexism.pdf
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1007/s11199-009-9712-7


Was I quoting just "the abstract"? No. I was quoting the relevant data points. The NZ study and the others. The feminist authors go to great lengths to explain why women prefer traditionalism over feminism. (spoiler: "internalized misogyny") But where do they deny it? Can you quote where the paper says that women aren't happier with traditionalism and traditionalist men?
You didn't quote any relevant data points, only a sample size. This is what quoting the relevant data points looks like:

"Simple slopes analyses revealed that in countries with low gender equality, when benevolent justification was high, hostile justification was negatively related to life satisfaction, b=−.11,SE=.04,p<.01. When benevolent justification was low, however, the effect of hostile justification on life satisfaction trended positively, b=.10,SE=.07,p<.16. This positive relationship between hostile justification and life satisfaction attained statistical significance in countries with extreme gender inequality (e.g., 2 standard deviations below the mean),b=.18,SE=.09,p=.04. In countries with high gender equality, by contrast, the endorsement of hostile justification was negatively associated with life satisfaction, but only when benevolent justification was low, b=−.25,SE=.08,p<.001. When benevolent justification was high, hostile justification and life satisfaction were unrelated, b=−.04,SE=.05,p=.36.

The analysis also revealed that an "exclusively benevolent” justification of gender inequality is more palliative than no justification at all in low (but not high) gender equality. Specifically, for those living in relatively non-egalitarian nations, the endorsement of benevolent justification was associated with increased life satisfaction for those who reject hostile sexism,
b=.20,SE=.05,p<.001. For those living in countries with high gender equality, there was no relationship between benevolent justification and life satisfaction among those who rejected a hostile justification, b=.04,SE=.04,ns.

In addition, simple slopes analyses revealed that those who held a “complementary” justification reported higher life satisfaction than those who held an exclusively hostile justification in nations with high (but not low) gender equality. That is, when hostile justification was strongly endorsed, benevolent justification was significantly and positively related to life satisfaction in countries with high gender equality, b=.25,SE=.07,p<.001, but it was not associated with increased life satisfaction in countries with low gender equality,b=−.01,SE=.06,ns."

So the data actually shows that benevolent sexism increases life satisfaction in egalitarian nations when hostile sexism is also present, but not when benevolent sexism is present alone. That is why the authors describe it as a palliative effect. As well, the magnitudes of these effects are much more mild than you are implying. Thanks for playing.
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Funny women

Post by lejend »

Jam wrote:So the data actually shows that benevolent sexism increases life satisfaction in egalitarian nations when hostile sexism is also present, but not when benevolent sexism is present alone.


... That's what I said. Sexists are happier. Where does the study contradict that?
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: Funny women

Post by gibson »

I'd be interesting to see the method used by a scientific study that demonstrated that women are happier when they're forced to stay at home and be mothers than when they're given the option to have a career. My guess is the method they used was faulty.
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Funny women

Post by lejend »

gibson wrote:I'd be interesting to see the method used by a scientific study that demonstrated that women are happier when they're forced to stay at home and be mothers than when they're given the option to have a career. My guess is the method they used was faulty.


You can read the study yourself. Sociology is a bit of a joke "science", but a lot of surveys confirm the theory that feminism is mostly about virtue-signaling. That is, people declare their belief in equality to show how progressive they are, but when it comes to their personal lives they nonetheless adhere to traditional roles and beliefs.
User avatar
Great Britain thomasgreen6
Lancer
Posts: 548
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
ESO: Thomasgreen6
Location: UK

Re: Funny women

Post by thomasgreen6 »

lejend wrote:but when it comes to their personal lives they nonetheless adhere to traditional roles and beliefs.


Adhere to traditional roles and beliefs becuase, for example, the man can't/doesn't want to cook or becuase the women is much happier doing the cookng each and every day? I think you need to give some reasons and examples to back up this point
'I'm gonna win this and I'm just gonna enjoy it' - Tibia 2k18

http://www.Twitch.tv/thomasgreen6
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Funny women

Post by lejend »

thomasgreen6 wrote:
lejend wrote:but when it comes to their personal lives they nonetheless adhere to traditional roles and beliefs.


Adhere to traditional roles and beliefs becuase, for example, the man can't/doesn't want to cook or becuase the women is much happier doing the cookng each and every day? I think you need to give some reasons and examples to back up this point


In a traditionalist relationship the guy can cook and the woman can be a billionaire. But each couple has their own unique arrangement, so you can't generalize one situation for every couple.

In general, traditionalism is about division of labor. Since a couple is essentially two parts of a unified entity, it is not demeaning for one part to do one thing and another to do another. Each gender has very different strengths and weakness, and generally find happiness by playing to their respective strengths and minimizing their respective weaknesses.

