I have a question for all you geniuses...

If someone were to not cry for 2 years, and cannot cry even during stressful and emotional times, what the hell is going on? I havent cried in 2 years, and a lot of the time, i feel like im about to, then it stops and nothing can come out. I just go into a yawning frenzy. WTF

Seems that you can control your emotions better than most people, It is a good and bad thing. I wouldn't worry to much for perhaps nothing that has happened to you or your loved ones has brought about the need to cry.

Do you throw yourself upon a bed of grass and yawn?

Interesting question.
The tears we cry when we are sad are chemically different from those we cry when our eyes are irritated - by onions, tear gas, particles, whatever.
Nobody really knows why we cry during times of strong emotion. Some scientists hypothesize that we cry to expel the hormones that, in abundance, have produced our abundant emotional reaction.

There is a condition under which a person is, for unknown reasons, unable to produce tears during times of emotional duress. But this condition is present from birth and has other effects, so I doubt that explains your case.

A few questions:

You cried before, but then stopped for two years? Stopped as in - never ever cried?

Purposefully or did you stop without conscious intent?

Are you male or female? Women have higher levels of the hormone involved in secreting tears - nobody knows why this is, but it may be a side-effect of the hormone's other role, which is to inspire the secretion of breast milk - in any case, men are physiologically less prone to tears.

It is possible that not crying for years - two? - changed your hormonal makeup so that it is more difficult to produce tears.
I went through a year and a half long period of not crying once (I am female and consciously chose not to cry) but was never unable to cry afterwords.

cosmictraveler:
Seems that you can control your emotions better than most people

Crying has nothing to do with emotional control. A person can be emotionally out of control yet not shed tears, and a person can shed tears and be in control of their emotions.

If certain theories as to why we cry are correct, the person who sheds tears is likely more emotionally stable than the person who does not.

In Goleman's "Emotional intelligence" I've read about people who are emotionally disabled. While they are normal in aspects of being rational, they lack emotions. Sometimes, this is connected to metabolical disorders in the brain, and the reason for this lack of emotions can be biological; ie. not something the individual could actively influence or control.

I have a question for all you geniuses...

If someone were to not cry for 2 years, and cannot cry even during stressful and emotional times, what the hell is going on? I havent cried in 2 years, and a lot of the time, i feel like im about to, then it stops and nothing can come out. I just go into a yawning frenzy. WTF
I've had the same for a long time. I think that happens because you are aware of the fact that you will start to cry. If you let it go and don't be focused on your eyes, you are going to cry. For instance, I cried when I came to Canada again, last time, cause I missed my mom. But I basically allowed myself to miss her and to cry. I hadn't cried for about 2 or 3 years.

I cried in high school when my motivation for the armed drill team. Haha.

If someone were to not cry for 2 years, and cannot cry even during stressful and emotional times, what the hell is going on?

If ye'r not crying during stressful and emotional times, maybe those times aren't stressful or emotional enough to bring ya to the threshhold. Either that, or ya've been emotionally "numbed". Maybe something happened in yer mind so that ya don't react to emotional pain in the form of crying.

Next time ya feel like crying, and it is in an appropriate setting, just let it out. Trust me, ya'll feel better afterward.

If ye'r not crying during stressful and emotional times, maybe those times aren't stressful or emotional enough to bring ya to the threshhold. Either that, or ya've been emotionally "numbed". Maybe something happened in yer mind so that ya don't react to emotional pain in the form of crying.

Next time ya feel like crying, and it is in an appropriate setting, just let it out. Trust me, ya'll feel better afterward.

God i wish i could let it out... its impossible. I figured its part of the fact of the way i view humans... they can bother me, but never push me over the edge due to the fact i see no reason to. Humans, in my opinion, are ignorant beings who do not even understand the way they are speaking. They dont understand what they are saying.

Why should i cry over something that is skin and bones? Something that makes no difference.

(This post is a little odd... But its worth reading anyways. Check out my other post on Human Security..)

*Sighs*
Another one bites the dust.

Why should i cry over something that is skin and bones? Something that makes no difference.

Gosh, aren't you just so intense and gothic.

I might point out that it is tautological to state "I cannot cry during stressful and emotional times" because "I see no reason to" and treat your inability to cry when you do not feel like crying as a problem, but that's just me.

This post is a little odd... But its worth reading anyways.

Not really. Being an interesting question might have made it worth reading, but since it is neither interesting nor a question, it is not really worth reading.

