pondering, where this comes from, of what more common under the threshold that might qualify, call it proto-schadenfreude

the wiki page is about what i’d expect, it’s quite good, but could be not entirely a fit explanation

see’f I can’t reduce it to something dumber

normal people rely a lot on glad it’s not me, now all i’m saying by that is it’s well within the range of normal to feel that way, even employ a belief to make it so, part of putting stuff over there, limiting the emotional proximity, the scope of influences, intensity of influence, or affect if you will

glad it’s not me can in fact be empathy, or empathetic, perhaps sympathetic better said. It could be more like, that’s really horrible, i’m glad it’s not me , goes some way to acknowledgement at least

fact is glad it’s not me features in, is instrumental to enjoying normal, because the reality is there is no end to misfortunes one could indulge. Imagined, even a small portion could cause stress and suffering, to the extent you’d be less functional, less able to make a helpful contribution and others, starting with whatever being useful to your own experience, not torturing ones own imagination

my view is that if you somehow removed most of the glad it’s not me from a group of people the individuals you removed it from wouldn’t be able to function, and the group wouldn’t function

glad it’s not me is as universal as (exampled in) imagining back to toddler age and being glad you don’t shit your pants any more, or wear a nappy, and so many other things. Glad that’s not me anymore, you grew up

from that it can probably be stated fairly safely that the trajectory of maturing, developing, involves plenty of glad that’s not me anymore, essentially requires it (applies to aspirations too, that achieved)

none of that above lends much to explaining joy in others’ misfortunes, perhaps, or does it

i’m not encouraging anyone to intentionally shit their pants then go do the shopping, study the other shoppers reactions, looking for glad it’s not me, verification, that won’t be necessary. You might assume some sympathy-fade even in the most empathetic of people you pass near. They may not joy, perhaps revulsion though, then far enough away whoever might feel inclined to laugh about it, overwhelm the details of the experience with some fun, happy brain chemicals

i’m thinking there’s a softer schadenfreude, a truth of it more exists on the margins or just outside the more obvious (explanations), that good people defining it have little interest in an explanation that would include them, distract from their goodness

….less able to make a helpful contribution and others

should maybe read…….less able to make a helpful contribution to others

“glad it’s not me” is not generally considered to be “schadenfreude”

transition said:

pondering, where this comes from, of what more common under the threshold that might qualify, call it proto-schadenfreude

the wiki page is about what i’d expect, it’s quite good, but could be not entirely a fit explanation

see’f I can’t reduce it to something dumber

normal people rely a lot on glad it’s not me, now all i’m saying by that is it’s well within the range of normal to feel that way, even employ a belief to make it so, part of putting stuff over there, limiting the emotional proximity, the scope of influences, intensity of influence, or affect if you will

glad it’s not me can in fact be empathy, or empathetic, perhaps sympathetic better said. It could be more like, that’s really horrible, i’m glad it’s not me , goes some way to acknowledgement at least

fact is glad it’s not me features in, is instrumental to enjoying normal, because the reality is there is no end to misfortunes one could indulge. Imagined, even a small portion could cause stress and suffering, to the extent you’d be less functional, less able to make a helpful contribution and others, starting with whatever being useful to your own experience, not torturing ones own imagination

my view is that if you somehow removed most of the glad it’s not me from a group of people the individuals you removed it from wouldn’t be able to function, and the group wouldn’t function

glad it’s not me is as universal as (exampled in) imagining back to toddler age and being glad you don’t shit your pants any more, or wear a nappy, and so many other things. Glad that’s not me anymore, you grew up

from that it can probably be stated fairly safely that the trajectory of maturing, developing, involves plenty of glad that’s not me anymore, essentially requires it (applies to aspirations too, that achieved)

none of that above lends much to explaining joy in others’ misfortunes, perhaps, or does it

i’m not encouraging anyone to intentionally shit their pants then go do the shopping, study the other shoppers reactions, looking for glad it’s not me, verification, that won’t be necessary. You might assume some sympathy-fade even in the most empathetic of people you pass near. They may not joy, perhaps revulsion though, then far enough away whoever might feel inclined to laugh about it, overwhelm the details of the experience with some fun, happy brain chemicals

i’m thinking there’s a softer schadenfreude, a truth of it more exists on the margins or just outside the more obvious (explanations), that good people defining it have little interest in an explanation that would include them, distract from their goodness

