I decided to research the psychology of sarcasm and I thought I pass this along (from psychology today):
psychologytoday.com/articles...0002.html
Some ideas that stood out for me:
"But her research has shown that people who are particularly good at detecting sarcasm also tend to be better at identifying emotional facial expressions. They seem to understand social situations better overall, she says. "
"..why do wisecrackers keep their bons mots coming at the risk of alienating others? Though they may not be aware of it, sarcasm is their means of indirectly expressing aggression toward others and insecurity about themselves. Wrapping their thoughts in a joke shields them from the vulnerability that comes with directly putting one's opinions out there. "Sarcastic people protect themselves by only letting the world see a superficial part of who they are," says Steven Stosny, a Washington, D.C.-based therapist and anger specialist. "They're very into impression management."
"Albert Katz, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Western Ontario, has recently looked at the wisecrackers' focus on one-upsmanship from a biological perspective, showing that people whose brains are best equipped to understand sarcasm tend to have aggressive personalities"
psychologytoday.com/articles...0002.html
Some ideas that stood out for me:
"But her research has shown that people who are particularly good at detecting sarcasm also tend to be better at identifying emotional facial expressions. They seem to understand social situations better overall, she says. "
"..why do wisecrackers keep their bons mots coming at the risk of alienating others? Though they may not be aware of it, sarcasm is their means of indirectly expressing aggression toward others and insecurity about themselves. Wrapping their thoughts in a joke shields them from the vulnerability that comes with directly putting one's opinions out there. "Sarcastic people protect themselves by only letting the world see a superficial part of who they are," says Steven Stosny, a Washington, D.C.-based therapist and anger specialist. "They're very into impression management."
"Albert Katz, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Western Ontario, has recently looked at the wisecrackers' focus on one-upsmanship from a biological perspective, showing that people whose brains are best equipped to understand sarcasm tend to have aggressive personalities"
-
Unsu...
Re: on sarcasm (part II)
Wed, March 12, 2008 - 11:50 PM>"..why do wisecrackers keep their bons mots coming at the risk of alienating others?<
One might ask why psychologists keep putting out their useless studies of something no one will ever understand when it risks making them look like wankers. Especially since I'm sarcastic and not at all about managing my image. I don't put letters after my name to make myself look smarter than I am. I was raised amongst psycologists and if they have any insights into human interaction or how to achive happiness, they all managed to fool me.
>showing that people whose brains are best equipped to understand sarcasm tend to have aggressive personalities<
And agression = bad? Not in the world we all live in. Maybe in fantasy heaven world that some would like to see someday, but in the Darwinian or Capitalistic systems agression = success almost always. So the more sarcastic you are, the more likely you are to be successful. Interestingly the learned psychos call the studied group "wisecrackers". Southern Sages too much of a mouthful for them? -
-
Re: on sarcasm (part II)
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 6:20 AMFIDO - Psychology Today is pop psychology pablum written for the general public - the self helpers out there. Not that I'd disagree about psychologists just being people (and of the wackier variety at times, for better or worse).
-
-
Re: on sarcasm (part II)
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 12:17 AMI just love this quote:
"Sometimes sarcasm is humor—purely a Don Rickles kind of joking—and sometimes it's just innocently insensitive,"
Has this person never seen Don Rickles perform? He's rife with sarcasm and totally offensive humor! He rips into everyone! It's a beautiful thing.
I find the bit on intelligence disturbing as well. Using people with autism and Asperger's is hardly relevant in a study about sarcasm and it's links with intelligence. People with those syndromes can understand very little about social cues, in fact they only learn things if they have a distinguishable pattern and they also can only understand things in a literal sense. Sarcasm is obviously not literal and measuring links in intelligence and sarcasm in people that do not have Asperger's and autism was not even part of this study, so it's professionally irresponsible to comment on it.
Overall, I don't think this is a very good article. It seems far too speculative and subjective to be scientific.