Thanks... When i said skin and bones, i meant more in the way: Why are we afraid to do things, or have petty worries over things that make us unable to accomplish what we are attempting to do. There is no reason to worry, because in some ways, it doesnt make a difference, and tomorrow you could feel the same as today even if you did do it. (Whatever it be)

Yes, it did sound a little... yah =D

Well, why would you ask such a strange question if you don't seem worried that you can't cry? I mean, I haven't in so long...But I don't think its something we actually need to do..Well atleast noone has proven it yet. From your responces it seems like you're pretty laid back and have a worry-free situation so in other words..You're in perfect emotion balance whereas most of everybody else is still in their "normal" choatic fits. It doesn't really surprize me what emotionla wrecks people are considering our veiwpoints on society today..

[In other words: People who actually care over the stupid little things have tendancies to well act different towards stress and saddening situations.]

I understand that, but i used to cry every day almost... it just stopped all of a sudden. Didnt think much of it at first until i realized that it has been over 2 years...

caffeine_fubar:
Okay, fine I was over-harsh. I agree with your assessment of the situation - why cry about people when they mean so little to one?
On the other hand, your adolescent tripe about how little people mean to you is inconsistant with people actually meaning little to you, and is boring besides.

EvilSquirrel:
But I don't think its something we actually need to do..Well atleast noone has proven it yet.

There are suggestions that crying reduces the amount of excess hormones caused by stress, thus is helpful when one is stressed.
But of course, if one is not stressed then one needn't cry. And there are other ways of releasing those excess hormones - urination, perspiration, etc.

It doesn't really surprize me what emotionla wrecks people are considering our veiwpoints on society today..

True, but at least those people can use English consistantly well.

Ah, but see..they are SUGGESTIONS. They aren't proven as of many of things. It's only a suggestion or theory. You really have nothing to base it on exscept for someone else's word.

Pardon my bad typing, new contact perscription and typing in the dark. Not as if I need to exsplain myself to you.

I went through a long period...very long...where I wasn't crying at all. A situation would arise and I could feel the emotion bringing on tears but still I wouldn't cry. It became an issue when I realized that numbing tears also numbed other feelings and crying became a symbol of being able to express a variety of emotions so I could feel more alive. I have managed to overcome my fear of tears but that doesn't mean it makes me feel comfortable...I still on some level equate it with weakness but I see this more as family conditioning.

Xev: Women may be more prone to tears but I recently befriended a male who cried through the films Gia and Life Without Me. I was surprised because he didn't just cry he bawled! I don't know maybe he spent too much time with his mother.

There are suggestions that crying reduces the amount of excess hormones caused by stress, thus is helpful when one is stressed.
But of course, if one is not stressed then one needn't cry. And there are other ways of releasing those excess hormones - urination, perspiration, etc.

Those suggestions are more than likely wrong. How and would hormones be concentrated into our tear glands?

The much more probable alternative theory is that it serves the same function as blushing when u are embarrased!

Crying: can women cry easily than men? Is it related to salt(NaCl) imbalances?

if it is related to salt then men should cry more easily to relaese it, women have a higher water percentage than men so if we eat the same things then men will have a higher concentration af salt and therefore cry more to rid their body of this salt

"The much more probable alternative theory is that it serves the same function as blushing when u are embarrased!"

Learn English, brainiac.

"Those suggestions are more than likely wrong. How and would hormones be concentrated into our tear glands?"

Tear formation requires the action of a hormone called -- somethingorother -- this hormone is also excreted when tears are excreted. Read up on the subject.
(Assuming you can tackle something more intellectually demanding than "My Little Pony" books)

vslayer:
Interesting argument.

Cosmictraveler:
Seems that you can control your emotions better than most people, It is a good and bad thing. I wouldn't worry to much for perhaps nothing that has happened to you or your loved ones has brought about the need to cry.
No, I actually think some are inert.
Fubar could be either inert or posing.
Can't tell.

Rosa:
In Goleman's "Emotional intelligence" I've read about people who are emotionally disabled. While they are normal in aspects of being rational, they lack emotions. Sometimes, this is connected to metabolical disorders in the brain, and the reason for this lack of emotions can be biological; ie. not something the individual could actively influence or control.
Its called, among other things, mainly Capgras or Cotard's syndrome.

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pc/capgras.html

Characterized by the 'sufferer' believing his world to be a false one and everyone in it impostors. So he lacks feelings.
Why the site has a girl with wild hair on it…I don’t know.

Kumar:
Crying: can women cry easily than men? Is it related to salt(NaCl) imbalances?
No.

Lachrymation, or tearing, is pangenic and can be induced with pain or shock stimuli- last I heard humans are the only ones to experience emotional lachrymation, or crying, and studies have shown a kind of hormone soup in its makeup- which suggests that crying is a way of 'shedding' excess emotion.
Assuming emotion is only chemicals, which I'm inclined to agree with.

