Lesson #1 to bloggers/journalists who want to write about psychological science: Tell us the authors’ names.
This was work by Paul Silvia, Alexander Christensen, and Katherine Cotter.
They deserve to be recognized. This probably applies to all science and other scholarly and creative works as well.
Cereal Bus: Deals with the transportation of RS-232 kriSPIes, amirite? Geddit?
sigh Did this study allow for the fact the sometimes the hottest zingers can be subjective?
Watch Trump’s face as Obama roasts him at the White House correspondents’ dinner back in the day. That tells you all you need to know.
Right-wing authoritarians aren’t very funny, but they are a joke.
I would expect left-wing authoritarians are equally unfunny. In this case, I think it’s the authoritarianism itself rather than the specific flavor that makes people suck at making funny jokes.
Molly Ivins - Lord, I miss her - talked about this at length.
Left-wing authoritarians are humourless in their own way, but they don’t tend to bully vulnerable and marginalised people and communities the way right-wingers do in their “humour”. So yes, the political leaning does matter.
They claim “they were only joking” when called out on assholish statements
It’s not unusual for profs to give out credit for participating as a subject in projects like this. Students would have a hard time getting through Human Subjects etc. to get it published.
Would someone post this study to the new Director-General at the BBC, please?
So that he can try and make a joke about it?
More like: “Have I Got News For Him”
Yep, exactly. And while some people may find that amusing, it’s still not comedy.
Also a willingness to be vulnerable. It’s key to a lot of comedy. Which makes me think of Trump, and how the only time he makes himself vulnerable is accidentally - by projecting when he’s trying to insult someone.
A lot of major universities (mine included) have a requirement to participate in (x) many research credits for Intro to Psych students (or write a paper if they opt out). The cynical side of me says that this is skirting past “voluntary participation” by threatening students with paper writing if they don’t comply, and supplies the labs with hundreds and hundreds of potential research subjects who don’t require payment or meaningful compensation.
There isn’t really a non-cynical side of me here. But yeah, a lot of labs make use of a pool of student “voulenteers” to conduct research, and because that pool is often part of intro level classes, 18-19 would be about the age range you’d expect.
we don’t have that fun event any more because trump is a baby and he’s too weak to endure some humor at his expense.
If you (not you personally, but you know, the you as in a random student) don’t want to write a paper, don’t go to university? I get that not everyone enjoys doing it, but becoming a better writer is necessary for a number of professions, so practicing when you can (on a variety of topics) is probably a good idea.
But I’m not sure how I feel about students being "forced’ for credit to participate on studies. And also there is a real problem with including people who are in a unique position in society (a university student) rather than seeking out a wide cross section of society.
Man, I loved participating in psych experiments. I was bummed that I only got to do it while taking intro to psych.
I did it once for my intro psych class, too.
Certainly, your local university would allow random people from the community participate, yeah?
Empathy, as well, I’d think. If you can’t feel what other people feel, maybe you can’t understand what someone else would find funny.
“Never tell fascists they are eliciting laughter.”
“Why? You fear they would badly beat you, or worse?”
“Nope. I won’t waste hours attempting to explain them why.”
