It happened again

Tex Monday · June 18, 2013

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Carole Franizzi wrote:

Maddy wrote:

I didn't say, nor mean to imply that shadenfreude was hypothetical and I do expect it's been around a long time. I'm theorizing that if a person is perceived to be a "shadenfreudist", that might affect the dynamics of their social circle.

Me: Sorry, but I took your ‘if’ and ‘might’ as the hypothetical voice. Anyway, yes, I think it’s safe to bet that a ‘hardcore schadenfreudist’ who openly reacts with glee over his/her friends’ misadventures wouldn’t have too many Christmas card on their mantelpiece. It could also be argued that in today’s society a moderate dose of real or apparent schadenfreud would actually get you lots of friends.

I'm agreed. And this argues for the "appearance" of shadenfreude having an effect on well being. I don't know what that effect is, nor how it's related to the degree of visibility, but it seems reasonable to think it does have an effect.

I don't know if we keep harping on the same points but...

I will agree there is a definite effect on your well being with shadenfreude..it makes you feel better about yourself compared to another at that moment. Although, if you have no sympathy or empathy (IMO) you won't have the same benefits. If you're stuck up...thinking you're better than everyone else..you may view everyone with shadenfreude and not know any better. The happiness that you feel won't be based off this feeling, but based off your general attitude towards people.

As I said, we may be laboring the point...but I just wanted to put it out there...

EDITED TO CHANGE THE TEXT TO A NICER COLOR......

Carole Franizzi · June 18, 2013

Awe Thor wrote:

Empathy isn't about SHARING an emotional state.

Actually it is. Any dictionary will tell you that.

Madelaine McMasters · June 18, 2013

Tex Monday wrote:

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Carole Franizzi wrote:

Maddy wrote:

I didn't say, nor mean to imply that shadenfreude was hypothetical and I do expect it's been around a long time. I'm theorizing that if a person is perceived to be a "shadenfreudist", that might affect the dynamics of their social circle.

Me: Sorry, but I took your ‘if’ and ‘might’ as the hypothetical voice. Anyway, yes, I think it’s safe to bet that a ‘hardcore schadenfreudist’ who openly reacts with glee over his/her friends’ misadventures wouldn’t have too many Christmas card on their mantelpiece. It could also be argued that in today’s society a moderate dose of real or apparent schadenfreud would actually get you lots of friends.

I'm agreed. And this argues for the "appearance" of shadenfreude having an effect on well being. I don't know what that effect is, nor how it's related to the degree of visibility, but it seems reasonable to think it does have an effect.

I don't know if we keep harping on the same points but...

I will agree there is a definite effect on your well being with shadenfreude..it makes you feel better about yourself compared to another at that moment. Although, if you have no sympathy or empathy (IMO) you won't have the same benefits. If you're stuck up...thinking you're better than everyone else..you may view everyone with shadenfreude and not know any better. The happiness that you feel won't be based off this feeling, but based off your general attitude towards people.

As I said, we may be laboring the point...but I just wanted to put it out there...

EDITED TO CHANGE THE TEXT TO A NICER COLOR......

Tex, there is a difference between schadenfreude making you feel better and actually making you better off. That's the point I'm flailing to make! And from what you've written, I think we'd more or less agree.

And I hope you notice that my reply is in an even nicer color!

;-)

Tex Monday · June 18, 2013

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Tex Monday wrote:

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Carole Franizzi wrote:

Maddy wrote:

I didn't say, nor mean to imply that shadenfreude was hypothetical and I do expect it's been around a long time. I'm theorizing that if a person is perceived to be a "shadenfreudist", that might affect the dynamics of their social circle.

Me: Sorry, but I took your ‘if’ and ‘might’ as the hypothetical voice. Anyway, yes, I think it’s safe to bet that a ‘hardcore schadenfreudist’ who openly reacts with glee over his/her friends’ misadventures wouldn’t have too many Christmas card on their mantelpiece. It could also be argued that in today’s society a moderate dose of real or apparent schadenfreud would actually get you lots of friends.

I'm agreed. And this argues for the "appearance" of shadenfreude having an effect on well being. I don't know what that effect is, nor how it's related to the degree of visibility, but it seems reasonable to think it does have an effect.

I don't know if we keep harping on the same points but...