Xev:
Do you throw yourself upon a bed of grass and yawn?

Interesting question.
The tears we cry when we are sad are chemically different from those we cry when our eyes are irritated - by onions, tear gas, particles, whatever.
Nobody really knows why we cry during times of strong emotion. Some scientists hypothesize that we cry to expel the hormones that, in abundance, have produced our abundant emotional reaction.

There is a condition under which a person is, for unknown reasons, unable to produce tears during times of emotional duress. But this condition is present from birth and has other effects, so I doubt that explains your case.

A few questions:

You cried before, but then stopped for two years? Stopped as in - never ever cried?

Purposefully or did you stop without conscious intent?

Are you male or female? Women have higher levels of the hormone involved in secreting tears - nobody knows why this is, but it may be a side-effect of the hormone's other role, which is to inspire the secretion of breast milk - in any case, men are physiologically less prone to tears.

It is possible that not crying for years - two? - changed your hormonal makeup so that it is more difficult to produce tears.
I went through a year and a half long period of not crying once (I am female and consciously chose not to cry) but was never unable to cry afterwords.

Good post gone to shit.

I might point out that it is tautological to state "I cannot cry during stressful and emotional times" because "I see no reason to" and treat your inability to cry when you do not feel like crying as a problem, but that's just me.


More paradoxical than tautological, methinks.

The much more probable alternative theory is that it serves the same function as blushing when u are embarrased!

What's that, a signal to everybody else?

"More paradoxical than tautological, methinks. "

How so?
His reasoning is circular.

As I see it, it is paradoxical to state

I cannot cry in stressful and emotional times

and then elaborate

because I see no reason.


By the definitions of "stressful" and "emotional," there must be a "reason," for crying, that is perceived by the one who might do the crying.



Furthermore, it is paradoxical, or, at least irrational, to treat this lack of lachrymation regretfully and dismissively, simultaneously.
If there is no "stressful" or "emotional" condition which qualifies as a "problem" of the order which justifies tears, the absence of tears is itself not a problem.


This assumes, of course, that is thread is meant to address a problem, of sorts.

Rappaccini:
More paradoxical than tautological, methinks.

A tautology - or a linguistic example of Poincare's vicious circle. The objects in a vicious circle are defined in termso of themselves. His question answers itself in terms of itself - the question is its own answer.
I am abusing the notion ever so slightly.

"I do not care sufficiantly about people to cry for them, why can I not cry for them?"

It is also paradoxical if phrased in the form of a question. Like Russell's paradox, it requires that an answer be of the situation - and yet not be of the situation.

Basically, it is nonsense.

2 years is nothing,ive not cried properly in 11 years,my dad died 11 years ago,i got weepy on some stuff but even that was ages ago.
Im a man anyway,youre supposed to hide that stuff,chin up,stiff upper lip and all that :) .

As long as you have an orgasm at least once a month (by whatever means) then you should be ok(imo).

If not,well youll probably start crying,lol.

Skullz:
Im a man anyway,youre supposed to hide that stuff,chin up,stiff upper lip and all that

No no, you must cry in front of others, bug them by asking how they feel, watch Oprah and wear designer clothing.

On topic, if you can go for eleven years, then the "crying as physical need" theory doesn't hold much water. Second theory - crying is a social signal. You display your distress to other members of the group to facilitate closer bonds.

But that doesn't work so well either. Chimpanzees cry in distress, but the majority of social animals do not. Crying is also somewhat involuntary - if it is a communication, it is one somewhat far from the subject's control.

I'd go for the excretion of hormones theory, but it's a bit...lacking.


If not,well youll probably start crying,lol

True, but if it's a really good orgasm you may well start crying.
Oh dear...

Tear formation requires the action of a hormone called -- somethingorother -- this hormone is also excreted when tears are excreted. Read up on the subject.
(Assuming you can tackle something more intellectually demanding than "My Little Pony" books)

Stick to Philosophy Xev. U know nothing of science but try to pass urself off as knowing everything there is to know.

Your argument is circular. I said that the REASON for tear formation is not ridding of excess hormones u pathetic asswipe.

(I still love u for who u are tho :D )

No, I actually think some are inert.
Fubar could be either inert or posing.
Can't tell.


God i wish i could let it out... its impossible. I figured its part of the fact of the way i view humans... they can bother me, but never push me over the edge due to the fact i see no reason to. Humans, in my opinion, are ignorant beings who do not even understand the way they are speaking. They dont understand what they are saying.

Why should i cry over something that is skin and bones? Something that makes no difference.

