Crying

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by caffeine_fubar, Sep 15, 2004.

  1. Rappaccini Redoubtable Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,192
    More paradoxical than tautological, methinks.

    What's that, a signal to everybody else?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    "More paradoxical than tautological, methinks. "

    How so?
    His reasoning is circular.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Rappaccini Redoubtable Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,192
    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    Rappaccini:
    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.
     
  8. SKULLZ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    248
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    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.
     
  9. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    Skullz:
    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.

    True, but if it's a really good orgasm you may well start crying.
    Oh dear...
     
  10. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     
  11. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442


    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
     
  12. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Rap:
    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:
    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:
    More like incoherizing- but that's just me.

    Anyway- gotcha.
    And I'm surprised that thread was Southstar’s.
     
  13. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    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.
     
  14. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    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.


    From the societal perspective, crying less means that you are "an accomplished adult".
     
  15. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    RosaMagika:
    '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.

    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.
     
  16. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    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).


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


    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.


    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.
     
  17. Blandnuts Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    121
    Good posts Rosa.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,574
    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.
     
  19. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    Rosa:
    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.

    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.

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

    The type of crying we are discussing here does.

    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.
     
  20. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    There's nothing unscientific about that!
     

Share This Page