Historically a woman's duties were very difficult to perform, but modern technology makes them mostly simple and easy. A traditionalist relationship this century is basically easy mode for women, while a "feminist" relationship that treats women as men, can actually make life much more difficult for them.

The more you like women, the more traditionalist you are. Extreme traditionalism, is actually the type of "feminism" where women are faultless goddesses and men are worthless slaves. Not a recipe for an enjoyable life. There must be balance!
User avatar
United States of America TheInvincibleJannisary
Dragoon
Posts: 257
Joined: Dec 31, 2017

Re: Funny women

Post by TheInvincibleJannisary »

Woman who are actual comedians are funny. I just don't understand woman are are feminist comedians because it's really cringe and boring.

What does does strengths difference have to do with fuck all? If my arms get more massive will my jokes become funnier?
Canada Jam
Jaeger
Posts: 3107
Joined: May 16, 2015
ESO: Hyperactive Jam

Re: Funny women

Post by Jam »

lejend wrote:
Jam wrote:So the data actually shows that benevolent sexism increases life satisfaction in egalitarian nations when hostile sexism is also present, but not when benevolent sexism is present alone.


... That's what I said. Sexists are happier. Where does the study contradict that?
Sure I'll show you, since I actually read the results section in full instead of picking a few sentences out of the introduction I have no trouble finding that information for you. :)

[spoiler=HARD ASS FACTS BOI]Thus, increased gender equality was associated with increased life satisfaction for both men and women. As can be seen in Table 4, hostile justification was negatively related to life satisfaction, b=−.08, SE=.02, p<.01; benevolent justification, by contrast, was positively related, b=.12, SE=.02, p<.001. These two main effects were further qualified by three significant (or marginally significant) interactions involving hostile justification and gender, b=.04,SE=.02,p<.06, hostile justification and national gender equality, b=−.36, SE=.13, p<.05, and a three-way interaction between hostile justification, benevolent justification, and gender equality, b=.35, SE=12, p<.01.

Simple slopes analyses revealed that there was a significant negative relationship between hostile justification and life satisfaction for men, b=−.11, SE=03, p<.001, but not for women, b=−.03, SE=.03, ns.

HERE WE CAN SEE THAT HOSTILE SEXISM DOES NOT MAKE PEOPLE HAPPIER

As shown in Fig. 2, when the endorsement of benevolent justification was low hostile justification exerted opposite effects on life satisfaction in countries with high vs. low gender equality (illustrated by the solid lines in each panel of the Figure).

Simple slopes analyses revealed that in countries with low gender equality, when benevolent justification was high, hostile justification was negatively related to life satisfaction,
b=−.11, SE=.04, p<.01. When benevolent justification was low, however, the effect of hostile justification on life satisfaction trended positively, b=.10, SE=.07, p<16.

This positive relationship between hostile justification and life satisfaction attained statistical significance in countries with extreme gender inequality (e.g., 2 standard deviations below the mean), b=.18, SE=.09, p=.04. In countries with high gender equality, by contrast,the endorsement of hostile justification was negatively associated with life satisfaction, but only when benevolent justification was low, b=−.25, SE=.08, p<.001. When benevolent justification was high, hostile justification and life satisfaction were unrelated, b=−.04, SE=.05, p=.36.


HERE WE CAN SEE THAT THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LIFE SATISFACTION AND SEXISM ARE HIGHLY CONTEXT DEPENDENT AND SO DRAWING CONCLUSIONS SUCH AS "SEXISTS ARE HAPPIER" IS ABSURD

The analysis also revealed that an “exclusively benevolent” justification of gender inequality is more palliative than no justification at all in low (but not high) gender equality. Specifically, for those living in relatively non- egalitarian nations, the endorsement of benevolent justification was associated with increased life satisfaction for those who reject hostile sexism, b=.20, SE=.05, p<.001. For those living in countries with high gender equality, there was no relationship between benevolent justification and life satisfaction among those who rejected a hostile justification, b=.04, SE=.04, ns.

In addition, simple slopes analyses revealed that those who held a “complementary” justification reported higher life satisfaction than those who held an exclusively hostile justification in nations with high (but not low) gender equality. That is, when hostile justification was strongly endorsed, benevolent justification was significantly and positively related to life satisfaction in countries with high gender equality, b=.25,SE=.07,p<.001, but it was not associated with increased life satisfaction in countries with low gender equality,b=−.01,SE=.06,ns.