(This post is a little odd... But its worth reading anyways. Check out my other post on Human Security..)

/.../

Thanks... When i said skin and bones, i meant more in the way: Why are we afraid to do things, or have petty worries over things that make us unable to accomplish what we are attempting to do. There is no reason to worry, because in some ways, it doesnt make a difference, and tomorrow you could feel the same as today even if you did do it. (Whatever it be)

Yes, it did sound a little... yah =D


He's rationalizing.


He said "Humans, in my opinion, are ignorant beings who do not even understand the way they are speaking. They dont understand what they are saying." -- are we to think he feels exempt from this definition?! Or that he *is* exempt from this definition that he himself made?
Xev said, "On the other hand, your adolescent tripe about how little people mean to you is inconsistant with people actually meaning little to you, and is boring besides."

He says that there is "no reason to worry" -- yet he says that we are "afraid to do things".

It's a cognitive dissonance which he propped up into "I don't cry because there's no reason to cry".

See a better example in http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37369

Rap:
Furthermore, it is paradoxical, or, at least irrational, to treat this lack of lachrymation regretfully and dismissively, simultaneously.
If there is no "stressful" or "emotional" condition which qualifies as a "problem" of the order which justifies tears, the absence of tears is itself not a problem.

Gotcha.

Pardon, but his lack of coherent thought throughout the whole thread tends to veer one's attention from him towards other posters of more gravity.
Conclusion: he's mourning his indifference. Which makes no sense.

Xev:
On topic, if you can go for eleven years, then the "crying as physical need" theory doesn't hold much water. Second theory - crying is a social signal. You display your distress to other members of the group to facilitate closer bonds.

But that doesn't work so well either. Chimpanzees cry in distress, but the majority of social animals do not. Crying is also somewhat involuntary - if it is a communication, it is one somewhat far from the subject's control.

And it has also never made sense in the difference of response based on gender.
Crying invokes maternal feelings in the female, while invoking repugnance in the male.
If it is to be a facilitating signal to enforce bonds, then being victimized because of crying does not fit.
Unless the repugnance to crying in males serves to enforce masculinity.

Rosa:
He's rationalizing.

More like incoherizing- but that's just me.

Anyway- gotcha.
And I'm surprised that thread was Southstar’s.

gendanken:
Another good point, although you could argue that it's socialized only. Male repugnence to crying has the general nature of a taboo - it is not that they despise the other's distress, but rather that they fear pollution by the feminine. Rather like the taboo on having sex during menses - you don't want contact with something so girly.

But - if tears serve such a simple purpose, why would humans be so keen on evading them? Surely they may work for children, but then why do we cry into adulthood?

Although we do cry less. Perhaps there's something there.

But - if tears serve such a simple purpose, why would humans be so keen on evading them?

Gendanken said "Crying invokes maternal feelings in the female" thus the crier is rendered a child in need of maternal care. Thus, crying is simply *regarded* as childish. Crying does not become an adult, as it is *regarded* as childish.
An explanation that seems overtly simple -- yet watch adults answer that they don't drink milk because "milk is for children, and I am an adult so I don't drink milk". (I know plenty of people who think so.)

Yet there is at least another reason why crying is shunned: vulnerability. If one is sad and cries, one is vulnerable. Vulnerability is not a desired trait, ever.
The equation sad = bad is old, and typical for the Western world anway.


Surely they may work for children, but then why do we cry into adulthood?
Although we do cry less. Perhaps there's something there.

From the societal perspective, crying less means that you are "an accomplished adult".

RosaMagika:
Thus, crying is simply *regarded* as childish. Crying does not become an adult, as it is *regarded* as childish.

'Twas my point, in refutation of the 'crying as social need' idea. If crying is a social need, why is it shunned except in the case of inferior beings such as children and women?

Crying used to be acceptable in men, on occasion, as a proof of their strength of feeling - once regarded as manly. Now crying is accepted among some segments that regard vulnerability itself as acceptable and good. Women who have, in whatever way, picked up machismo don't cry much as a matter of choice. Hence crying serves no universal social purpose, and thus seems unlikely to have roots in universal social need.

The equation of vulnerability and crying isn't another reason- it's the same reason. Crying signifies being vulnerable, as children and women are vulnerable. They use their tears to evoke pity - few can relish or be completely indifferent to another person's bawling misery so it works quite well.

Which may be the social utility of crying.

From the societal perspective, crying less means that you are "an accomplished adult".

Generally it is frustration and not pain that brings on tears. Childhood is socially mandated as a period of constant frustration. One's body is small and one's mind undeveloped, and even if one wasn't physically limited, one is socially limited.