-
Re: on sarcasm (part II)
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 6:11 AM!Alex! - From this article sarcasm seems to be intertwined with facial expressions. It's kind of odd that you keep harping on in a virtual forum about a type of communication that's predominantly communicated physically and that you seem to "see" it everywhere here. I suspect you're seeing a lot of sarcasm in this tribe that doesn't even exist (just as you mistook a friendly joke between others as an insult aimed at you when it had nothing to do with you). It seems rather passive aggressive to keep posting topics like this. I'd suggest, with no sarcasm whatsoever, that you may be better off spending your time taking a long honest look at yourself, the manner in which you project negative intentions on others while claiming positivity for yourself. Isn't your desire to change other people actually a somewhat aggressive urge whether you try to frame it passively or not? I suspect you sell it to yourself as "helping" or "enlightening" but it's neither helpful nor enlightening, and it's all about you. -
-
Re: on sarcasm (part II)
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 4:19 PMFor those interested in discussing sarcasm, here is something of interest on the topic:
This article suggest the notion of sarcasm being a typical american cultural staple that other cultures find insulting.
www.spanishprograms.com/learn_..._60.htm
This article here suggest that sarcasm does not permeate well in written language, as if often assumed, thusly becoming an imcomplete/broken form of communication (I would associate it with honesty):
psychologytoday.com/articles...0008.html
-
Re: on sarcasm (part II)
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 4:54 PMHi Fifi,
There have been several people in this tribe who have admited to their use of sarcasm, it surprices me that this has not been enough for you to think that perhaps I am not mistaken in assuming that I have observed sarcasm here.
Are you suggesting that there is very little sarcasm in this tribe?
Yes, perhaps I have evaluated some statements as sarcasm, when the author was not intending it to be sarcasm. I don't claim 100% omniscent knowledge. In fact i have claimed to be no expert in sarcasm, in fact not even a novice at it.. it's a form of communication I seldom use.
Fifi, How often do you use sarcasm?
Let's assume there has not been any sarcasm. I'm still interested in discussing the topic because I observe alot of sarcasm in TV and in american society in general. I am not sure of Canadians.
I suspect, as those articles have pointed out, that those who use sarcasm often see it as simply fun self expression, and to the extent that anyone would get insulted it's a matter of others misinterpretation. This attitude, I deem it as rather naivete that it is JUST fun. It's like going into a butcher shop where the stench of murder is all over, yet after a while it is hard to notice. Or going into a nice chocolate shop, where it initially smells so wonderful, yet after a while, one can hardly notice it.
I wonder if you are not comfortable with the definition of sarcasm. Are you? Or is it that you do not like it when the sarcasm is pointed out?
There is a certain relevance of this topic to this tribe, but there is a wider connection to this topic outside tribe ,that interest me.
Fifi, do you feel that this topic somehow is related to you? -
-
Re: on sarcasm (part II)
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 5:16 PM!Alex! - "Fifi, do you feel that this topic somehow is related to you?"
As in, do I think you think I'm sarcastic or you're talking about me? You may think that, since you clearly though I was insulting you when I was actually joking with someone else and it had nothing to do with you. However I rarely bother using sarcasm online or in writing simply because it's not very effective. It seems to me that this topic and most of what you've posted in this tribe since you joined is all about you - about how *you'd* like things to be different, about how *you'd* like others to communicate differently, about how *you* feel the mission statement should be changed because it doesn't reflect *your* perception of this tribe. So, no I don't think this topic is somehow related to me but that it's once again all about *you* and *your* desires.
-
Re: on sarcasm (part II)
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 8:11 PMCanadians have no sense of sarcasm. It is a proven fact. They try to engage in sarcasm but they just end up in a hockey huddle in front of a Tom Hortons, and there ya go....
It's cute, really. -
-
Re: on sarcasm (part II)
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 8:13 PMAnd one more thing- wouldn't having an uterus as your icon be an example of some kind of sarcasm or humorous staement of some kind?
-
-
-
-
Re: on sarcasm (part II)
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 7:54 AMThis isn't going to turn into one of those <sarcasm>oh-so-fun</sarcasm> scenarios in which you keep trying to do us a favor by showing us how our behaviors are wrong and hurtfu, is it? We have had several other such people in the past and they never stay here; they insist they're holding a mirror up to our hypocrytical and awful natures, plage the tribe with inflamatory posts, then ultimately give up saying that if we want to remain this way then so be it and they leave the tribe to join one of the psycho anti-EH groups.
While I'll admit that you have not been in any way aggressive, I find the fact that you have brought this up again to be such an indicator; You're not going to get anything in this second round of discussion from us that you didn't get in the first. -
-
Re: on sarcasm (part II)
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 7:55 AMthat should be "hurtful" and "plague". -
-
Re: on sarcasm (part II)
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 9:08 AMguys, any response at all is feeding this nonsense.
i suspect we're dealing with one of those - any attention is good attention - scenarios...
-
-
not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 10:06 AMI don't know of a more convienient place for me to discuss sarcasm than here.
I am understanding some viewpoints of those people use sarcasm and may prefer it in these postings.