I will agree there is a definite effect on your well being with shadenfreude..it makes you feel better about yourself compared to another at that moment. Although, if you have no sympathy or empathy (IMO) you won't have the same benefits. If you're stuck up...thinking you're better than everyone else..you may view everyone with shadenfreude and not know any better. The happiness that you feel won't be based off this feeling, but based off your general attitude towards people.

As I said, we may be laboring the point...but I just wanted to put it out there...

EDITED TO CHANGE THE TEXT TO A NICER COLOR......

Tex, there is a difference between schadenfreude making you feel better and actually making you better off. That's the point I'm flailing to make! And from what you've written, I think we'd more or less agree.

And I hope you notice that my reply is in an even nicer color!

;-)

Yes...after all that, I would absolutely agree....

SHOW OFF!

:matte-motes-sunglasses-3:

Carole Franizzi · June 18, 2013

Maddy: The National Institutes of Health are funding research into the health effects of meditation. We already know that certain kinds of meditation affect dopamine production and blood flow in specific brain regious. We know we can teach patients to think in ways that reduce their need for pain medications. Functional MRI is helping locate specific regions of the brain which are responsible for specific kinds of cognition and thinking, and to better understand neurotransmitter production and modulation. You just know someone will eventually do schadenfreude tests on people with their heads stuck in MRI machines.

Me: They've already done them. (see link below)

Maddy: Yep, I hear about new studies all the time.

Say wut?

Madelaine McMasters · June 18, 2013

Carole Franizzi wrote:

Maddy: The National Institutes of Health are funding research into the health effects of meditation. We already know that certain kinds of meditation affect dopamine production and blood flow in specific brain regious. We know we can teach patients to think in ways that reduce their need for pain medications. Functional MRI is helping locate specific regions of the brain which are responsible for specific kinds of cognition and thinking, and to better understand neurotransmitter production and modulation.

You just know someone will eventually do schadenfreude tests on people with their heads stuck in MRI machines.

Me: They've already done them. (see link below)

Maddy:

Yep, I hear about new studies all the time.

Say wut?

Wut?

And that's why I try to stay away from feeling certainty. Just when I think I've got a grip on something, along comes a dolphin researcher who blows it out of the water, followed by a monkey researcher who throws it back into the water. So I just kinda watch the general drift of the things.

ETA: yes, I just mentioned research on things other than humans!

ETA2: I'm really not taking a stance on what effect schadenfreude has in the big or the small picture. I've read research into the differences between various levels of abstraction, specificity and moral assessment (laughing at cartoon slapstick, laughing at a group's failure, vs laughing at "good" person's failure, laughing at a "bad" person's failure, etc.). This discussion started with a claim that schadenfreude (or perhaps making it apparent by boasting) was unhealthy. I'm just saying that I believe it it has an effect on our feelings of well-being, our actual well being, and that we (individually, if not collectively) don't understand that fully.

Of course there might be nobody better than me to demonstrate not understanding something fully.

Mea culpa!

Aethelwine · June 18, 2013

There is a distinction be made at whether it is at someone elses expense and also whether or not it is in some sense deserved.

If it is not deserved and the person being laughed at is made uncomfortable by that then the situation is bullying and there is a wealth of information to suggest that is not good for the social group, the victim and also those doing the bullying or laughing along with them.

If it is laughing at a bully then it is probably of benefit, as it would laughing along with the victim at a misfortune.

Madelaine McMasters · June 18, 2013

Aethelwine wrote:

There is a distinction be made at whether it is at someone elses expense and also whether or not it is in some sense deserved.

If it is not deserved and the person being laughed at is made uncomfortable by that then the situation is

bullying

and there is a wealth of information to suggest that is not good for the social group, the victim and also those doing the bullying or laughing along with them.

If it is laughing at a bully then it is probably of benefit, as it would laughing along with the victim at a misfortune.

And when you move this behavior to the Internet, where it may be more widely participated in (that's probably a shaky contention), more widely observed and more permanently recorded, I wonder what we'll discover.

Paul Hexem · June 18, 2013

Maybe I'm more used to the Internet, or grew up with thicker skin, or maybe it's because when I was a kid, we had to do it in person... But I don't see where bullying applies to my original post at all.

Although there might have been some by other people later in the thread...

Ima Rang · June 18, 2013

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Aethelwine wrote:

There is a distinction be made at whether it is at someone elses expense and also whether or not it is in some sense deserved.

If it is not deserved and the person being laughed at is made uncomfortable by that then the situation is

bullying

and there is a wealth of information to suggest that is not good for the social group, the victim and also those doing the bullying or laughing along with them.

If it is laughing at a bully then it is probably of benefit, as it would laughing along with the victim at a misfortune.

And when you move this behavior to the Internet, where it may be more widely participated in (that's probably a shaky contention), more widely observed and more permanently recorded, I wonder what we'll discover.

Nothing.

Madelaine McMasters · June 18, 2013

Ima Rang wrote:

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Aethelwine wrote:

There is a distinction be made at whether it is at someone elses expense and also whether or not it is in some sense deserved.

If it is not deserved and the person being laughed at is made uncomfortable by that then the situation is

bullying

and there is a wealth of information to suggest that is not good for the social group, the victim and also those doing the bullying or laughing along with them.

If it is laughing at a bully then it is probably of benefit, as it would laughing along with the victim at a misfortune.

And when you move this behavior to the Internet, where it may be more widely participated in (that's probably a shaky contention), more widely observed and more permanently recorded, I wonder what we'll discover.

Nothing.

Perhaps. It'll take some time to tell if the "Facebook cost me my job" anecdotes outweight the "Facebook got me a job" anecdotes.

Ima Rang · June 18, 2013

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Ima Rang wrote:

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Aethelwine wrote:

There is a distinction be made at whether it is at someone elses expense and also whether or not it is in some sense deserved.

If it is not deserved and the person being laughed at is made uncomfortable by that then the situation is

bullying

and there is a wealth of information to suggest that is not good for the social group, the victim and also those doing the bullying or laughing along with them.

If it is laughing at a bully then it is probably of benefit, as it would laughing along with the victim at a misfortune.

And when you move this behavior to the Internet, where it may be more widely participated in (that's probably a shaky contention), more widely observed and more permanently recorded, I wonder what we'll discover.

Nothing.

Perhaps. It'll take some time to tell if the "Facebook cost me my job" anecdotes outweight the "Facebook got me a job" anecdotes.

I don't think it will ever be possible to derive meaningful information from online social media primarily because there is no way to determine/confirm the veracity of the anecdotes...most especially in an environment where the 10 anonymous people in the discussion may very well be 1 person with 10 accounts...and other such scenarios...

Madelaine McMasters · June 18, 2013

Ima Rang wrote:

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Ima Rang wrote:

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Aethelwine wrote:

There is a distinction be made at whether it is at someone elses expense and also whether or not it is in some sense deserved.

If it is not deserved and the person being laughed at is made uncomfortable by that then the situation is

bullying

and there is a wealth of information to suggest that is not good for the social group, the victim and also those doing the bullying or laughing along with them.

If it is laughing at a bully then it is probably of benefit, as it would laughing along with the victim at a misfortune.

And when you move this behavior to the Internet, where it may be more widely participated in (that's probably a shaky contention), more widely observed and more permanently recorded, I wonder what we'll discover.

Nothing.

Perhaps. It'll take some time to tell if the "Facebook cost me my job" anecdotes outweight the "Facebook got me a job" anecdotes.

I don't think it will ever be possible to derive meaningful information from online social media primarily because there is no way to determine/confirm the veracity of the anecdotes...most especially in an environment where the 10 anonymous people in the discussion may very well be 1 person with 10 accounts...and other such scenarios...

Companies are already drawing meaningful information from online social media. That's how Facebook got a market cap of 58 billion dollars! They are mining data that's largely insensitive to anonymity. Google is doing the same. They don't care who's really viewing the schadenfreudic YouTube videos that correlate well with certain buying habits, they'll simply show the correlation data to a customer and you'll see their ads targeted at your shadenfreude. Such targeted advertising is not new, but I think the selectivity and specificity allowed by the Internet is.

But they'll also be able to pierce the veil of anonymity. You and I might not have the time to watch every little detail of a "person"'s life online, but a computer does. The little written affectations that make us wonder if someone is someone else can be reduced to a useful statistical correlation. A recent radio show discussed Google's ability to identify real people surfing anonymously by analyzing their online search behavior. Someone who checks the Manitowoc weather every day, is interested in root-beer flavored foods, purple clothing, tractor parts, quack psychology, and types "li'l" for "little" might not be hard to pick out in a crowd of search queries. So if Madelaine McMasters and five other identities have highly correlated search behavior, you might be able to sell the idea that they're all Madelaine McMasters. And I do mean sell.

Google's Eric Schmidt wasn't kidding when he said it's Google's Policy to get right up to the creepy line. The scope and scale of the Internet's reach is unprecedented, and it is something that can be analyzed at nearly zero cost by computers. So that old explanation of "I'm not interesting enough for anyone to pay attention to" no longer holds.

Now we're all interesting!

Ima Rang · June 18, 2013

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Ima Rang wrote:

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Ima Rang wrote:

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Aethelwine wrote:

There is a distinction be made at whether it is at someone elses expense and also whether or not it is in some sense deserved.

If it is not deserved and the person being laughed at is made uncomfortable by that then the situation is

bullying

and there is a wealth of information to suggest that is not good for the social group, the victim and also those doing the bullying or laughing along with them.

If it is laughing at a bully then it is probably of benefit, as it would laughing along with the victim at a misfortune.

And when you move this behavior to the Internet, where it may be more widely participated in (that's probably a shaky contention), more widely observed and more permanently recorded, I wonder what we'll discover.

Nothing.

Perhaps. It'll take some time to tell if the "Facebook cost me my job" anecdotes outweight the "Facebook got me a job" anecdotes.

I don't think it will ever be possible to derive meaningful information from online social media primarily because there is no way to determine/confirm the veracity of the anecdotes...most especially in an environment where the 10 anonymous people in the discussion may very well be 1 person with 10 accounts...and other such scenarios...

Companies are already drawing meaningful information from online social media. That's how Facebook got a market cap of 58 billion dollars! They are mining data that's largely insensitive to anonymity. Google is doing the same. They don't care who's really viewing the schadenfreudic YouTube videos that correlate well with certain buying habits, they'll simply show the correlation data to a customer and you'll see their ads targeted at your shadenfreude. Such targeted advertising is not new, but I think the selectivity and specificity allowed by the Internet is.

But they'll also be able to pierce the veil of anonymity. You and I might not have the time to watch every little detail of a "person"'s life online, but a computer does. The little written affectations that make us wonder if someone is someone else can be reduced to a useful statistical correlation. A recent radio show discussed Google's ability to identify real people surfing anonymously by analyzing their online search behavior. Someone who checks the Manitowoc weather every day, is interested in root-beer flavored foods, purple clothing, tractor parts, quack psychology, and types "li'l" for "little" might not be hard to pick out in a crowd of search queries. So if Madelaine McMasters and five other identities have highly correlated search behavior, you might be able to sell the idea that they're all Madelaine McMasters. And I do mean sell.

Google's Eric Schmidt wasn't kidding when he said it's Google's Policy to get right up to the creepy line. The scope and scale of the Internet's reach is unprecedented, and it is something that can be analyzed at nearly zero cost by computers. So that old explanation of "I'm not interesting enough for anyone to pay attention to" no longer holds.

Now we're all interesting!

You seem to have quite a hard on...for lack of a better description, for Google these days.

I think the element of schadenfruede that is being overlooked is malice....which is not something that Google will be able to determine from an individual surfing America's Funniest Home Videos to watch skateboarders settle family planning matters on an unforgiving set of steel railings for the OMG...fool...or "I see how I can improve my technique". Thrill seeking behavior does not equate to a particular desire to see people maliciously and intentionally subjected to public humiliation that causes physical or emotional harm. IMO, schadenfruede is not a protective mechanism that activates when we are suffering from low self-esteem or ego deflation. Saying that Google has that power is like saying that Movie Theatres have the capacity to profile serial killers based on the number of movies that select customers frequent that include the theme of serial killings.

What we do here is gloat. For instance...I may think someone here is a know it all...an eff'ing expert on anything and everything posted and I find them deeply irritating and a pedant...and then at some point, that person tries to best me on a subject for which I am actually employed as a subject matter expert, and that expertise allows me to publically best them...If I giggle afterwards...I'm gloating...not schadenfruede...because my intent to best was not malicious...I don't want you to have an cerebral aneurism or die in a fire because I bested you in public.

Suspiria Finucane · June 19, 2013

Carole Franizzi wrote:

There's nothing worse than being told how you should feel by someone who has absolutely no idea how you feel, and may actually be the cause of you feeling less than respected.

Or how you "are" feeling by someone who has absolutely no idea how you feel.

I snicker at these people. Now they know how I feel. :matte-motes-wink-tongue:

Suspiria Finucane · June 19, 2013

Carole Franizzi wrote:

Suspiria Finucane wrote:

Carole Franizzi wrote:

(bff does stand for beyatchy female foes, doesn't it?)

Love it! ...and it just might :matte-motes-evil:

Carole Franizzi wrote:

Glad to see you too. Though probably not as glad as someone else I can think of who, without your never-give-in attitude would have had oodles of hours less entertainment in these forums. But then, let's be honest - you're kinda pleased to see him back too. 'Fess up. On ya go. I'll tickle you till you admit it!

Frankly, I think the pair of you should get SLhitched. I could make a fortune selling tickets for your couples therapy sessions.

It is interesting how one character revolves around another, revolves around another, revolves around another etc. And yes, I'll admit bantering with the original was entertaining. What intrigues me however; is the actual hatred some people show on this forum. You would think 2 years away from someone would soften the hate but it hasn't.

I'm willing to bet he was entertained too. Verbal ping-pong and all that. I would never have written any of my WoT's if others hadn't responded. And I get more dismayed by agreement - which effectively ends the debate - than disagreement which extends it. Without an 'adversary', many aspects of 'forumism' are pointless.

Re: hatred. Hell, I don't hate anyone in RL, go figger in SL!

I've never been too convinced about SLurve - the act of loving a faceless stranger known through their avatar and choice, crafted snippets of 'information' which can't be verified - and I'm equally unconvinced about hating a faceless stranger. What is there to hate? When you don't even know a person, how can you hate them?

Re: your jump-suit. Ah! Gotcha. Yep, that has 'Carole' written all over it....

Not so different after all, don't you ~~hate~~ despise that! :matte-motes-evil-invert:

Seriously though, I agree 100%. I often wonder; if someone can hate a person they don't know, what are they capable of if they actually know a person? Creepy!

Suspiria Finucane · June 19, 2013

Carole Franizzi wrote:

Awe Thor wrote:

Empathy isn't about SHARING an emotional state.

Actually it is. Any dictionary will tell you that.

Schadenfreude

Suspiria Finucane · June 19, 2013

Madelaine McMasters · June 19, 2013

Carole Franizzi wrote:

Here’s some bedtime reading for you:

http://www.goallab.nl/publications/documents/2011_Emotion_Van%20Dijk%20et%20al.pdf

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/01/26/0956797610397667.abstract

That stuff almost put me to sleep! ;-)

The first paper confirms what some people figure out on their own and what I've read elsewhere, that schadenfreude is correlated with low self esteem and that finding other ways to improve self image reduces schadenfreude.

The abstract of the second paper was pretty short, about shadenfreude in sports. That's something I've heard discussed recently. A sports fan's degree of schadenfreude correlates to their interest in the sport. Die-hard baseball fans will cheer rivals losses no matter what. Casual watchers are more likely to take other things into consideration, such as the quality of the rival and the nature of the loss. For example, they'd experience less or no schadenfreude if a truly great rival loses because of an officiating error. This also applies to other group competitions, such as wars and the feelings leak past the sport into broader things like team nationality. I'd hoped they would discuss the violence that sometimes follow games (including parents at kiddie soccer games) but they didn't.

What surprised me in that discussion is that fans apparently don't share in the schadenfreude to feel like a part of the fan club. I thought that would be a factor. When I see all those painted naked tummies in the stands at Green Bay Packer football games, I just get the feeling they'd doing so in part to "belong" to the fan club. But it seems they're really acting more independently, feeling directly allied with the team and experiencing schadenfreude because a threat to the team is a threat to their self image.

There's also a game theory explanation I've heard, which says that zero-sum situations (sports, war, etc) evoke more schadenfreude than win-win. That makes sense to me. There's less threat in win-win.

What I haven't heard or read anywhere is an analysis of people's perceptions of others schadenfreudic behavior.

But back to the first paper. This entire conversation started with Aethelwine stating...

"Schadenfreude is not a healthy pleasure to be boasting about."

I could read this as meaning "schadenfreude isn't healthy", or that "bragging about it isn't healthy". I'm not going to argue the first interpretation, as I don't understand schadenfreude's efficacy as a coping mechanism, particulary compared to other methods like self affirmation (which reduced schadenfreude in the first study you cited). But if you take the conclusion of that paper and take a bit of liberty in rewording it, you can get...

"Bragging about low self esteem is not healthy".

That statement seems harder to argue with. The logic error I purposely made is that "people with low self esteem experience more schadenfreude" isn't the same as "people bragging about their schadenfreude have low self esteem". People with all levels of self esteem experience schadenfreude, but I think the rejiggering of the statement to show that bragging about schadenfreude isn't healthy will probably find some support, if only because there's maybe a little bit of schadenfreude in it.

;-)

Madelaine McMasters · June 19, 2013

Ima Rang wrote:

You seem to have quite a hard on...for lack of a better description, for Google these days.

I think the element of schadenfruede that is being overlooked is malice....which is not something that Google will be able to determine from an individual surfing America's Funniest Home Videos to watch skateboarders settle family planning matters on an unforgiving set of steel railings for the OMG...fool...or "I see how I can improve my technique". Thrill seeking behavior does not equate to a particular desire to see people maliciously and intentionally subjected to public humiliation that causes physical or emotional harm. IMO, schadenfruede is not a protective mechanism that activates when we are suffering from low self-esteem or ego deflation.

I also don't think schadenfreude turns on when we're suffering low self esteem. The

study linked by Carole Franizzi

contends that low self esteem is correlated with schadenfreude. I seem to love watching Wile E hit the dessert floor regardless regardless of my mental state. But, right or wrong, people are going to draw the conclusion that notable (I'm still looking for a word to describe the sort of "you know it when you see it" character I'm imagining) schadenfreude is indicative of low self esteem. I said so in my reponse to Carole.

Saying that Google has that power is like saying that Movie Theatres have the capacity to profile serial killers based on the number of movies that select customers frequent that include the theme of serial killings.

Google hasn't got that scalpel like precison, and doesn't need it. I don't know which is the cart and which is the horse, but modern media understands that we like sensationalism. That now colors our news and there is handwringing over it. I think there will be handwringing (already is) over what Google does. My interest in Google is just a reflection of their being the biggest of the "big data" folks. I'm fascinated with what might be found in all the information they're collecting. Milwaukee's 1993 cryposporidium outbreak in the water supply was detected by pharmacists stocking out of tummy medications. Now we have

Google Flue Trends

.

I can hardly wait for Google Schadenfreude Trends!

Untill then, there's this...

Schadenfreude Search.png

I wonder what happened in late 2006.

What we do here is gloat. For instance...I may think someone here is a know it all...an eff'ing expert on anything and everything posted and I find them deeply irritating and a pedant...and then at some point, that person tries to best me on a subject for which I am actually employed as a subject matter expert, and that expertise allows me to publically best them...If I giggle afterwards...I'm gloating...not schadenfruede...because my intent to best was not malicious...I don't want you to have an cerebral aneurism or die in a fire because I bested you in public.

Well, what's one more cerebral aneurism. You get used to them after a while.

I'd like to think I possess both knowledge and curiosity. One out of two ain't bad?

;-)

Carole Franizzi · June 19, 2013

Maddy:"Schadenfreude is not a healthy pleasure to be boasting about."

I could read this as meaning "schadenfreude isn't healthy", or that "bragging about it isn't healthy".

Me: Wut again? After 3 or 4 pages of mega-posts which have seen you repeatedly questioning whether schadenfreude negatively impacts a person’s health (and me wearing out my fingernails typing explanations as to why this ‘phenomenon’ cannot be seen in terms of healthy/unhealthy) NOW you’ve decided you’re not sure whether it’s the bragging about it which is the problem??? Excuse me while I go bang my head off the wall for a couple of minutes.

I'm not going to argue the first interpretation…

B-b-b-but you have been doing just that all these pages!!!