IN EGALITARIAN SOCIETIES HOSTILE SEXISM IS CORRELATED WITH DECREASED LIFE SATISFACTION, BENEVOLENT SEXISM IS UNCORRELATED WITH LIFE SATISFACTION FOR THE GROUP THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN HOSTILE SEXISM. BENEVOLENT SEXISM IS CORRELATED WITH INCREASED LIFE SATISFACTION SPECIFICALLY FOR THE GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN HOSTILE SEXISM WHEN COMPARING THEM TO THE GROUP THAT BELIEVES ONLY IN HOSTILE SEXISM, BUT NOT WHEN COMPARING THEM TO THOSE WHO HAVE NEITHER SEXIST BELIEF OR ONLY BENEVOLENT SEXISM[/spoiler]
Now since you are the one using this paper as evidence for you claims, why don't you show me where the article proves that "sexist are happier"? Or maybe you can just post one line contradictions and demand more proof ad infinitum to maintain the illusion that you are right? Have a nice day! :flowers:
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Funny women

Post by lejend »

BENEVOLENT SEXISM IS CORRELATED WITH INCREASED LIFE SATISFACTION SPECIFICALLY FOR THE GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN HOSTILE SEXISM WHEN COMPARING THEM TO THE GROUP THAT BELIEVES ONLY IN HOSTILE SEXISM, BUT NOT WHEN COMPARING THEM TO THOSE WHO HAVE NEITHER SEXIST BELIEF OR ONLY BENEVOLENT SEXISM


Where does it say that?

And by the way, we are talking about life satisfaction for women.

The vast majority of the research supports the idea that women prefer traditional sexual dimorphism. Women spend quite a lot of effort on fitting into traditional gender roles, and generally prefer men to do much the same. This is not only about physical traits, but personality traits as well.

People can talk about how men and women aren't any different all day, but look at their actions. Very few people renounce traditional gender roles.

Take a look outside. Do you see this?

Image

Or do you see crossdressing guys with female bodybuilders?

Gender roles, my dude.
Canada Jam
Jaeger
Posts: 3107
Joined: May 16, 2015
ESO: Hyperactive Jam

Re: Funny women

Post by Jam »

lejend wrote:
BENEVOLENT SEXISM IS CORRELATED WITH INCREASED LIFE SATISFACTION SPECIFICALLY FOR THE GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN HOSTILE SEXISM WHEN COMPARING THEM TO THE GROUP THAT BELIEVES ONLY IN HOSTILE SEXISM, BUT NOT WHEN COMPARING THEM TO THOSE WHO HAVE NEITHER SEXIST BELIEF OR ONLY BENEVOLENT SEXISM


Where does it say that?
It says that in the two paragraphs of my post above that you didn't include (surprise!) because that's literally what the words mean when you put them together in that order. Saying "where does it say that" over and over is not a counter argument. A real argument is to provide an alternate explanation of the results, with reference to the results. If you ask again I will simply repeat the information again. It's not my problem if you refuse to understand it.

"In addition, simple slopes analyses revealed that those who held a “complementary” justification reported higher life satisfaction than those who held an exclusively hostile justification in nations with high (but not low) gender equality."

In this sentence we begin with the statement that complementary [benevolent+hostile] justification shows higher life satisfaction. This first part of the sentence is then linked to the second part through the word "than" which is a conjunction signalling a comparison between the statements that come before and after the conjunction. We therefore compare the life satisfaction of those who hold both complementary and hostile justification to those who hold only hostile justification. We do not however, take the first statement before the conjunction and ignore the rest of the sentence.

lejend wrote:And by the way, we are talking about life satisfaction for women.

The vast majority of the research supports the idea that women prefer traditional sexual dimorphism. Women spend quite a lot of effort on fitting into traditional gender roles, and generally prefer men to do much the same. This is not only about physical traits, but personality traits as well.

People can talk about how men and women aren't any different all day, but look at their actions. Very few people renounce traditional gender roles.

Take a look outside. Do you see this?

Image

Or do you see crossdressing guys with female bodybuilders?

Gender roles, my dude.
I see many things from my ivory tower. I can't say I've ever seen two douche-bags with fake tans at a bar before, but boy do they look satisfied with their lives. The woman looks particularly thrilled. I want to be just like them! That alpha-boy man with his tall, muscular body wrapped around mine...I feel so safe and protected just thinking about it!
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Funny women

Post by lejend »

Jam wrote:It says that in the two paragraphs of my post above that you didn't include (surprise!) because that's literally what the words mean when you put them together in that order. Saying "where does it say that" over and over is not a counter argument. A real argument is to provide an alternate explanation of the results, with reference to the results. If you ask again I will simply repeat the information again. It's not my problem if you refuse to understand it.

