Narrowly avoiding traffic

[Royston]

This isn't really a new observation, but I witnessed this odd behaviour a few days ago on the way back from work...and I'm a little puzzled.

 

I've noticed that some people when crossing a road, and they've narrowly avoided an oncoming car, that they giggle like idiots. So this I guess is just a reaction of relief, 'wow, that was close.' However, I can't recall seeing the same behaviour with other near accident / death situations i.e the immediate reaction is to giggle.

 

I'm probably wrong, I've only witnessed a few close calls (in real life) that would warrant a 'holy crap, I could of died then' but there was certainly no giggling involved.

 

'Oh, that car nearly broke my spine in five places...tee hee hee hee'

[Pangloss]

<<giggle>>

[abskebabs]

Maybe they find it funny when the drivers get infuriated drivers and descend into a blearing, insulting frenzy. Ppl can be very silly sometimes(I am no exception to this at all). Personally, I often could not help but smirk or giggle after I got yelled at by my teachers at school sometimes, but I guess this may have been a product of my immaturity at the time.

[Phi for All]

I think this reaction is one of embarrassment. It could be the person who was nearly pasted stepped into the street without looking, or misjudged the distance, or anything else they subconsciously realized was their own fault. They laugh nervously to cover up their embarrassment.

 

When they're in the right they yell and shake their fists and are righteously angry. When they're in the wrong they giggle like a Pangloss.

[Glider]

On the most basic level, it's actually tension relief (as is the angry, fist shaking thing).

 

When a person has a near miss with traffic, the body goes immediately into fight/flight mode (acute sympathetic arousal), which is stressful. There's elevated heart rate, respiration, vasovagal responses and large amounts of adrenaline and stuff to deal with. The onset is more or less immediate, but the effects last a little while.

 

As the danger in a near miss passes very quickly, there's no running away or fighting for life to be done, so the person has nothing to do with all that arousal, so the body finds an outlet for it in displacement behaviours.

 

Shouting and fist waving are common displacement behaviours, as is laughing, which is why people do it so often in innapropriate and usually stressful situations (particularly when the stress comes from knowing you must not laugh, ironically).

[Royston]

Thanks all for your responses...

 

As the danger in a near miss passes very quickly, there's no running away or fighting for life to be done, so the person has nothing to do with all that arousal, so the body finds an outlet for it in displacement behaviours.

 

This is pretty much the conclusion we came to last night, when I discussed the behaviour with my house mates...and as Phi mentioned, due to a public environment the favoured displacement behaviour would be giggling. I've noticed this occurs more when the driver 'beeps', which instantly draws attention to the pedestrian.

 

I guess 'giggling like idiots' is a bit harsh, but it seems quite a strange reaction, as Glider pointed out, ironic.

[Phi for All]

Shouting and fist waving are common displacement behaviours, as is laughing, which is why people do it so often in innapropriate and usually stressful situations (particularly when the stress comes from knowing you must not laugh, ironically).

Is everyone here too young to remember The Mary Tyler Moore Show? One of the most brilliantly funny moments in all of television is the episode where Chuckles the Clown dies and Mary is horrified that her co-workers are cracking jokes about it (will the funeral flowers squirt you in the face? will dozens of clowns pile out of the hearse? etc).

 

Mary's reaction is delayed though and her co-workers are horrified when she can't stop laughing *at* the funeral. Classic.

[insane_alien]

One of the most brilliantly funny moments in all of television is the episode where Chuckles the Clown dies and Mary is horrified that her co-workers are cracking jokes about it (will the funeral flowers squirt you in the face? will dozens of clowns pile out of the hearse? etc).

 

if i was a clown i'd want to go out that way. it'd be hilarious.

[Phi for All]

if i was a clown i'd want to go out that way. it'd be hilarious.

That was the brilliant touch. At the funeral, when Mary keeps snorting and giggling at everything the guy giving the eulogy says while her co-workers keep turning in their seats to stare at her, the guy speaking (a fellow clown) finally tells her it's OK to laugh, Chuckles would have wanted it that way.

 

Now having permission to laugh openly, Mary bursts into tears.

[Glider]

I didn't see it, but from the descriptions here, I would say it was a keen bit of observational humour. 'It's funny because it's true'.

[the tree]

The term hedge fund dates back to a fund founded by Alfred Winslow Jones in 1949. A.W. Jones strategy was to sell short some stocks while buying others, thus some of the market risk was hedged. Many "investment pools", "investment syndicates", "investment partnerships" or "opportunity funds" that share characteristics of modern hedge were in operation long before. Such managers included Jesse Livermore, Bernard M. Baruch and Benjamin Graham. However, Jones was the first to combine short selling, the use of leverage, a limited partnership structure to avoid regulation, and a 20% incentive fee as compensation for the managing partner. And so Jones is widely regarded as the father of the modern hedge fund industry.