“People ask me how I came to be so funny. I say that it’s a God-given gift. I’m sure that it is God given. A God given gift to find humour in the misfortunes of others”, Barry Humphrey, paraphrased

transition said:

pondering, where this comes from, of what more common under the threshold that might qualify, call it proto-schadenfreude

the wiki page is about what i’d expect, it’s quite good, but could be not entirely a fit explanation

see’f I can’t reduce it to something dumber

normal people rely a lot on glad it’s not me, now all i’m saying by that is it’s well within the range of normal to feel that way, even employ a belief to make it so, part of putting stuff over there, limiting the emotional proximity, the scope of influences, intensity of influence, or affect if you will

glad it’s not me can in fact be empathy, or empathetic, perhaps sympathetic better said. It could be more like, that’s really horrible, i’m glad it’s not me , goes some way to acknowledgement at least

fact is glad it’s not me features in, is instrumental to enjoying normal, because the reality is there is no end to misfortunes one could indulge. Imagined, even a small portion could cause stress and suffering, to the extent you’d be less functional, less able to make a helpful contribution and others, starting with whatever being useful to your own experience, not torturing ones own imagination

my view is that if you somehow removed most of the glad it’s not me from a group of people the individuals you removed it from wouldn’t be able to function, and the group wouldn’t function

glad it’s not me is as universal as (exampled in) imagining back to toddler age and being glad you don’t shit your pants any more, or wear a nappy, and so many other things. Glad that’s not me anymore, you grew up

from that it can probably be stated fairly safely that the trajectory of maturing, developing, involves plenty of glad that’s not me anymore, essentially requires it (applies to aspirations too, that achieved)

none of that above lends much to explaining joy in others’ misfortunes, perhaps, or does it

i’m not encouraging anyone to intentionally shit their pants then go do the shopping, study the other shoppers reactions, looking for glad it’s not me, verification, that won’t be necessary. You might assume some sympathy-fade even in the most empathetic of people you pass near. They may not joy, perhaps revulsion though, then far enough away whoever might feel inclined to laugh about it, overwhelm the details of the experience with some fun, happy brain chemicals

i’m thinking there’s a softer schadenfreude, a truth of it more exists on the margins or just outside the more obvious (explanations), that good people defining it have little interest in an explanation that would include them, distract from their goodness

“People ask me how I came to be so funny. I say that it’s a God-given gift. I’m sure that it is God given. A God given gift to find humour in the misfortunes of others”, Barry Humphries, paraphrased

> I’m not encouraging anyone to intentionally shit their pants then go do the shopping, study the other shoppers reactions, looking for glad it’s not me.

I did this experiment yesterday, purely for scientific purposes of course. ;-)

I lost $100 cash, two $50 notes. Then walked around the shops telling everyone that I’d done this, looking at the shoppers reactions for some signs of proto-schadenfreude.

There were none, no “glad it’s not me” reaction. The dominant reaction was puzzlement. The second reaction I saw was pity. No proto-schadenfreude.

That’s good news, I think.

I’m glad THE Donald is imploding.

transition said:

none of that above lends much to explaining joy in others’ misfortunes, perhaps, or does it

I agree, it doesn’t.

I’d say that “glad it’s not me” and schadenfreude were not even on the same spectrum.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

none of that above lends much to explaining joy in others’ misfortunes, perhaps, or does it

I agree, it doesn’t.

I’d say that “glad it’s not me” and schadenfreude were not even on the same spectrum.

That is how I see it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

none of that above lends much to explaining joy in others’ misfortunes, perhaps, or does it

I agree, it doesn’t.

I’d say that “glad it’s not me” and schadenfreude were not even on the same spectrum.