"In addition, simple slopes analyses revealed that those who held a “complementary” justification reported higher life satisfaction than those who held an exclusively hostile justification in nations with high (but not low) gender equality."

In this sentence we begin with the statement that complementary [benevolent+hostile] justification shows higher life satisfaction. This first part of the sentence is then linked to the second part through the word "than" which is a conjunction signalling a comparison between the statements that come before and after the conjunction. We therefore compare the life satisfaction of those who hold both complementary and hostile justification to those who hold only hostile justification. We do not however, take the first statement before the conjunction and ignore the rest of the sentence.


No it doesn't say that at all. The study's conclusions are fairly easy to read. It's up to you to show otherwise.

I see many things from my ivory tower. I can't say I've ever seen two douche-bags with fake tans at a bar before, but boy do they look satisfied with their lives. The woman looks particularly thrilled.


Not everyone is blessed with Mediterranean skin, Jam. Many people have to artificially change their color to resemble that of the Mediterranean master race.

Whether you think they are douches or happy or not, the fact is that the vast majority of people have a similar relationship dynamic. So, if we judge people by their words, many say men and women are exactly the same minus genitals. But if we look at their actions, they say something else.
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Funny women

Post by deleted_user0 »

ish funny. make post with big bold and red lettersh, showing mrs. lejenda that she is wrong, as usual. and she manages to completely ignore those bright and colorful sparkly lettersh. I must say, color me impressed! she's amazing at thish stuff!
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Funny women

Post by momuuu »

lejend wrote:
Dolan wrote:Dude, look, I haven't read much thru the thread replies, so I'm just gonna say this:

This is nothing new. Researchers have known for decades that humour is a sexually dimorphic trait and it's most likely dependent on the the influence of testosterone on the organisation of brain circuitry.

I remember when I was talking to some neuroscientist on Facebook (like a few years ago), when I was still using that shit, about humour. My theory on humour was that it was a form of aggression, at its most basic level, though obviously filtered through cultural cues, semantic fabrics and, ultimately, it was a violation of outcome expectation in speech. But the purpose of humour was putting oneself in a position of controlling the semantics of the narrative context, distorting it to the point where you create enough tension for a humorous discharge to take place (when people realise the seriousness of how the whole story was staged was fake). His theory on humour said that it was a rhythmic discharge of accumulated anxiety. Now I think these theories looked at the same phenomenon from different sides, just like in the blind men and the elephant parable.

If my theory was correct, or even close to empirical data on sexual dimorphic traits in male and female brains, then testosterone does play a role in humour. If not, I still think it's not a coincidence that behaviourally we see more men cracking jokes and getting a social effect out of it than women.

If you want to argue the empirical underpinnings of this, go ahead. But you'd have a lot to explain in how a neutral theory of humour would not be related to sexual dimorphism in the brain. And that would match social observation on that.


A decent post, finally.

Now that you mention it, I read something like this once. In a book on body language the authors theorized that laughter is a submissive act. Guys practice telling jokes the same way they practice insulting and fighting each other, in order to strengthen each other against the outgroup.

If true, it would explain the dearth of female comedians. Since women don't need to dominate other people, they simply never develop the ability to be jokers.

Comedians are also by definition better than the average. If average men are funnier than most women, the number of women funnier than most men should be very low. Just like how almost not a single woman can compete with top male athletes. Men are more predisposed to be good at it, whether due to culture or biology. Kinda like this:

Image

Believing that someone isn't funny doesn't mean you think lower of them. Someone can be unfunny and still have infinite worth. Last I checked our worth is due to the Imago Dei, not Imago Seinfeld. If human worth were measured by humor, that would mean that Jam is the best person here, which he isn't. (Spanky is).

Wait, so the fact that I rarely laugh at jokes means Im a highly dominant male?
User avatar
United States of America SoldieR
Pro Player
Posts: 2270
Joined: Feb 22, 2015
ESO: SoldieR
Location: Chi City

Re: Funny women

Post by SoldieR »

Hollllyyy shit! I commented on page 1, pop back in and see a fucking gender hand grip chart roflll
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Funny women

Post by lejend »

-
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Funny women

Post by fightinfrenchman »

lejend wrote:
momuuu wrote:Wait, so the fact that I rarely laugh at jokes means Im a highly dominant male?


Well if you find a joke funny but don't laugh, that can be thought of as a hostile or 'dominant' behavior. People also often smile or laugh as a way of seeming friendly or 'submissive' to others. But all this is just speculation.


Yeah people who don't ever laugh at funny jokes are usually considered "dominant" by normal people. It's a very cool and respectable thing to do, and it certainly doesn't make people think you're a freak
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV