Madelaine McMasters Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Ima Rang wrote: And just before you draw too many more profound conclusions from the google searches of schadenfruede...you do realize they are a fairly well known band...right? I mean, I'm not a fan...but apparently they have at least 10. They have 14 fans, and I'm three of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tex Monday Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Madelaine McMasters wrote: 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! I know this might be getting us off topic, but wanted to comment on your statement, Maddy. I work for a State Agency and we have people who sign in Facebook under an anonomous user and "perv" (for lack of a better term) potential employees posts. I'm sure that something inappropriate might (and I say might because state government works totally differently than private industry) stop you from getting an interview. This is a topic that I feel very strongly about...people don't understand that what you say in social media reflects how people see you. A good friend of ours has two kids..one posted a picture of himself giving the photographer the finger and the other tweeted being extremely whinny. I know they're good kids, but what happens if someone that doesn't know them sees that picture or those tweets? How are they going to be perceived by these people? They may not care, but what if that other person is an employer or a teacher? It urks me that social media is out there and there seems to be no supervision or remifications for the users actions. Watch your kids, people....see what they're doing on line and get involved... *clears my throat and quietly sits down* Sorry....:matte-motes-sunglasses-3: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Tex Monday wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: 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! I know this might be getting us off topic, but wanted to comment on your statement, Maddy. I work for a State Agency and we have people who sign in Facebook under an anonomous user and "perv" (for lack of a better term) potential employees posts. I'm sure that something inappropriate might (and I say might because state government works totally differently than private industry) stop you from getting an interview. This is a topic that I feel very strongly about...people don't understand that what you say in social media reflects how people see you. A good friend of ours has two kids..one posted a picture of himself giving the photographer the finger and the other tweeted being extremely whinny. I know they're good kids, but what happens if someone that doesn't know them sees that picture or those tweets? How are they going to be perceived by these people? They may not care, but what if that other person is an employer or a teacher? It urks me that social media is out there and there seems to be no supervision or remifications for the users actions. Watch your kids, people....see what they're doing on line and get involved... *clears my throat and quietly sits down* Sorry....:matte-motes-sunglasses-3: I already took us off-topic, no worries, Tex! There's a thing people are not able to do well, and that inability is thought to be important to our ability to live as social creatures. And it's a thing which the Internet does very well. That thing is... remember. The value of "forgive and forget" is that it erodes potential roadblocks to cooperation. If you never forgive or forget that I whacked you in the head with an alley broom when I was little, we're unlikely ever to get along again, even though there may be tremendous advantage in doing so. That photograph of the kid with the raised finger may now hang around forever, potentially absent the original context. Those involved have long forgotten, but the image is forever there to insult anew. Even laws and business practices forget. Speeding tickets vanish from your driving record after a while, as do late payments on your credit card. The Internet's memory is ungoverned. I believe we'll continue to value "forgive and forget" but this will challenge us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Carole Franizzi wrote: 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. Somewhere, in a previous wall of text, I said "But I don't think I'd be surprised to discover that even when only known internally, that shadenfreude has an effect on health. What if it's discovered that people who engage in it frequently live longer than those who don't? I don't expect we'll see that study soon, and it'll be surrounded by critique, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that our natures affect our health." So I'm questioning the effect, not describing it. You've stated that schadenfreude is an effect, not a cause. I'm arguing it's both. It might be far too complex and nuanced to tease apart from other factors, but it's been a topic of conversaton for ages and research for less than that. I'm not going to argue the first interpretation… B-b-b-but you have been doing just that all these pages!!! Again, my argument has been that schadenfreude has an effect, not that it's negative. ….as I don't understand schadenfreude's efficacy as a coping mechanism BANG! BANG! BANG! It's only a flesh wound, I'd rather know I don't understand something that not know I understand it wrong. I might not know the difference. Ouch. I know! 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. I didn't take liberty with the paper, I took liberty with Aethelwine's comment, as have others in this thread. I think people could reasonably interpret the statement in both of the ways I described. The paper did find correlation between schadenfreude and low self-esteem. I cut and pasted that correlation into Aethelwine's statement, purposely making the logical error because many people will, including me in a pinch. 