Seems to fit with the old saying. Never tell people your troubles. Half don’t care & the other half are glad it’s not them.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

none of that above lends much to explaining joy in others’ misfortunes, perhaps, or does it

I agree, it doesn’t.

I’d say that “glad it’s not me” and schadenfreude were not even on the same spectrum.

That is how I see it.

Um …… I both agree and disagree.

I’ll take three illustrations to explain.

1. Psychotics who take pleasure in hurting people are totally in a different spectrum to normal. But – having psychosis is not a sufficient reason for rejoicing in the pain of others. There has to be another factor as well. The factor may be internal, such as demonic possession, but if the factor is external such as reaction to bullying then we’re starting to sit at the end of the same spectrum.

2. The British psyche is full of schadenfreude. You can see it in British attitudes on such TV shows as Midsummer Murders, QI, Black Adder, and at Heathrow Airport. It’s a consequence of a person who is bullied becomes a bully, and all the way down the line. Step on those who are weaker than you and enjoy their pain, as a recompense for someone stepping on you and enjoying your pain.

3. I see the British schadenfreude as definitely being on the same spectrum as “glad it’s not me”, a milder version formerly common in Australia.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I agree, it doesn’t.

I’d say that “glad it’s not me” and schadenfreude were not even on the same spectrum.

That is how I see it.

Um …… I both agree and disagree.

I’ll take three illustrations to explain.

1. Psychotics who take pleasure in hurting people are totally in a different spectrum to normal. But – having psychosis is not a sufficient reason for rejoicing in the pain of others. There has to be another factor as well. The factor may be internal, such as demonic possession, but if the factor is external such as reaction to bullying then we’re starting to sit at the end of the same spectrum.

2. The British psyche is full of schadenfreude. You can see it in British attitudes on such TV shows as Midsummer Murders, QI, Black Adder, and at Heathrow Airport. It’s a consequence of a person who is bullied becomes a bully, and all the way down the line. Step on those who are weaker than you and enjoy their pain, as a recompense for someone stepping on you and enjoying your pain.

3. I see the British schadenfreude as definitely being on the same spectrum as “glad it’s not me”, a milder version formerly common in Australia.

Countries don’t have psyches, individual people do.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

none of that above lends much to explaining joy in others’ misfortunes, perhaps, or does it

I agree, it doesn’t.

I’d say that “glad it’s not me” and schadenfreude were not even on the same spectrum.

don’t you be discouraging now, I haven’t even got to i’m glad i’m not you, yet

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

none of that above lends much to explaining joy in others’ misfortunes, perhaps, or does it

I agree, it doesn’t.

I’d say that “glad it’s not me” and schadenfreude were not even on the same spectrum.

don’t you be discouraging now, I haven’t even got to i’m glad i’m not you, yet

of course that is a joke, but goes to a necessary requirement of individual identity, and sense of adequacy

I could wish I was you, or more like you, possibly at the expense of glad i’m me

sort of starts to get into some potentially not-entirely-friendly territory, certainty if it were unabstracted, the abstraction here though is friendly, kindred even

watching a lot of comedy on youtube, as often do when away, no shortage of play in the territory of schadenfreude, the play is not just a simple appeal to schadenfreude, though a lot seems horrendously blunt, but explores the comparative workings of the social mind, that wouldn’t otherwise get a look at

The Rev Dodgson said:

Countries don’t have psyches, individual people do.

I would have agreed with you until recently. It was recently that I noticed that counties (prior to the last 40 or so years) have specifically different comedy genres. Think film genres, too. A film from one country could only have been made by that country – a US cop show, a British cop show, an Australian cop show, an Austrian cop show, almost all if not all are uniquely specific in style to the country in which they are made. It’s nothing to do with different accents or language, the films highlight different national psyches.

Yeah countries do have a different psyches, as a result of different education, different home upbringing, and different entertainment.

Possibly also, though I’m far from sure about this, because of different histories. The Australian psyche would be different, for example, if Japan had won WW 2.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Countries don’t have psyches, individual people do.