 

While most of today's hedge funds still trade stocks both long and short, some do not trade stocks at all, instead focusing on other financial instruments including commodity futures, options, foreign currency and emerging market debt.

 

Assets under management of the hedge fund industry totaled $1.225 trillion at the end of the second quarter of 2006 according to the recently released data by Chicago-based Hedge Fund Research Inc. (HFR). This was up 19% on the previous year and nearly twice the total three years earlier. In a separate study published by Institutional Investor News and New York City-based HedgeFund.net, total estimated assets for the industry grew by 24% in 2006 to a total of $1.9 trillion. Performance is said to have accounted for 33% of the total increase.

 

Because hedge funds typically use leverage/gearing or debt to invest, the positions they can take in the financial markets are larger than their assets under management. The number of hedge funds increased 10% during the past year to reach around 9,000 according to HFR. Research conducted by TowerGroup predicts that hedge fund assets will grow at an annualized rate of 15% between 2006 and 2008 while the actual number of hedge funds is likely to remain relatively flat.

Hedge funds have increasingly become involved in "shareholder activism" in the United States, by taking large stakes in companies and mounting a takeover or insisting upon management improvements. In May 2007, Business Week magazine reported that a hedge fund, Millbrook Capital Management, had become the second-largest shareholder in Acxiom, an Arkansas company, and was opposing a takeover by ValueAct Capital hedge fund and Silver Lake Partners, a private equity fund.

'It's funny because it's true'.

...right.

[Royston]

the tree, isn't that straight from wiki, and more to the point...how does that relate with giggling like an idiot

[the tree]

I was providing an example of why being true doesn't make something funny, or in the slightest bit interesting in any way whatsoever, note where I quoted Glider.

[Royston]

But now the article 'is' funny

[the tree]

Yes, it's a paradox, the thread should collapse in on itself any time now.

[Glider]

It's what happens when quotes are taken out of context. 'It's funny because it's true' is the basis of observational humour. If you leave out the context of observational humour and try to apply the principle to arbitrary facts you get responses like:

the tree, isn't that straight from wiki, and more to the point...how does that relate with giggling like an idiot

 

You are then faced with the prospect of having to explain the joke...

 

I was providing an example of why being true doesn't make something funny, or in the slightest bit interesting in any way whatsoever, note where I quoted Glider.

Which is guaranteed to render the joke unfunny and is usually really awkward for the person doing it. But watching people have to do it is really funny because it builds a kind of empathic tension (embarrassment by proxy, if you will) in the observer which is relieved by laughing.

 

This is why it's often used in observational humour based comedy and characters like David Brent from 'The Office'. In this case, the tree helpfully provided an excellent example of a 'Brentism'.

 

The cringeworthy tension caused in the viewer from watching a social incompetant like David Brent only exists because we recognise elements of him in ourselves and/or others close to us so we can relate to Brent and the situations he finds himself in and we cringe by proxy. This builds tension which is relieved by laughing (a displacement behaviour). That kind of humour is only funny 'because it's true'.

 

 

Ooh, Glider! You managed to tie the whole thread together! Nice catch!

[Royston]

The cringeworthy tension caused in the viewer from watching a social incompetant like David Brent only exists because we recognise elements of him in ourselves and/or others close to us so we can relate to Brent and the situations he finds himself in and we cringe by proxy. This builds tension which is relieved by laughing (a displacement behaviour). That kind of humour is only funny 'because it's true'.

 

Another spin, has the fact you've analysed why 'The Office' is funny, make it less funny, for you personally (genuine question). An example, I guess, would be finding out the method behind a magic trick...if you understand the process behind it, it's no longer 'magic.'

[Phi for All]

I was providing an example of why being true doesn't make something funny, or in the slightest bit interesting in any way whatsoever, note where I quoted Glider.

Which is guaranteed to render the joke unfunny and is usually really awkward for the person doing it.

I'll relieve the awkward tension the tree must be feeling with a little chastisement. Glider was commenting on why my example was funny, he didn't say "True things are funny". You took it out of context, you copied from wikipedia without a citation, you wasted everyone's time trying to figure out why your normal intelligence went on holiday and you're nit-picking. Don't do that anymore. You remind me of my 8-year-old. "It's not gray, Dad, it's dark gray!"

 

Bad, the tree! My Corgi lifts his leg at you!

Ooh, Glider! You managed to tie the whole thread together! Nice catch!

Check your copy of Gray's and you'll find a high probability of sprain or dislocation from patting yourself on the back like that. Allow me to do it for you:

 

Masterful! Simply masterful the way you swung the axe without being too cutting, made your point *and* related it back to the OP. Karma points must be flooding into your control panel.

 

It remains to be seen whether further tension relief in this thread will manifest itself in fist-shaking, giggling or a heretofore unmentioned reaction.

[the tree]

Nothing wrong with nit-picking, nit-picking is part of being critical, so it's SCIENCE.