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! Hey, I fired that bullet, so I get the credit for the 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? We are aware enough of our sub-conscious that we've been able to name it. Our awareness of it is tenuous to be sure, but we say things like "I feel conflicted", or "I just had a thought!", or "What was I thinking?" or "Her name is on the tip of my tongue, it'll come to me in a minute" that suggest we're aware our brains have minds of their own. When our sub-conscious processes can't resolve a conflict, they'll phone the conscious for a consultation. People feel guilt over schadenfreude, I have. And that guilt has come to me as mysteriously as the schadenfreude itself. I imagine there were some number of subconscious processes working on the situation (use schadenfreude and sympathy as proxy concepts for what are probably much more complex collections of mechamisms at work. They were not able to resolve a dilemma and so brought it to my attention. On conscious consideration, I resolved the dilemma in favor of sympathy, producing guilt. Hopefully, some of that consideration actually gets passed back into the subconscious, hopefully shifting the balance in the direction I consciously desire in future sub-conscious deliberations. It would make sense that schadenfreude goes undetected when there is no conflict worthy of making the phone call. But even then, we can sometimes access the logs of sub-conscious events by introspection and reflection. And if someone does recall the delights of schadenfreudic events and considers them worth bragging about, others could conclude that the sub-conscious malice of schadenfreude now bears the conscious stamp of approval. And of course that's provided they aren't in agreement. As Ima noted, there was a lot of public schadenfreude surrounding the hanging of Saddam Hussein. If there's a counter argument, showing that bragging about your schadenfreude could be personally beneficial, Ima's example looks good, though this is at odds with what I heard about sports schadenfreude being unaffected by anyone's desire to be part of the fan club. 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. Agreed! 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. You bet. It's worth questioning my perception, my self-perception and my motive. You're probably doing all that both sub-consciously and consciously. 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. Right. 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. It doesn't appeal to me, I hope I'm not cultivating it (I don't know), I hope it doesn't fit. Those who've stuck with me long enough to tell me they found me intimidating no longer do. That says nothing about those who fled. So, I don't extrapolate my friend's current impressions of me to others, but I do extrapolate their initial impressions. For many people, and in many situations, being intimidating is an excellent trait. It sure is, and it may be that I've benefitted from that appearance, even though I don't like it. The president of the company that raised me professionally was a mix of doting father and unforviging taskmaster. It wasn't pleasant to discover the line between those two (of many) aspects of his character. I could be the same. I’m not picking on you – And I'm not feeling picked on. 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. Yes, just as I previously observed that you and I, and everyone else, also comfort ourselves. I think I have a self-deprecating sense of humor. I'm also well aware that's a disarming defence mechanism. I (we) also self-protect. And, of course, you may actually be a scary beyatch. May? Am! 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. Hence the old saw "actions speak louder than words". Which is even more pitted with rust holes here than in RL. Okay, I've exhausted myself. I don't think I'm back where I started, but what do I know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Ima Rang wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: 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... ;-) Rule changer! You said late 2006...He was sentenced in November of 2006...that's late! Exhibiting less schadenfreude? I'm wondering why it is that you think it is something that can be seen, or detected, when in fact most people probably have no idea what it is and whether or not they are schadenfroh'ish. Personally, I don't believe there is any such thing as a win-win people. And who would determine who is playing the right game and the wrong game? Well, I said I thought trending "schadenfreude" searches might have been a literacy test, so I agree that lots of people don't know the term. But they know the experience. When someone is oddly shadenfroh'ish, you feel it. Just as when someone has a sense of humor at odds with your own. I said the right-wrong phrase was reversible. I think in most situations, both sides think they're right, right? (Though I've been in plenty of situations with others were we couldn't agree that we were agreeing). And while I agree that nobody's win-win, I think there are biases (cultural, personal, both). There are clearly situations in which I'll feel it's win-lose. But even then, I can hope that I'm tempering my malicious glee. And I'm sure not gonna tell you when I'm rolling in it, I probably don't have to. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carole Franizzi Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Maddy: You've stated that schadenfreude is an effect, not a cause. I'm arguing it's both. Carole: No, I didn't, Maddy. (Is Maddy short for Maddening, by any chance?). Right, one last time - what I've been saying is - oh, hell - here it is in pill form:- Initially, psychological issues cause self-defence mechanism (schadenfreude) Schadenfreude is thus an effect of psychological issues Schadenfreude causes a sense of well-being to the self-esteem (its ‘healthy’ purpose) Too much schadenfreude causes social/relational issues (potential 'unhealthy' effect) Maddy: I didn't take liberty with the paper, I took liberty with Aethelwine's comment.... Carole (in tears): B-b-b-but YOU said you took a bit (!!!!) of liberty with the paper! Maddy: We are aware enough of our sub-conscious that we've been able to name it. Our awareness of it is tenuous to be sure, but we say things like "I feel conflicted", or "I just had a thought!", or "What was I thinking?" or "Her name is on the tip of my tongue, it'll come to me in a minute" that suggest we're aware our brains have minds of their own. When our sub-conscious processes can't resolve a conflict, they'll phone the conscious for a consultation. Me: Recognising and naming the phenomenon - intellectual, academic process - is not the same thing as recognising and naming the phenomenon when it occurs SUB-consciously in ourselves - since, if we are aware of the process in act, it can no longer be a SUB-conscious but is then a conscious one. Plus, I think you're confusing all of this with memory and other non-related concepts. Maddy: People feel guilt over schadenfreude...... Me: Contemporary to when they feel it? You sure about that? Maddy: Yes, just as I previously observed that you and I, and everyone else, also comfort ourselves. I think I have a self-deprecating sense of humor. I'm also well aware that's a disarming defence mechanism. I (we) also self-protect. Me: We do. You most certainly have. Yes. And yes. Maddy: Hence the old saw "actions speak louder than words". Which is even more pitted with rust holes here than in RL. Me: EXACTLY! Here