Adults have fewer of these limitations so they cry less.

'Twas my point, in refutation of the 'crying as social need' idea. If crying is a social need, why is it shunned except in the case of inferior beings such as children and women?

We can observe at least these two things that come into consideration:

1. Strong emotions are generally shunned, esp. in public. Both displaying great joy in public as well as displaying great grief in public is inappropriate. (Whereby there are some institutionalized public forms, like funerals or comedy shows.)

2. Esp. in the West, there is a strong tendency to show only positive emotions, and shun all negative emotions.
As a European, I find the amount of smiling (laughing, actually) in American talkshows odd. What is more, and this again an American thing, Americans are somehow full of "positivity", like being wished "good luck and use your weekend and take care" in a weather report. This sounds strange here (it is taking root, though).


Hence crying serves no universal social purpose, and thus seems unlikely to have roots in universal social need.

Although it could simply be that crying is one of the symptoms of being deeply emotionally moved.


The equation of vulnerability and crying isn't another reason- it's the same reason. Crying signifies being vulnerable, as children and women are vulnerable. They use their tears to evoke pity - few can relish or be completely indifferent to another person's bawling misery so it works quite well.

Crying doesn't always equate to vulnerability, I don't think so. One can also cry tears of joy -- and those tears certainly aren't there to display vulnerability and evoke pity! One is deeply moved, joyous, and one can cry with a smile on one's face. I do that.


Generally it is frustration and not pain that brings on tears. Childhood is socially mandated as a period of constant frustration. One's body is small and one's mind undeveloped, and even if one wasn't physically limited, one is socially limited.

Adults have fewer of these limitations so they cry less.

What do we do with the tears of joy then?

If crying is about being deeply emotionally moved (as unscientific as this may sound), then the lack of crying can also be indicative of the lack of deep emotional movement. We often hear people say that they feel numb, nothing moves them, and that they can't cry. Numbness, depressive states, lack of joy in life can go hand in hand with not crying.

Good posts Rosa. ;)

It takes a strong willed person to continue beating on someone thats crying.
Crying really is a great defense. We make fun of it but we also instinctually "respect" it in that it can make just about anyone apologise or at least stop offending the cryer.
I have heaps of cousins right and over the years we've all kicked eachothers asses, not angrily but you just get together and 3 or 4 of you decide to beat up 1 other for fun. No amount of that person saying stop will stop you once you get going, screaming etc nothing will work, EXCEPT crying. Crying invariably puts an end to the beating. And who knows, if that cousin didn't have the ability to cry we might keep going untill they are seriously injured or worse. Hence crying was favoured by evolution.
Its just a social cue that has a deep instinctual effect on those who witness it. Like yelping in dogs, dogs will wrestle around and it just escalates into rougher and rougher play and it takes a yelp to stop the dominant individual from going to far.

Rosa:

1. Strong emotions are generally shunned, esp. in public. Both displaying great joy in public as well as displaying great grief in public is inappropriate. (Whereby there are some institutionalized public forms, like funerals or comedy shows.)

Oh god oh god oh god, is it really like that in Northeast Europe? I'm moving there right now!
Here in America there is a tendancy - which I find disgusting - to show exaggerated emotion in public. It depends on region, but it's not generally shunned.
Then again, southern Europeans are like that too.

2. Esp. in the West, there is a strong tendency to show only positive emotions, and shun all negative emotions.

Not "especially in the West", the Japanese are masters at understated emotion. They are noble enough to find the display of passion to be disgraceful. And - generally only positive emotion is to be shown.

I am less familiar with other Asian cultures, but I know that the Chinese and Koreans are simular.

As a European, I find the amount of smiling (laughing, actually) in American talkshows odd. What is more, and this again an American thing, Americans are somehow full of "positivity", like being wished "good luck and use your weekend and take care" in a weather report. This sounds strange here (it is taking root, though).

Umm yes, Americans from the South especially. We've confused our founding principle of "pursuit of happiness" with "the giddy chase after pleasure"

Crying doesn't always equate to vulnerability, I don't think so.

The type of crying we are discussing here does.

If crying is about being deeply emotionally moved (as unscientific as this may sound), then the lack of crying can also be indicative of the lack of deep emotional movement.

True, but appearences can be (you can finish the cliche yourself!)
Not crying simply means that one isn't crying.
Personally, I've found that tearful people - emotionally expressive people in general - are less moved than those who are not emotionally expressive. It's like - to be trite, it's like love: the more it is expressed, the less it is felt.

If crying is about being deeply emotionally moved (as unscientific as this may sound), then the lack of crying can also be indicative of the lack of deep emotional movement.

There's nothing unscientific about that!