Some have given me good insights that have made me empathize with them.
I post mostly to understand perhaps 80% and perhaps 20% to offer my viewpoint for other's understanding on my viewpoint.
Originally, in my first introductiong to this tribe, I was hoping that it's mission statement would be reflected by their active members, but I soon realize that it may have been easier to change the mission statement to reflect it's reality.. not out of notions of hypocrizy, but to avoid confusion.
Sarcasm does have relevancy towards honesty issues, I am surpriced the nuances(sorry for the mispells) don't get more attention. When they do, I find it worth hanging around. -
-
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 10:12 AMahh, and the ol' 'mission statement' chestnut rears its ugly head.
yawn. -
-
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 10:34 AMbon mot < > sarcasm
-
-
Unsu...
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 4:22 PM>I was hoping that it's mission statement would be reflected by their active members<
I'm curious which part - exactly - of the mission statement you feel is not being pursued on this list? Is it the 'compassionate' part of the truth that you don't feel is strived for here, or do you think people are too polite? (I doubt this, somehow) Do you not feel safe or vunerable?
It seems to me that you will get an honest answer from most of the people in this tribe. Their truth and yours may not be the same, but asking for agreement AND honesty may not always be possible. I would like to see you write a mission statement that you feel reflects the reality of the conversation on this tribe, or what you think the mission is. That might give me some insight into what you are trying to communicate.
As far as being offensive, I am offended by the statement linking poor self image or hiding from view my personality because I'm sarcastic. I don't see how that assumption - which is what it is - is vaild at all and fail to see how it's any better that saying psychologists are the most profoundly intelligent people I have ever met - with a smirk on my face - when they have the nerve to tell me what I am FEELING. I know full well what I am feeling, and my self image is just fine and I reveal whatever I want to when I want to reveal it. It's also amusing that they go on to say that sarcastic people and their abettors are the most interesting people at the party. Sounds like the wallflower psycho is a tad jealous of those that can handle themselves in company. Maybe they should hang with the Asberger crowd. What does it say about their self image if they are critizing people and making judments about them based on a communication style that they don't even seem to understand.
It also seems they are confusing good judgement with sarcasm when they blame sarcasm for the example woman losing her job. If she went home and had a Martini everynight that's okay. If she shows up drunk to work and gets fired, it's not the Martini's fault, she's either an alcoholic or foolish. Same thing with sarcasm, it has a time and a place and I think that disscussion boards are fine time and place, you don't and neither of us owns this space so we both have to put up with each other's communication style. -
-
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 6:11 PMI think I expressed my views on how this tribe's mission statement is different than what is practiced here. I think each member can see for themselves how well they reflect that.
I actually want to talk about sarcasm so I will focus on this topic:
Fido, Is there anything in the article that you agree with? do you agree with the dictionary definition of sarcasm? Perhaps you would like share what definition of sarcasm you agree with.
I found myself agreeing with alot of what the article had to say about sarcasm. It surpriced me that most of the responses here have been almost complete disagreement with it.
I am wonder why?
your response, Fido, offers me a glimpse.. thanks.. -
-
Unsu...
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 6:33 PM>do you agree with the dictionary definition of sarcasm? Perhaps you would like share what definition of sarcasm you agree with. <
Deja vu all over again from: extremehonesty.tribe.net/threa...195614
Sarcasm: A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound. Irony: An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
Sarcasm certainly sounds horrible: intended to wound, but when coupled with irony it becomes the basis for lots of important political speech (the type that is most important to me)
I do agree that sarcasm can be overdone. I agree over use of it can lead to rocky relationships. I agree that for people who don't get it, it is wasted. I disagree that it implies that I am damaged goods or have a poor self image or that I am an asshole because I engage in it when I feel it is warranted. I disagree that it is the root of all communication errors. I disagree that it is by it's nature dishonest. I think lots of times people that claim to not get it, get it just fine but don't want to deal with it's message so they pick on the messenger; like folks who pick apart your spelling or grammer instead of the subject you posted. Sarcasm can - at times - completely and honestly portray how I feel about something. If you want to talk about honesty as just the verifiable transmission of facts, then sarcasm has no place; however, if we are talking about the attempt to express to another person how it feels inside of us, I sometimes feel sarcastic so I am sometimes sarcastic. Pendantry may also be less prevalent in Latin American cultures; machoism may be more so, does this make the Latins better communicators than us (whomever we are?)
-
-
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 6:41 PMA good example of irony would be someone who admits they don't much of a sense of humor trying to tell other people what is and isn't funny.