it's 100% based on what we tell one another about ourselves. There are no observable actions of the person - manuevering a puppet doesn't count. Our bodies by proxy - our avatars - are built to our own specifications and we do with them things we would never ever do with our RL bodies (proof of avatar-operator) detachment. Like the bodies, we create a personality according to our specifications by telling others who we are - which of course really means 'who we want to be'. Which, modifying the words of a wise man, is why you should never believe anything about anyone in here, though I'd add this - you can get very clear ideas of who you're dealing with if you read between the lines, listen to what's not being said and put everything that is being said through a filter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ima Rang Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Madelaine McMasters wrote: Ima Rang wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: 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... ;-) Rule changer! You said late 2006...He was sentenced in November of 2006...that's late! Exhibiting less schadenfreude? I'm wondering why it is that you think it is something that can be seen, or detected, when in fact most people probably have no idea what it is and whether or not they are schadenfroh'ish. Personally, I don't believe there is any such thing as a win-win people. And who would determine who is playing the right game and the wrong game? Well, I said I thought trending "schadenfreude" searches might have been a literacy test, so I agree that lots of people don't know the term. But they know the experience. When someone is oddly shadenfroh'ish, you feel it. Just as when someone has a sense of humor at odds with your own. I said the right-wrong phrase was reversible. I think in most situations, both sides think they're right, right? (Though I've been in plenty of situations with others were we couldn't agree that we were agreeing). And while I agree that nobody's win-win, I think there are biases (cultural, personal, both). There are clearly situations in which I'll feel it's win-lose. But even then, I can hope that I'm tempering my malicious glee. And I'm sure not gonna tell you when I'm rolling in it, I probably don't have to. ;-) Hahah...Sometimes discussions with you is what I imagine river dancing drunk would be like. Maddy said: As Ima noted, there was a lot of public schadenfreude surrounding the hanging of Saddam Hussein. ^^ I was being facetious for the most part. I do actually believe that most people do not take pleasure in witnessing the death of another human being no matter how horrible that human being was. I don't equate the relief that is derived and publicly celebrated when a monster has been removed and is no longer able to murder innocent people in the most horrific and inhumane ways, as schadenfruede. There is no way to determine if the celebrations were a result of relief or a whole crowd of the schadenfroh who were eager to comfort themselves with the discomfort on SH's face as they noosed him up. Both sides? I suppose if your goal is to prove you are right or be right...then yeah. However, if you are just engaging in a discussion for the purpose of entertaining yourself, right nor wrong is a consideration, as opinions are just opinions. I can't readily say that I have ever felt malicious glee. I think that there were times that I may have gloated, silently, but there was no element of malice, no positive uplifting of my self-esteem or ego as a result of having deprived someone of the reaction they thought they would get or proving that they were something, or more accurately, someone that they claimed to be...or not to be as the case may be here with the alts. Maddy said: When someone is oddly shadenfroh'ish, you feel it. Just as when someone has a sense of humor at odds with your own. When someone has a sense of humor at odds with your own, you typically determine this not by a feeling but by demonstration. Have you really just seen a person across a crowded room and "felt" that they had a sense of humor that was at odds with your own? schandenfreude is a "silent, private feeling." It is not as evident as a cheap knock off pair of wannabe designer shoes or handbags. How might you detect it in others? You can't ever really know what others are thinking and/or feeling unless they tell you and even then you will only be able to equate what is reported with the only frame of reference for feelings you have, your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Carole Franizzi wrote: Maddy: You've stated that schadenfreude is an effect, not a cause. I'm arguing it's both. Carole: No, I didn't, Maddy. (Is Maddy short for Maddening, by any chance?). Right, one last time - what I've been saying is - oh, hell - here it is in pill form:- Initially, psychological issues cause self-defence mechanism (schadenfreude) Yes Schadenfreude is thus an effect of psychological issues Yes Schadenfreude causes a sense of well-being to the self-esteem (its ‘healthy’ purpose) There's room for argument here (but let's not go there!!!!). Like most (all?) of our evolved mechanisms, I expect schadenfreude has flaws too, particularly in light of rapid societal evolution. But this is way, way over my head (as opposed to the rest, which is only way over my head). Too much schadenfreude causes social/relational issues (potential 'unhealthy' effect) This could be a tautology, but I get your meaning. And this is what I've been arguing. Although there's an interesting distinction between simply having too much schadenfreude (which could be entirely sub-conscious) and boasting about it, which requires conscious awareness of it... and pride in it. Way back at the start of this discussion, I said... Maddy wrote: “If that shadenfreude is apparent, might the social dynamics punish the holder?” And you replied... I doubt it. You talk about it as if it is a hypothetical phenomenon, rather than one which actually exists, and, I’m guessing, has always existed. Much of the world’s gutter press is based on the minor and major downfalls of stars, starlettes, politicians and sportspeople. Prince William is losing his hair. Antonio Banderas is looking old. His wife was mistaken for a trout at an angling competition and got a fish hook through her swollen lip. President XYZ has a secret love child… And what about our day-to-day conversations? What percentage of them are hand-rubbing gossip? Let’s be honest… Societies don’t punish all that. They will actually encourage it. If a powerful/rich/leading nation takes a tumble, you’ll see schadenfreude on an institutionalised scale in other countries, including ‘friendly’ ones. I don't think I've shaken your doubt. I surely didn't intend to prove that boasting of one's schadenfreude is unhealthy, just that it's reasonable to think it might be (or not unreasonable to think it is? Pick your favorite weak wording). Your doubt that the social dynamics punish the holder wasn't certainty as you've stated in your last bullet point. My suspicion that it does isn't either. Maddy: I didn't take liberty with the paper, I took liberty with Aethelwine's comment.... Carole (in tears): B-b-b-but YOU said you took a bit (!!!!) of liberty with the paper! Ack, I did misspeak! My apologies! Have a tissue! Here's what I said again and I'll try to clear up my intention after... 