I would have agreed with you until recently. It was recently that I noticed that counties (prior to the last 40 or so years) have specifically different comedy genres. Think film genres, too. A film from one country could only have been made by that country – a US cop show, a British cop show, an Australian cop show, an Austrian cop show, almost all if not all are uniquely specific in style to the country in which they are made. It’s nothing to do with different accents or language, the films highlight different national psyches.

Yeah countries do have a different psyches, as a result of different education, different home upbringing, and different entertainment.

Possibly also, though I’m far from sure about this, because of different histories. The Australian psyche would be different, for example, if Japan had won WW 2.

Superficial fashion stuff.

There is far more variation between individuals than there is between the national psyches we might assign to their countries.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Countries don’t have psyches, individual people do.

I would have agreed with you until recently. It was recently that I noticed that counties (prior to the last 40 or so years) have specifically different comedy genres. Think film genres, too. A film from one country could only have been made by that country – a US cop show, a British cop show, an Australian cop show, an Austrian cop show, almost all if not all are uniquely specific in style to the country in which they are made. It’s nothing to do with different accents or language, the films highlight different national psyches.

Yeah countries do have a different psyches, as a result of different education, different home upbringing, and different entertainment.

Possibly also, though I’m far from sure about this, because of different histories. The Australian psyche would be different, for example, if Japan had won WW 2.

Superficial fashion stuff.

There is far more variation between individuals than there is between the national psyches we might assign to their countries.

rephrased, groups have ways

your mob has ways, their mob have ways

SCIENCE said:

“glad it’s not me” is not generally considered to be “schadenfreude”

true, but i’m looking at whatever approximating the latter that is transformed into something more respectable (apparently), I mean a lot of it is genuinely transformed

it’s part of growing up that you learn appropriate and helpful responses, avoiding sentiments that may result in spiraling decline of good will

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

I would have agreed with you until recently. It was recently that I noticed that counties (prior to the last 40 or so years) have specifically different comedy genres. Think film genres, too. A film from one country could only have been made by that country – a US cop show, a British cop show, an Australian cop show, an Austrian cop show, almost all if not all are uniquely specific in style to the country in which they are made. It’s nothing to do with different accents or language, the films highlight different national psyches.

Yeah countries do have a different psyches, as a result of different education, different home upbringing, and different entertainment.

Possibly also, though I’m far from sure about this, because of different histories. The Australian psyche would be different, for example, if Japan had won WW 2.

Superficial fashion stuff.

There is far more variation between individuals than there is between the national psyches we might assign to their countries.

rephrased, groups have ways

your mob has ways, their mob have ways

Since the advent of the internet it has become superficial. But before that, in the 1960s and earlier, it was very very real. Even now there are still echos of that earlier period.

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

“glad it’s not me” is not generally considered to be “schadenfreude”

true, but i’m looking at whatever approximating the latter that is transformed into something more respectable (apparently), I mean a lot of it is genuinely transformed

it’s part of growing up that you learn appropriate and helpful responses, avoiding sentiments that may result in spiraling decline of good will

it’s just love by another sign

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

I would have agreed with you until recently. It was recently that I noticed that counties (prior to the last 40 or so years) have specifically different comedy genres. Think film genres, too. A film from one country could only have been made by that country – a US cop show, a British cop show, an Australian cop show, an Austrian cop show, almost all if not all are uniquely specific in style to the country in which they are made. It’s nothing to do with different accents or language, the films highlight different national psyches.

Yeah countries do have a different psyches, as a result of different education, different home upbringing, and different entertainment.

Possibly also, though I’m far from sure about this, because of different histories. The Australian psyche would be different, for example, if Japan had won WW 2.

Superficial fashion stuff.

There is far more variation between individuals than there is between the national psyches we might assign to their countries.

rephrased, groups have ways

your mob has ways, their mob have ways

And one of the ways that all groups have is to assign people into groups and think and act like membership of those groups defines who those people are, when in reality all the groups are pretty similar, but all the members of the groups are very varied.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Superficial fashion stuff.

There is far more variation between individuals than there is between the national psyches we might assign to their countries.

rephrased, groups have ways

your mob has ways, their mob have ways

And one of the ways that all groups have is to assign people into groups and think and act like membership of those groups defines who those people are, when in reality all the groups are pretty similar, but all the members of the groups are very varied.