!Alex! since the truth can also sometimes be painful to hear do you advocate dishonesty? -
-
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 8:05 PMA good example of irony would be someone who admits they don't much of a sense of humor trying to tell other people what is and isn't funny.>>>
I don't have a sense of humor...
but I play one on TV.
-
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 8:23 PMgood caricature Fifi!
would you be willing to share your feelings as you wrote that? -
-
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 9:25 PMhow did you feel when you read what she wrote?
-
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 9:54 PM!Alex! since the truth can also sometimes be painful to hear do you advocate dishonesty? *ahem* -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 10:22 PMFifi, why you don't like to disclose your feelings?
the reason I ask is because i would like to know your comment in a more complete way. or is it that you don't want to disclose them? you don't want them known? -
-
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Thu, March 13, 2008 - 10:27 PMMaybe Fifi needs a hug.
-
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Fri, March 14, 2008 - 11:54 AM!Alex! - Why don't you like to answer direct questions relevant to the discussion such as..."Since the truth can also sometimes be painful to hear do you advocate dishonesty?" Why are you avoiding answering this question?
As for you question - "Fifi, why you don't like to disclose your feelings?".... (First I'll note that you wrote that in such a way that it's half sentence half statement...listen/read actively and many things become obvious. Unless, of course, you could also be someone's Italian grandmother just immigrated from the old country too.)
I don't mind disclosing my feelings, most of the time they're actually pretty obvious because I don't go out of my way to hide how I feel about things. Sometimes I positively revel in share my feelings (not that everyone else always approves or appreciates this depending on how much they enjoy particular emotions or expressions of emotions in others). I express my feelings not only in my everyday life but through art and writing as well. You've made a huge leap and assumption that just because I don't want to answer your question (which I both feel and think is lame and not even really appropriate here) that I therefor don't like to disclose my feelings.
In some ways it's almost aggressive (albeit in a rather passive way) to insist that others share their feelings with you. It's definitely intrusive and disrespectful when it's insistent, or at least that's the way I see it. It lacks a respect for the boundaries of others and presumes a right to intimacy that hasn't been built over time and through loving action. Hell, I don't even think my significant other should have to tell me how they feel if they don't want to - other people's interior worlds are their business until there's a mutual decision to share. Do you believe you have a right to know how everyone else feels about everything all the time? Do you feel you have the right to intrude on people's interior worlds? To know what they're feeling because you have a need or desire for this knowledge?
Feelings are transient and not always even relevant to what's been said, and I highly doubt that telling you my feelings would actually enlighten you as to what I meant (it may even lead you to make more assumptions that will just lead you to be even more off the mark and lacking in understanding of what I actually meant). If you don't understand something about the comment why don't you just say what you don't understand and then I can offer you clarification (if I feel like it, of course).
Besides, who the hell remembers how they felt when they posted something on the internet a couple of days ago? It's hardly a significant emotional moment!
Now, how about answering the question I've asked a couple of times? You can even tell me how you feel when you answer the question if you feel you really need to and if it makes it an experience more to your liking. -
-
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Fri, March 14, 2008 - 12:36 PMPlease !
Don't force me to learn about this subject.
I must be aggressive on this point.
Next thing you know I would begin to argue. -
-
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Fri, March 14, 2008 - 2:34 PMMike - I'm certainly not going to try to teach you anything you're not interested in learning, particularly because you asked so politely even though you feel you must be aggressive on the point and may soon begin to argue. -
-
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Fri, March 14, 2008 - 2:41 PMIt's okay.
I just realized I'll be able to contradict anything you say...
so I won't have to bother with actually learning anything about it.
There's no point in arguing.
That would seem aggressive. -
-
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Fri, March 14, 2008 - 2:46 PMLOL! -
-
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Fri, March 14, 2008 - 2:56 PMpfffft.
hahahahhahaaaa!!!
-
-
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Fri, March 14, 2008 - 3:04 PMMike - Sure, whatever works for you. Enjoy! *lol*
-
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Fri, March 14, 2008 - 3:15 PMI now disagree with my former point of view...
I am certain the path to my disconnect from the
argument in question is to increase my knowledge to the point in which it would be so esoteric...
that nobody would be able to respond to the topic in question
and in that way I would be free of aggression... and never be forced to argue either. -
-
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Fri, March 14, 2008 - 4:04 PMOutstanding!
-
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Sun, March 16, 2008 - 11:11 AM>>I now disagree with my former point of view...