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. The liberty I took with interpretation of paper's conclusion (morphing "low self esteem correlates with schadenfreude" into "schadenfreude indicates low self-esteem") was a logical error I purposely made because I think many will make it accidentally. I then cut and pasted that into Aethelwine's statement, to construct what I think more clearly demonstrates why people could think bragging about schadenfreude is unhealthy. But most people aren't actually making that logical error, as they've never read the paper. They're simply drawing on their life experience to conclude that schadenfreude is indicative of low self-esteem, and that bragging about having low self esteem is unhealthy (or that just having low-self esteem is unhealthy, which might not be true if it's an accurate estimation?). I made this substitution because, in my own conversations with others over my life, they've claimed that behaviors like schadenfreude and envy are "indicative of low self-esteem". I've made the same claim, but now with more caution. Somehow, we figured it out (or were taught it) on our own. I also said this conclusion may find support because there's schadenfreude in it. It makes me feel better to think the person who just boasted of their schadenfreude has less self-esteem than me! And please don't tell me I'm wrong, I don't want to hear it!!!! Somewhere back there you said (approximately) that the person boasting about their schadenfreude is the one least likely experiencing it, because they are conscious of what they're boasting about and schadenfreude is sub-conscious. Okay, let's grant you that. So then they are boasting of a conscious damage-joy (can't use "schadenfreude" if that's purely sub-conscious). I'm not sure that makes me feel any better about them! Maddy: We are aware enough of our sub-conscious that we've been able to name it. Our awareness of it is tenuous to be sure, but we say things like "I feel conflicted", or "I just had a thought!", or "What was I thinking?" or "Her name is on the tip of my tongue, it'll come to me in a minute" that suggest we're aware our brains have minds of their own. When our sub-conscious processes can't resolve a conflict, they'll phone the conscious for a consultation. Me: Recognising and naming the phenomenon - intellectual, academic process - is not the same thing as recognising and naming the phenomenon when it occurs SUB-consciously in ourselves - since, if we are aware of the process in act, it can no longer be a SUB-conscious but is then a conscious one. Plus, I think you're confusing all of this with memory and other non-related concepts. We are constantly made aware of sub-conscious processes when they need our attention. Go back to the example I gave of "Her name's on the tip of my tongue". It's on the tip of your tongue, you say so. So you know that your memory (a sub-conscious process) hasn't found it yet. You go back to your conversation and a seconds later, the word arrives. "Oh, it's come to me, her name is Carole!". We often think nothing more of it, but we've just witnessed a query being passed from the conscious to the sub-consious and back within the space of a few seconds. We may have had a difficult time (or no interest) in describing this, but we were at least somewhat aware of it. An aside... when a name is on the tip of my tongue, I sometimes spawn off a little thought, wondering how my brain will find it. When(if) the word finally arrives, I often chuckle over failure of the wondering process to return an answer. But I have, on more than one occasion, had a glimmer of insight return from the expedition. I once pooh-pooh'd meditation... now I'm "changing my mind". Psychologist Julian Jaynes theorizes that this introspective consciousness is pretty new, maybe a few thousand years old. It's pretty cool, that's for sure. Maddy: People feel guilt over schadenfreude...... Me: Contemporary to when they feel it? You sure about that? Hey, I'm not sure of anything! I'm not aware of any research timing the delay for something like awareness of a schadenfreude/sympathy conflict, but maybe the first pangs of "guilt" could arrive within the same time frame as that name on the tip of your tongue? And maybe the more serious the conflict, the faster it comes to your attention? And maybe you don't feel the guilt until something else happens later to change you understanding of the original event? And then the guilt is used to modify the mechanisms that produced the conflict in the first place. That process of modification runs lifelong. In my personal experience, this sort of guilt can come almost instantly, as when watching one of those YouTube videos in which someone does something risky and is hurt. There's other stuff going on as well, as Ima says, including the vicarious thrill of the risky stunt, so sure don't know all that goes into the calculations that ultimately result in guilt. My reaction to such things has changed over time. I don't know if my schadenfreude is being turned down or if my sympathy is being turned up. I only see what appears to be a changing balance in the direction I want it to go. I'm also aware that this balance tips depending on my perception of the person being harmed and the threat they pose, and I can see that assessment change over time. All said, I can still mortify myself. Maddy: Yes, just as I previously observed that you and I, and everyone else, also comfort ourselves. I think I have a self-deprecating sense of humor. I'm also well aware that's a disarming defence mechanism. I (we) also self-protect. Me: We do. You most certainly have. Yes. And yes. Maddy: Hence the old saw "actions speak louder than words". Which is even more pitted with rust holes here than in RL. Me: EXACTLY! Here it's 100% based on what we tell one another about ourselves. There are no observable actions of the person - manuevering a puppet doesn't count. Our bodies by proxy - our avatars - are built to our own specifications and we do with them things we would never ever do with our RL bodies (proof of