….as I don't understand schadenfreude's efficacy as a coping mechanism

BANG! BANG! BANG!

Ouch.

But if you take the conclusion of that paper and take a bit of liberty in rewording it, you can get...

"Bragging about low self esteem is not healthy".

A bit of liberty? A bit??? What line in the conclusion did you decimate to make it mean that?? Not one single part of that paper deals with how one’s schadenfreude is discussed with others, if my memory serves me correctly.

The logic error I purposely made is that "people with low self esteem experience more schadenfreude" isn't the same as "people bragging about their schadenfreude have low self esteem".

Huh? BANG!

People with all levels of self esteem experience schadenfreude, but I think the rejiggering of the statement to show that bragging about schadenfreude isn't healthy will probably find some support, if only because there's maybe a little bit of schadenfreude in it.

Yeah, but if schandenfreude is a sub-conscious mechanism, and since sub-conscious mechanisms are …erm…sub-conscious, when you’re affected by them, you’re unaware of it. That make sense? So, if a person is unaware of being affected by something, he can hardly boast about having it. You with me? Therefore….roll of drums…anybody claiming to be proud of being affected by a sub-conscious mechanism is….the one person in the room whom we can be sure is not schadenfroh! Now, how’s that for a theory?

Here’s another one – what we say about ourselves to others is so heavily affected by how we want to be perceived that a person’s own self-description is not awfully reliable. Jumping back to your comment about others perceiving you as intimidating, I’m going to suggest that anybody reading your words should be questioning to what degree you are fulfilled by being seen as intimidating and therefore as to how accurate that label actually is. Yes, I know that others told you that’s how they perceive you, but you have to remember that only means that they find you intimidating - not that you actually are. The adjective might appeal to you and you may cultivate it, assume it as if it is one which fits you, even if it actually doesn’t. For many people, and in many situations, being intimidating is an excellent trait. I’m not picking on you – we all construct and try to project self-images which are usually inaccurate, but which are the ones we need. You do it. I do it. We all do. And, of course, you may actually be a scary beyatch. One last thing - don't forget - some people might have fun claiming to possess certain attributes just because the claim suscitates certain reactions in others.

Ima Rang · June 19, 2013

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I wonder what happened in late 2006.

Saddam Hussein, former president of Iraq, and his co-defendants Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti and Awad Hamed al-Bandar were sentenced to death....and schadenfruede swept across the land by those boasting high self-esteem, but feeling that they deserved the penalty of death.

Madelaine McMasters · June 20, 2013

Ima Rang wrote:

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I wonder what happened in late 2006.

Saddam Hussein, former president of Iraq, and his co-defendants Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti and Awad Hamed al-Bandar were sentenced to death....and schadenfruede swept across the land by those boasting high self-esteem, but feeling that they deserved the penalty of death.

I like that explanation, but the peak of 100 was in August of 2006, Saddam was executed in December, when schadenfreude ebbed at 25. And "boasting high self-esteem"? I really like that! ;-)

October 2008 - start of the Great Recession? Higher since, but now in decline?

November 2012, Schadenfreude for Romney (that's actually from the chart, which labeled that peak as "A").

The peaks seem more related to specific media articles than to any upswell in public interest in the concept. I've no idea if the general trend up is real or an artifact of changing Internet demographics. And we can't separate the interest of the public from the interest of the article writer. I could imagine a lot of people went looking for schadenfreude because they had no idea what it was. So is this more a measure of literacy than interest?

According to the game theory of emotions (another thing I no nothing about) sports, wars and other conflicts are win-lose games, in which there are clear threats. So there's grist for schadenfreude in conflicts, and it's got less to do with self-esteem than with the threat to the thing you identify with (team, army, religion, political party, etc.)

I was raised and live in a win-win environment, low in threat, and I don't identify with any team, army, religion or politcal party. So game theory would have me exhibiting less schadenfreude, and maybe being more sensitive to it in others. We've had people in the forums express belief that SL and/or RL was a zero-sum game and get a less than enthusiastic welcome by... win-win people?

And so the argument that bragging about schadenfreude is unhealthy might boil down to the reversible "playing the wrong game may appear unhealthy to people playing the right one".

I could go on... ;-)

Ima Rang · June 20, 2013