No. It’s called “culture”.

Literally, that is the definition of culture. To deny its existence is ridiculous.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

rephrased, groups have ways

your mob has ways, their mob have ways

And one of the ways that all groups have is to assign people into groups and think and act like membership of those groups defines who those people are, when in reality all the groups are pretty similar, but all the members of the groups are very varied.

No. It’s called “culture”.

Literally, that is the definition of culture. To deny its existence is ridiculous.

Not nearly as ridiculous as denying that the variation between individuals in any “culture” is way greater than the differences between the cultures, which people do all the time.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

And one of the ways that all groups have is to assign people into groups and think and act like membership of those groups defines who those people are, when in reality all the groups are pretty similar, but all the members of the groups are very varied.

No. It’s called “culture”.

Literally, that is the definition of culture. To deny its existence is ridiculous.

Not nearly as ridiculous as denying that the variation between individuals in any “culture” is way greater than the differences between the cultures, which people do all the time.

¿so membership of culture varies more between individuals in any “culture”, than between the cultures?

seems implausible

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

No. It’s called “culture”.

Literally, that is the definition of culture. To deny its existence is ridiculous.

Not nearly as ridiculous as denying that the variation between individuals in any “culture” is way greater than the differences between the cultures, which people do all the time.

¿so membership of culture varies more between individuals in any “culture”, than between the cultures?

seems implausible

I’m not sure what that means.

All I am saying is:

Suppose we evaluate some variable, say schadenfreudeishness, for all the members of two different cultures, then we will get two curves with a wide spread and a large overlap, but the mean values will be quite close.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Not nearly as ridiculous as denying that the variation between individuals in any “culture” is way greater than the differences between the cultures, which people do all the time.

¿so membership of culture varies more between individuals in any “culture”, than between the cultures?

seems implausible

I’m not sure what that means.

All I am saying is:

Suppose we evaluate some variable, say schadenfreudeishness, for all the members of two different cultures, then we will get two curves with a wide spread and a large overlap, but the mean values will be quite close.

there may be variations of schadenfreudeishness

the crude undeveloped form, and (contrasted with) a playful reflective sort

I note too of the comedy I watch, there seems substantial overlap (or association) with the subject of political correctness (which to me much of is to do with psychological correctness)

contempt is something that more comes to mind, when I try to consider examples of and define schadenfreude

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Not nearly as ridiculous as denying that the variation between individuals in any “culture” is way greater than the differences between the cultures, which people do all the time.

¿so membership of culture varies more between individuals in any “culture”, than between the cultures?

seems implausible

I’m not sure what that means.

All I am saying is:

Suppose we evaluate some variable, say schadenfreudeishness, for all the members of two different cultures, then we will get two curves with a wide spread and a large overlap, but the mean values will be quite close.

only some variables, others would be culturedefining variables

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

¿so membership of culture varies more between individuals in any “culture”, than between the cultures?

seems implausible

I’m not sure what that means.

All I am saying is:

Suppose we evaluate some variable, say schadenfreudeishness, for all the members of two different cultures, then we will get two curves with a wide spread and a large overlap, but the mean values will be quite close.

only some variables, others would be culturedefining variables

OK, but this thread is specifically about schadenfreude, which I contend is related to underlying human behaviour, rather than overlying details that might be modified by particular cultures.

fair, i sensed there was about to be a dismissal of culture but checking the context it is good, i too would hesitate to extend recognised distinguishing variables to arbitrary variables, we agree

>OK, but this thread is specifically about schadenfreude..

more about what it is under the threshold that would qualify

like many things, much of what is defined as such and such exists in lessor forms that don’t qualify

you know, for example, let’s say I was describing behaviors from a pathology angle, pathologizing (even moralistic), if I was a really nice guy, wanted you to think I was especially good, i’d neglect any wandering explication of lessor forms that distracted from how good I am. My explanation would tend to be a right-thinking explanation that excluded normal, superior normal.