avatar-operator) detachment. Like the bodies, we create a personality according to our specifications by telling others who we are - which of course really means 'who we want to be'. Which, modifying the words of a wise man, is why you should never believe anything about anyone in here, though I'd add this - you can get very clear ideas of who you're dealing with if you read between the lines, listen to what's not being said and put everything that is being said through a filter. Right, and this applies equally to RL. We've got more cues to work with there, but still not enough to provide certainty. The margin of error on a read of someone here is larger than in RL. Self delusion is easier here as well, we're not constrained by physicality or history, we can invent both from whole cloth. But deception (self and otherwise) happen in RL, too. As I'm sure you've discovered elsewhere (maybe not here ;-), you can derive a lot of pleasure from interacting with these clouds of potentially deceptive delusion. Oh, and you'd not be the first, and won't be the last, to think that Mad is short for Maddening. Imagine what it's like to be trapped in these discussions every day of your life. Then imagine enjoying it. That would be Snugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Ima Rang wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Ima Rang wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: 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... ;-) Rule changer! You said late 2006...He was sentenced in November of 2006...that's late! Exhibiting less schadenfreude? I'm wondering why it is that you think it is something that can be seen, or detected, when in fact most people probably have no idea what it is and whether or not they are schadenfroh'ish. Personally, I don't believe there is any such thing as a win-win people. And who would determine who is playing the right game and the wrong game? Well, I said I thought trending "schadenfreude" searches might have been a literacy test, so I agree that lots of people don't know the term. But they know the experience. When someone is oddly shadenfroh'ish, you feel it. Just as when someone has a sense of humor at odds with your own. I said the right-wrong phrase was reversible. I think in most situations, both sides think they're right, right? (Though I've been in plenty of situations with others were we couldn't agree that we were agreeing). And while I agree that nobody's win-win, I think there are biases (cultural, personal, both). There are clearly situations in which I'll feel it's win-lose. But even then, I can hope that I'm tempering my malicious glee. And I'm sure not gonna tell you when I'm rolling in it, I probably don't have to. ;-) Hahah...Sometimes discussions with you is what I imagine river dancing drunk would be like. Now imagine what pulling that drunk out of the river would be like! Would you do it? ;-) Maddy said: As Ima noted, there was a lot of public schadenfreude surrounding the hanging of Saddam Hussein. ^^ I was being facetious for the most part. I do actually believe that most people do not take pleasure in witnessing the death of another human being no matter how horrible that human being was. I don't equate the relief that is derived and publicly celebrated when a monster has been removed and is no longer able to murder innocent people in the most horrific and inhumane ways, as schadenfruede. There is no way to determine if the celebrations were a result of relief or a whole crowd of the schadenfroh who were eager to comfort themselves with the discomfort on SH's face as they noosed him up. I know you were being facetious for the most part, but there is probably some truth there. And schadenfreude is only a name to describe something which is surely more complicated than "damage joy" and intermingled with any number of other processes. I was surprised that the fella who discussed schadenfreude in sports said that desire for fan group "belonging" wasn't a factor. I really expected schadenfreude to be amplified by wanting to belong to the group displaying it. So as you say, there are other things at work in the apparent (we don't know it's actual) glee over Saddam's hanging. Both sides? I suppose if your goal is to prove you are right or be right...then yeah. However, if you are just engaging in a discussion for the purpose of entertaining yourself, right nor wrong is a consideration, as opinions are just opinions. I f we're discussing schadenfreude, I suppose there have to be sides of a sort, as it involves comparison. But for plain old conversation, I'm often interested in exploring differences of opinion, even if I have to make them up and argue both sides! I can't readily say that I have ever felt malicious glee. I think that there were times that I may have gloated, silently, but there was no element of malice, no positive uplifting of my self-esteem or ego as a result of having deprived someone of the reaction they thought they would get or proving that they were something, or more accurately, someone that they claimed to be...or not to be as the case may be here with the alts. Oh, I've certainly felt malicious glee, isn't that schadenfreude? I've felt the guilt that follows, too. And maybe that's why I loved the Roadrunner as a child and now love Wile E. I just couldn't live with the guilt!!!! ;-) Maddy said: When someone is oddly shadenfroh'ish, you feel it. Just as when someone has a sense of humor at odds with your own. When someone has a sense of humor at odds with your own, you typically determine this not by a feeling but by demonstration. Have you really just seen a person across a crowded room and "felt" that they had a sense of humor that was at odds with your own? schandenfreude is a "silent, private feeling." It is not as evident as a cheap knock off pair of wannabe designer shoes or handbags. How might you detect it in others? You can't ever really know what others are thinking and/or feeling unless they tell you and even then you will only be able to equate what is reported with the only frame of reference for feelings you have, your own. We don't (necessarily) consciously demonstrate our sense of humor. What you laugh and smile at, the stories you tell, and the way you tell them, are guided by your sense of humor. I can get a feeling about someone just by watching them enter a room (body language!). Maybe not sense of humor, but you get the idea. I can detect schadenfreude absent a public declaration too. In a room full of people watching a Darwin Award style YouTube video, I could get some feeling for people's schadenfreude just by observing their reactions. My read will have errors, but so does the scientific analysis. Yes, we never really know what others are thinking. We barely even know what we ourselves are thinking. But we make decisions based on what we believe about others every day, and that affects our, and their, well being. ETA: I've been a li'l more conscious of my use of "we". Does it show? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ima Rang Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Madelaine McMasters wrote: Ima Rang wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Ima Rang wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: 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... ;-) Rule changer! You said late 2006...He was sentenced in November of 2006...that's late! Exhibiting less schadenfreude? I'm wondering why it is that you think it is something that can be seen, or detected, when in fact most people probably have no idea what it is and whether or not they are schadenfroh'ish. Personally, I don't believe there is any such thing as a win-win people. And who would determine who is playing the right game and the wrong game? Well, I said I thought trending "schadenfreude" searches might have been a literacy test, so I agree that lots of people don't know the term. But they know the experience. When someone is oddly shadenfroh'ish, you feel it. Just as when someone has a sense of humor at odds with your own. I said the right-wrong phrase was reversible. I think in most situations, both sides think they're right, right? (Though I've been in plenty of situations with others were we couldn't agree that we were agreeing). And while I agree that nobody's win-win, I think there are biases (cultural, personal, both). There are clearly situations in which I'll feel it's win-lose. But even then, I can hope that I'm tempering my malicious glee. And I'm sure not gonna tell you when I'm rolling in it, I probably don't have to. ;-) Hahah...Sometimes discussions with you is what I imagine river dancing drunk would be like. Now imagine what pulling that drunk out of the river would be like! Would you do it? ;-) Ima: If I could do it, I would do it. Maddy said: As Ima noted, there was a lot of public schadenfreude surrounding the hanging of Saddam Hussein. ^^ I was being facetious for the most part. I do actually believe that most people do not take pleasure in witnessing the death of another human being no matter how horrible that human being was. I don't equate the relief that is derived and publicly celebrated when a monster has been removed and is no longer able to murder innocent people in the most horrific and inhumane ways, as schadenfruede. There is no way to determine if the celebrations were a result of relief or a whole crowd of the schadenfroh who were eager to comfort themselves with the discomfort on SH's face as they noosed him up. I know you were being facetious for the most part, but there is probably some truth there. And schadenfreude is only a name to describe something which is surely more complicated than "damage joy" and intermingled with any number of other processes. I was surprised that the fella who discussed schadenfreude in sports said that desire for fan group "belonging" wasn't a factor. I really expected schadenfreude to be amplified by wanting to belong to the group displaying it. So as you say, there are other things at work in the apparent (we don't know it's actual) glee over Saddam's hanging. Ima: Ummm...yeah, may be some truth there, but a Google search of the word schadenfruede is not going to prove a thing other than how many searches for the word took place Of course it is now more complicated, because that is what we do. There is no research grant money for simple straight forward mechanisms A group that displays schadenfreude? It is as if schadenfreude, this sub-conscious thing that we may not even be aware of in ourselves has sprouted legs and walks along side of us instead of deep within us now. Belonging...factor for schadenfreude. I had a beer...ok..two and my mind is not wrapping around that...Like...Oh, there is a group of peeps with aqua blue eyes just like mine! I must join them...oh look how much bluer my eyes got because I spotted that group of peeps! They are my people...Is that what you mean? Sorta...except like if a sober person said it? Both sides? I suppose if your goal is to prove you are right or be right...then yeah. However, if you are just engaging in a discussion for the purpose of entertaining yourself, right nor wrong is a consideration, as opinions are just opinions. I f we're discussing schadenfreude, I suppose there have to be sides of a sort, as it involves comparison. But for plain old conversation, I'm often interested in exploring differences of opinion, even if I have to make them up and argue both sides! Wait what? What comparison does it involve? Don't you make me read the WOT's again! Make them up and argue both sides...oh you are an evil one..... I can't readily say that I have ever felt malicious glee. I think that there were times that I may have gloated, silently, but there was no element of malice, no positive uplifting of my self-esteem or ego as a result of having deprived someone of the reaction they thought they would get or proving that they were something, or more accurately, someone that they claimed to be...or not to be as the case may be here with the alts. Oh, I've certainly felt malicious glee, isn't that schadenfreude? I've felt the guilt that follows, too. And maybe that's why I loved the Roadrunner as a child and now love Wile E. I just couldn't live with the guilt!!!! ;-) Ima: Well, I suppose if you felt glee because another person was harmed or damaged in some way...yeah. However...IMO, schadenfreude is not followed up with feelings of guilt or remorse... Maddy said: When someone is oddly shadenfroh'ish, you feel it. Just as when someone has a sense of humor at odds with your own. When someone has a sense of humor at odds with your own, you typically determine this not by a feeling but by demonstration. Have you really just seen a person across a crowded room and "felt" that they had a sense of humor that was at odds with your own? schandenfreude is a "silent, private feeling." It is not as evident as a cheap knock off pair of wannabe designer shoes or handbags. How might you detect it in others? You can't ever really know what others are thinking and/or feeling unless they tell you and even then you will only be able to equate what is reported with the only frame of reference for feelings you have, your own. We don't (necessarily) consciously demonstrate our sense of humor. What you laugh and smile at, the stories you tell, and the way you tell them, are guided by your sense of humor. Ima: What I laugh and smile at, the stories I tell and the way I tell them are guided by the audience, venue, occasion, etc. I