I am certain the path to my disconnect from the
argument in question is to increase my knowledge to the point in which it would be so esoteric...
that nobody would be able to respond to the topic in question
and in that way I would be free of aggression... and never be forced to argue either.<<
Brilliant! A sort of a reverse population inversion way of un-lasing argumentation itself by propelling it in to the meta-esoteric. You are a cruel taskmaster and my mad hat is off to you. ;-) -
-
Re: not going to get anything ..of discussion from us
Sun, March 16, 2008 - 6:16 PMHows does this make me feel?
-
-
-
-
-
-
thank you Fifi
Fri, March 14, 2008 - 1:47 PMThanks, Fifi, for your lengthy response.
I understand your reluctance to disclose your emotions...
I prefer no answer than a made up one, so thank you. I sence a certain integrity about you, that I appreciate.
You asked of my feelings and I disclosed them. So I figure I ask the same of you. A request is not a demand, and you are perfectly free to deny it, as you have. I personally don't have any reservations disclosing my emotions, atthough I often don't since most people seem not to be used to openly and directly talking about them. Obviously disclosing emotions in a place where one is not respected is just inviting further insult, so this has been another reason why I have not offered much of my emotions here.
Originaly, when you asked me of my emotions, I sensed a certain sincerity of knowing me. Your response to my emotional disclosure, I took it as rather dismissive. I sensed that it would be difficult for us to communicate directly and openly about our emotions. I think much of our interaction could become more efficient if we simply where to be on the level of emotions also. I guess it is simply a missed opportunity.
As far as your question. I did not answer it simply because I considered it rhetorical, specially from the caricature that preceded it.
To responded to your rhetorical question:
I sense that you see me as one dimensional.. as passive agressive with certain questionable agenda. I would say it is reasonable conclusion to draw from a consistent interpretation of some of my thinking and postings here. I have certainly have had a narrow range of topics that I have brought up here, which has been intentional and deliberate, since it is these topics that interest me with respect to this tribe. I have other topics to discuss but I choose other tribes to do that... so I can see how you could see me as one dimentional. Your inquiries about me have also been rather narrow, thusly I have given you a certain narrow spectrum out of me...perhaps reinforcing your notion of who you suspect me to be.
That I may be treated as one-dimensional here, that does not bother me.. I don't see myself hanging around this tribe to a lengthy extent.. and this tribe does not hold great importance to me., so If I where to be treated one-dimensionally.. well that's your business... I hope it serve your purposes, whatever they may be. and if they don't well.. it is what it is.
For the moment, I appreciate our limited dialog. -
-
Re: thank you Fifi
Fri, March 14, 2008 - 3:00 PM!Alex! - No, my question wasn't in the slightest bit "rhetorical". I don't ask questions unless I'm interested in the answer. Why do you assume that it was rhetorical? What's up with making all these assumptions? It appears that they continually lead you to misinterpret things.
Even if I could remember what I felt two days ago when I posted to a stranger on the internet, I really don't see how it's that relevant to your understanding. I'm perfectly willing to clarify whatever has you confused if you tell me what you're confused about.
And yes, I do see you as having an agenda here that you haven't been completely honest about and that it seems pretty passive aggressive to me in the way you've been enacting your agenda. But I've told you that directly before so it seems a bit odd that you'd say you "sense" what I've directly expressed. So what is your intentional and deliberate agenda? -
-
Re: thank you Fifi
Fri, March 14, 2008 - 4:30 PMI wrote to you what I thought it was rhetorical.. because of the caricature that preceded it.
Also because your questions are loaded with assumptions that I disagree with. So I answering them might give you the impressiona that I agree with your assumptions. Perhaps i have already done some of that.. to a diservice to you since you might be misguided with respect to me.
Moreover, you keep asking trivial questions, and I am not into small talk.. I like to get to the meat of things...which is a reason I am not too much into yibbi yabba cutesy wise cracks.. I find them unsatisfying most of the time...specially when they have an air of selfrighteouness and arrogance.
So i have a question for you, Fifi, when I complemented on your avatar, what did you feel?
In case you do not remember my attempt at being nice to you, I said "I like your avatar.. it looks like a cool heart" (or something similar). What did you feel? -
-
Re: thank you Fifi
Fri, March 14, 2008 - 5:03 PM!Alex! - "Moreover, you keep asking trivial questions, and I am not into small talk.I like to get to the meat of things...which is a reason I am not too much into yibbi yabba cutesy wise cracks.. I find them unsatisfying most of the time...specially when they have a
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-