[Glider]

Another spin, has the fact you've analysed why 'The Office' is funny, make it less funny, for you personally (genuine question). An example, I guess, would be finding out the method behind a magic trick...if you understand the process behind it, it's no longer 'magic.'

That's a good question. I think the point illustrates an independance between affective and intellectual responses. For me, knowing why things like the office is funny doesn't make them any less funny. The humour is based on a primary affective (emotional) response, but the knowing why is an intellectual process.

 

Another example. I know how trees work; I know about their anatomy and physiology and how to manipulate it (e.g. altering the balance of auxins and other hormones), but knowing that doesn't make my bonsai any less beautiful to me. The intellectual processes help me to work with them on the horticultural level (maintain health, encourage strong but balanced growth and correct healing), but my primary response to them is an entirely subjective emotional one based on aesthetics.

 

Things like bonsai and comedy rely on a primary emotional response. The intellect comes second, so if anything, the knowing how increases my appreciation. I can enjoy a bonsai (or a comedy programme) and then I also get to appreciate the skill and keen eye that went in to creating them.

 

I think it's different with magic though. The astonishment (emotional response) in magic is not primary, rather, it's a result of confounding the intellect. If you can't work out how s/he's going to get out of the tank of water in time, you get tense. If you know how s/he's going to get out of the tank, you get less tense.

 

Once you know the method behind a magic trick, then you have eliminated the 'how the hell did s/he do that?' astonishment thing, which is what magic depends on to be 'magic'. You could still appreciate the skill of the magician, but the astonishment (and the resulting emotional responses) would be gone.

 

Check your copy of Gray's and you'll find a high probability of sprain or dislocation from patting yourself on the back like that.

Yeah...it's a bit sore this morning

 

Nothing wrong with nit-picking, nit-picking is part of being critical, so it's SCIENCE.

Not really: "As nitpicking inherently requires fastidious, meticulous attention to detail, the term has become appropriated to describe the practice of meticulously searching for minor, even trivial errors in detail (often referred to as "nits" as well), and then criticising them.(From Wikipedia. Bold added).

 

Critical evaluation is more about accurately identifying errors that actually make a difference.

[the tree]

It does make a difference, it shows that the assertion "It's funny because it's true" is misleading, as I've demonstrated that the hypothesis "truth is conducive to funny" is incorrect.

[Glider]

It does make a difference, it shows that the assertion "It's funny because it's true" is misleading, as I've demonstrated that the hypothesis "truth is conducive to funny" is incorrect.

You insist on ignoring the context (observational humour), which is a bit like placing a fish on a table and saying you have refuted the the hypothesis that 'fish swim'.

 

In the context of observational humour, truth is conducive to funny. Observational humour depends upon the truth of a character or situation for it to be funny. This is why it's called 'observational' humour. It is based on real life observation.

 

Further, not only have you failed to refute the hypothesis "Truth is conducive to funny", you have failed to test it validly. Rather, you seem to insist on misinterpreting it as "All true things are funny", which is easily refutable, and then attempting to use that to refute "Truth is conducive to funny", which is a strawman argument.

 

I'm not sure what you are attempting to show here, but you seem to repeatedly miss the point, either deliberately or because you don't understand it, and It's getting tiresome.

[the tree]

Obviously deliberately. Maybe I should stop now.

[bascule]

I guess I have a different opinion of narrowly avoiding traffic.

 

Boulder prides itself on a system of separated bike lanes. While the bike lanes are separate from the street, and in many places underpasses are provided, bikes still need to cross streets in many places.

 

My general experience has been cars have a more difficult time dealing with separated bike lanes in terms of judging when bikes are coming. I say this having almost been hit by cars turning right several times, who don't have the decency to look to see if a bike is attempting to go straight before turning. While I certainly appreciate the safety afforded by separated bike lanes, they aren't the sort of universal panacea I see advocates of them touting them to be. (see

, which cites Boulder as an example)

 

Several times I have dealt with cars turning left who don't bother to look for a bike in the separated bike lane before making a turn.

 

While separated bike lanes may improve your safety for the overwhelming majority of the stretch, they make interaction with bikes all the more confusing when the two systems do cross.

 

My experience, after almost having been hit by cars (to the point they rub across my body) is always fear followed by intense anger, or embarrassment when such an occurrence is my fault.

[Royston]

While separated bike lanes may improve your safety for the overwhelming majority of the stretch, they make interaction with bikes all the more confusing when the two systems do cross.

 

The cycle lanes where I live, simply stop if there's a junction or roundabout, to encourage people to get off and walk I guess, but obviously that rarely happens and you get the same problems as you stated.

 

(to the point they rub across my body) is always fear followed by intense anger, or embarrassment when such an occurrence is my fault.

 

I've deleted, and rewritten four responses to that, so to stop the thread descending into smut...

 

If you have laughter, anger et.c as displacement behaviours...what other displacement behaviours have been recognised ?