can get a feeling about someone just by watching them enter a room (body language!). Ima: Body language changes depending on the circumstances as well. I may be able to tell say if we are in a boardroom, that you are business no fluff, in the boardroom environment...but until I see you in a bar, the real you remains suppressed Maybe not sense of humor, but you get the idea. I can detect schadenfreude absent a public declaration too. Ima: How are you able to detect something that many may not even know about themselves? In a room full of people watching a Darwin Award style YouTube video, I could get some feeling for people's schadenfreude just by observing their reactions. My read will have errors, but so does the scientific analysis. Ima: Erm...that is a good bit like saying that the people attending this horrible death match dog fight are not members of PETA! Well, perhaps not that obvious. Yes, we never really know what others are thinking. We barely even know what we ourselves are thinking. But we make decisions based on what we believe about others every day, and that affects our, and their, well being. I always know what I'm thinking. What kind of decisions are we making based on what we believe about others..umm...not to include our immediate family members. ETA: I've been a li'l more conscious of my use of "we". Does it show? Yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 Ima Rang wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Ima Rang wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Ima Rang wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: 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... ;-) Rule changer! You said late 2006...He was sentenced in November of 2006...that's late! Exhibiting less schadenfreude? I'm wondering why it is that you think it is something that can be seen, or detected, when in fact most people probably have no idea what it is and whether or not they are schadenfroh'ish. Personally, I don't believe there is any such thing as a win-win people. And who would determine who is playing the right game and the wrong game? Well, I said I thought trending "schadenfreude" searches might have been a literacy test, so I agree that lots of people don't know the term. But they know the experience. When someone is oddly shadenfroh'ish, you feel it. Just as when someone has a sense of humor at odds with your own. I said the right-wrong phrase was reversible. I think in most situations, both sides think they're right, right? (Though I've been in plenty of situations with others were we couldn't agree that we were agreeing). And while I agree that nobody's win-win, I think there are biases (cultural, personal, both). There are clearly situations in which I'll feel it's win-lose. But even then, I can hope that I'm tempering my malicious glee. And I'm sure not gonna tell you when I'm rolling in it, I probably don't have to. ;-) Read the green! Then I think we gotta stop cuz we're running out of colors. Hahah...Sometimes discussions with you is what I imagine river dancing drunk would be like. Now imagine what pulling that drunk out of the river would be like! Would you do it? ;-) Ima: If I could do it, I would do it. I don't drink, so if I end up in the water from what appears to be drunken dancing, I'm probably trying to lure you in. You've been warned. Maddy said: As Ima noted, there was a lot of public schadenfreude surrounding the hanging of Saddam Hussein. ^^ I was being facetious for the most part. I do actually believe that most people do not take pleasure in witnessing the death of another human being no matter how horrible that human being was. I don't equate the relief that is derived and publicly celebrated when a monster has been removed and is no longer able to murder innocent people in the most horrific and inhumane ways, as schadenfruede. There is no way to determine if the celebrations were a result of relief or a whole crowd of the schadenfroh who were eager to comfort themselves with the discomfort on SH's face as they noosed him up. I know you were being facetious for the most part, but there is probably some truth there. And schadenfreude is only a name to describe something which is surely more complicated than "damage joy" and intermingled with any number of other processes. I was surprised that the fella who discussed schadenfreude in sports said that desire for fan group "belonging" wasn't a factor. I really expected schadenfreude to be amplified by wanting to belong to the group displaying it. So as you say, there are other things at work in the apparent (we don't know it's actual) glee over Saddam's hanging. Ima: Ummm...yeah, may be some truth there, but a Google search of the word schadenfruede is not going to prove a thing other than how many searches for the word took place Of course it is now more complicated, because that is what we do. There is no research grant money for simple straight forward mechanisms A group that displays schadenfreude? It is as if schadenfreude, this sub-conscious thing that we may not even be aware of in ourselves has sprouted legs and walks along side of us instead of deep within us now. Belonging...factor for schadenfreude. I had a beer...ok..two and my mind is not wrapping around that...Like...Oh, there is a group of peeps with aqua blue eyes just like mine! I must join them...oh look how much bluer my eyes got because I spotted that group of peeps! They are my people...Is that what you mean? Sorta...except like if a sober person said it? I don't think it'll be research grant money doing the heavy lifting. It'll be corporate profits. I was intrigued by an article last year claiming that Microsoft employs "game psychologists" to help design endorphin generating rewards into MS Office so that users will spend more time using it. Fast forward 10 years to "Annie Hall Reloaded"... "I used to be a heroin addict, now I'm an Powerpoint addict". Both sides? I suppose if your goal is to prove you are right or be right...then yeah. However, if you are just engaging in a discussion for the purpose of entertaining yourself, right nor wrong is a consideration, as opinions are just opinions. If we're discussing schadenfreude, I suppose there have to be sides of a sort, as it involves comparison. But for plain old conversation, I'm often interested in exploring differences of opinion, even if I have to make them up and argue both sides! Wait what? What comparison does it involve? From what I've heard/read over the years, and from the paper Carole cited, schadenfreude is at least partly driven by comparison of one's self value against the value of the target (envy). If you can't bring your self-esteem up, enjoy the other's fall. I see that as two sides of a valuation