Evolutionary theories of personality traits have always seemed tautological to me, but I still trust that everything is evolutionarily adaptive. The laugh is certainly a powerful tool, one of our powers, if not our superpowers. It's efficient, certainly working better than saying, "That was funny." On the recipient's end, it allows us to judge sincerity. There are no barriers to fake words, but a fake laugh takes a lot more doing. And therein seems the paradox: this thing that at its heart is about sincerity in the grand scheme of things is functional, is motivated. And laugh changes probably also show that it isn't fixed but is susceptible to pressures. Did you adopt the chipmunk sound at the time because you were embarrassed to be laughing, not fully uninhibited? Or was that your real laugh, and your current one, toned down? The lesson is the same in either case.
When I first started giving my signature, I didn't quite know how to proceed. I knew how to write my name at the top of my assignments, and in cursive, but how to do this signature? I am still not comfortable with individual flourishes or attempts to make it seem appropriately mature. I have compromised or experimented slightly. But I think if you looked at any of my signatures through the years, no matter how I tried to depart from my reflexive one, it would still unmistakably be my handwriting. So I think of laughs the same way. Your stamp is always there. You couldn't really fool someone who knew you well, that it was you, even if they hadn't seen you for many years....I would say kisses are another one of these marked characteristics that no doubt drift, due to nature or pressures, as the case may be, but still retain individual stamp.
To what extent is a laugh an outgrowth of a smile, and to what exxtent distinct? Both are social acts. I don't think there's a lot of smiling and laughing triggered by thought. Charting the frequency of smiling/laughing in response to the internet, movies, books, and thoughts would be interesting, and would tell us something about how social they are. The difference I see between the two is that smiling says, "I'm happy," while laughing says, "You're funny." I'm not sure how much of that "I'm happy" in the smile means "I'm not threatening," and how much signals "I'm happy, because you make me happy."
ah now, this is a conversation to be had in a cafe. Such good questions!! Such terrific observations! And the idea that a signature begins with some imposter-syndrome but ends being a physical, natural thing that is done almost thoughtlessly....it's all very interesting! Thanks for the comment, David!
Amazing, Neil! I'll look her up - fascinating!
Sophie Scott in the UK studies laughter and its basis in the brain! She's had an interesting career.
Evolutionary theories of personality traits have always seemed tautological to me, but I still trust that everything is evolutionarily adaptive. The laugh is certainly a powerful tool, one of our powers, if not our superpowers. It's efficient, certainly working better than saying, "That was funny." On the recipient's end, it allows us to judge sincerity. There are no barriers to fake words, but a fake laugh takes a lot more doing. And therein seems the paradox: this thing that at its heart is about sincerity in the grand scheme of things is functional, is motivated. And laugh changes probably also show that it isn't fixed but is susceptible to pressures. Did you adopt the chipmunk sound at the time because you were embarrassed to be laughing, not fully uninhibited? Or was that your real laugh, and your current one, toned down? The lesson is the same in either case.
When I first started giving my signature, I didn't quite know how to proceed. I knew how to write my name at the top of my assignments, and in cursive, but how to do this signature? I am still not comfortable with individual flourishes or attempts to make it seem appropriately mature. I have compromised or experimented slightly. But I think if you looked at any of my signatures through the years, no matter how I tried to depart from my reflexive one, it would still unmistakably be my handwriting. So I think of laughs the same way. Your stamp is always there. You couldn't really fool someone who knew you well, that it was you, even if they hadn't seen you for many years....I would say kisses are another one of these marked characteristics that no doubt drift, due to nature or pressures, as the case may be, but still retain individual stamp.
To what extent is a laugh an outgrowth of a smile, and to what exxtent distinct? Both are social acts. I don't think there's a lot of smiling and laughing triggered by thought. Charting the frequency of smiling/laughing in response to the internet, movies, books, and thoughts would be interesting, and would tell us something about how social they are. The difference I see between the two is that smiling says, "I'm happy," while laughing says, "You're funny." I'm not sure how much of that "I'm happy" in the smile means "I'm not threatening," and how much signals "I'm happy, because you make me happy."
ah now, this is a conversation to be had in a cafe. Such good questions!! Such terrific observations! And the idea that a signature begins with some imposter-syndrome but ends being a physical, natural thing that is done almost thoughtlessly....it's all very interesting! Thanks for the comment, David!
wishing you lots of laughter!