comparison. Don't you make me read the WOT's again! Make them up and argue both sides...oh you are an evil one..... I've told you I'm evil! Years ago, when I was a productive **bleep**, I'd go to design review meetings at work and tear into another team's design (that was the purpose), and if they didn't come back with a strong defense, I'd take their side and defend against my own critique, often incorrectly. And that would sometimes draw them out to fully explain what they were doing and why. My goal was never to beat them, it was to get the best answer. I didn't care (much) who had it, I just wanted to see it before I left. I can't readily say that I have ever felt malicious glee. I think that there were times that I may have gloated, silently, but there was no element of malice, no positive uplifting of my self-esteem or ego as a result of having deprived someone of the reaction they thought they would get or proving that they were something, or more accurately, someone that they claimed to be...or not to be as the case may be here with the alts. Oh, I've certainly felt malicious glee, isn't that schadenfreude? I've felt the guilt that follows, too. And maybe that's why I loved the Roadrunner as a child and now love Wile E. I just couldn't live with the guilt!!!! ;-) Ima: Well, I suppose if you felt glee because another person was harmed or damaged in some way...yeah. However...IMO, schadenfreude is not followed up with feelings of guilt or remorse... This isn't the sort of guilt that keeps me awake at night, but it's that niggling feeling that what I just felt doesn't fully comport with the image I'd like to have of myself. Maddy said: When someone is oddly shadenfroh'ish, you feel it. Just as when someone has a sense of humor at odds with your own. When someone has a sense of humor at odds with your own, you typically determine this not by a feeling but by demonstration. Have you really just seen a person across a crowded room and "felt" that they had a sense of humor that was at odds with your own? schandenfreude is a "silent, private feeling." It is not as evident as a cheap knock off pair of wannabe designer shoes or handbags. How might you detect it in others? You can't ever really know what others are thinking and/or feeling unless they tell you and even then you will only be able to equate what is reported with the only frame of reference for feelings you have, your own. We don't (necessarily) consciously demonstrate our sense of humor. What you laugh and smile at, the stories you tell, and the way you tell them, are guided by your sense of humor. Ima: What I laugh and smile at, the stories I tell and the way I tell them are guided by the audience, venue, occasion, etc. I usually clap with the audience too, but I start later and end earlier if I'm not sharing their level of appreciation. I'm even more independent in my laughter. I can get a feeling about someone just by watching them enter a room (body language!). Ima: Body language changes depending on the circumstances as well. I may be able to tell say if we are in a boardroom, that you are business no fluff, in the boardroom environment...but until I see you in a bar, the real you remains suppressed You'll never see the real me in a bar. My ex-husband didn't even see the real me in the bedroom. I was still looking for her ;-) I'm getting closer, but I'll keep her to myself, thank you very much. Maybe not sense of humor, but you get the idea. I can detect schadenfreude absent a public declaration too. Ima: How are you able to detect something that many may not even know about themselves? This happens all the time. Speech affectations, nervous tics, etc. You are used to you, I am not. In a room full of people watching a Darwin Award style YouTube video, I could get some feeling for people's schadenfreude just by observing their reactions. My read will have errors, but so does the scientific analysis. Ima: Erm...that is a good bit like saying that the people attending this horrible death match dog fight are not members of PETA! Well, perhaps not that obvious. Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes not. I don't doubt you'd have a keener eye than me, as that's your background, but the Bostom bomber brothers sound like they'd have been a very hard read for any of us. I just participated in a community theater play. It was fascinating to watch the thing grow from auditions to final curtain. I've no time to describe all I experienced, but I read two of the actors completely wrong during the auditions. So yes, plenty of room for error. It's important to make a good first impression on others and important not to believe too much in your first impression of others. Patience can be a virtue. Yes, we never really know what others are thinking. We barely even know what we ourselves are thinking. But we make decisions based on what we believe about others every day, and that affects our, and their, well being. I always know what I'm thinking. What kind of decisions are we making based on what we believe about others..umm...not to include our immediate family members. I highly recommend David Eagleman's "Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain". It's an easy read (I understood it!) and fascinating. When I say I don't know what I'm thinking, I'm referring to the 10% of my brain that's doing the conscious stuff not knowing what the other 90% is doing in the attic (don't make me come up there!!!). I have, at least since I was a teen, had this vague awareness that stuff was going on just out of reach. I really started thinking about it when I was in college and took psych as a humanities elective (which tells you what the college thought of psychology ;-) I was absolutely thrilled to learn how screwed up all the cognitive mechanisms are, how many mistakes they make (optical/aural illusions, hallucinations, memory errors, crappy risk assessment, false pattern detection, etc), yet we are the pinnacle of evolution! Somewhere in "Incognito" is a cool test that ferrets out sub-conscious racism. I'll be remembering this wrong, but I think it glints a little as a 70ms delay from a reference response time in a word-face matching test. I wanna take that test! To step closer to what might be your view of things, I think Ray Kurzweil's vision of a "singularity" where man and machine merge into a seamless continum in 2042, is nutty. In 2042 computers may be "smarter" than us, but we'll still be here arguing about schadenfreude from our rocking chairs, with new evidence to banter about... provided by Google!!!! And the computers will have no idea what we're talking about. ETA: I've been a li'l more conscious of my use of "we". Does it show? Yes! Yay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now