Tears & Laughter are closely related

.
Tears and Laughter are very closely related emontional responses.

Ramachandran has described laughter, i believe correctly, as when a mind is lead down a path [imagery & emotions] of anticipatory anxiety and trepidation , and then arrives at an unexpectedly trivial or inconsequential terminus.

I think tears are essentially the same, being lead down an anticipatory path of anxiety and trepidation only with a realization of a bad/terrible/horrible at the terminus.

Both require the genuine belief or empathy for it that anticipates or worries about a bad outcome.

Both are a release of tension, but in different dependent ways.

Probably the greater the anticipatory tension that builds up before the outcome is revealed the greater the release response is.
.

I would think differently.

Tears are a very emotional response to something that has a deep and profound effect upon us. Laughter is a light-hearted response to a positive moment (to the observer) that has a very shallow effect upon us, but can improve the overall character of someone greatly.

Yes, both can release tension, but so can fighting and weightlifting, these aren't cloesly related issues.

What about us odd-balls who cry when we laugh?

Maybe there is something to the closeness of the two. Both my sister and myself tend to cry when we laugh. Not when it's just a silly laugh or giggle, but a laugh of real joy - we just start weeping like crazy.

It's actually hard to explain to people at times when you have to grab a tissue because you're laughing.

Me too, I can get really tickled by something and start sniffling while I snicker. When I am furious I cry.

What about us who laugh when we cry?

My guess would be that the tears are a product of the laughter. Whether from loss of control of your muscles and reactions or loss of oxygen, it would seem the tears would exist as a function of the laughter and are instead very different from the ones described above. After all, laughter is one of the few things that can totally consume the body.

.
I think both also have an aspect of helplessness.

Not all laughter is light and trivial. [phony laughter is not really laughter IMO]
Amorymeltzer, have you ever had a comedian/comedien do a sketch that brings on uncontrollable laughter. Takes your breath away? Where you just can't stop laughing?

Ever had a secret you shared with someone that you were keeping from a third person? And you had to burst out laughing once the third person was gone? Not all laughter is sweet and clean. Like someone who is an interminable chatterbox or something who drives you up the wall? But you don't know them well enough to say anything?

You may be right Amorymeltzer that they have differences, We tend to laugh at things which we are observing safely from the outside, whereas tears usually come from being totally locked inside ourselves in the situation.

Laughter is usually associated with overblown or exagerated imagery, as though hollowly done for dramtic effect. Sort of mocking if you will. Like melodramatic tragedy that just barely doesn't happen. It creates enough tension that makes you [empathetically] nervous, but gives a last minute recovery.

But sometimes don't people cry simply because of an almost melodramatic tragedy that they are not involved in directly? Think of 911. Think of the Tsunami. Many people had so much empathy that even though they didn't actually know anyone in it personally the seemingly pointless tragedy of it was emotionally overwhelming.

Things that tickle us on the inside make us laugh
Things that cut/scrape us on the inside make us cry

If you are sensitive enough both can happen simultaneously.

Ultimately tears have to come down to a real [really perceived] tragedy or misery,
Laughter comes down to an ending we think of as 'un-real' in some respect, sometimes because it doesn't matter to us directly.

Irrespective of the underlying reality, laughter is when some tragedy feels un-real [funny, gamey, someone is playing with you] for some reason, tears come when some tragedy feels real.

perhaps laughter is un-reality detection response, avoiding gulibility.

[edit on 27-4-2005 by slank]

Originally posted by slank
Not all laughter is light and trivial. [phony laughter is not really laughter IMO]

Amorymeltzer, have you ever had a comedian/comedien do a sketch that brings on uncontrollable laughter. Takes your breath away? Where you just can't stop laughing?

Ever had a secret you shared with someone that you were keeping from a third person? And you had to burst out laughing once the third person was gone? Not all laughter is sweet and clean. Like someone who is an interminable chatterbox or something who drives you up the wall? But you don't know them well enough to say anything?

Of course, though I don't get why you brought up the standup act. I said to the observer. When you laugh at a racist/exist/dead baby/whatever joke, it's sure as hell not sweet or clean, but it's funny. It may be a serious issue, but you're making light of it by acting in a positive way.

Laughter is usually associated with overblown or exagerated imagery, as though hollowly done for dramtic effect. Sort of mocking if you will. Like melodramatic tragedy that just barely doesn't happen. It creates enough tension that makes you [empathetically] nervous, but gives a last minute recovery.

Yeah, but as you said, fake laughter isn't laughter. That's all fake, it doesn't factor into the equation. (although, I do like me a good mock)

Things that tickle us on the inside make us laugh
Things that cut/scrape us on the inside make us cry

If you are sensitive enough both can happen simultaneously.

Ultimately tears have to come down to a real [really perceived] tragedy or misery,
Laughter comes down to an ending we think of as 'un-real' in some respect, sometimes because it doesn't matter to us directly.

Irrespective of the underlying reality, laughter is when some tragedy feels un-real [funny, gamey, someone is playing with you] for some reason, tears come when some tragedy feels real.

I like that explanation a lot. It keeps the separate, but points out the similarities between the two. Under the surface, on the surface, real, unreal. Very well said.

I always cried when I laugh so I guess my laugh and tears are related with each other.

Is something I can not control not matter what I do to avoid it, specially if I am wearing make up and have my eyes done is a pain in the neck, because my make up always get ruined.

.
(on about it again)

I think both laughter and tears have a sort of Mousetrap quality to them,
a small trigger mechanism(s) hold back a (some) large(r) fulcrum(s) of pressure/tension.

A delicate threshold mechanism/tension restricts/contains a (some) larger anxiety(ies).

a side note: phony laughter [a false un-reality detection response] is an incrediblly sophisticated intellectual response, wouldn't you agree? sort of a double falseness. It is so intellectual yet false it may sound almost repulsively or nauseating. Now imagine a person who cultivates a very warm realistic but false laughter, that sounds down right scary to me. A very supreme predatory mind indeed.

I was thinking some about anger too.
It is sort of an almost impossible to control activated state.
As primative animals we get angry, partly because we do not have the mental tools to deal with undesired situations in a more articulate manner.

I am quite sure anger is in most circumstances the least logical and therefore least effective response to situations that make a person unhappy.
I think much of the time when we get angry we are simply ready to be angry and almost anything will activate it.
I suppose if you can take out your anger (rage?) on some inanimate object it might free you up to deal with displeasing situations in a more rational manner.

I think consciousness is always an anxiety contained state.

Sometimes it is so well controlled/contained that it doesn't even register to our brains, but underneath that it still is a containment of agitation. When it is that well contained we register it as serenity, peace or contentment. I think people who meditate (pray?) reach some approximation of this state.

Life is always a delicate balance of organic chemical systems in an apparently inert Universe. Consciousness is probably the most delicate balance, we know of, of those systems in an apparently inert Universe.
.

.
Laughter is an involuntary convulsive response when an incoming image/idea does not connect emotionally or logically with the one who is laughing.

It touches you but does not snag you [catch you off guard].

It has no meaning root in the laughing minds world view.
It is [seems] a senseless/ridiculous image/idea.
The idea feels 'un-real', pretend, has no logic.
Is discrete and isolated from the mind.
Creates a non-chemical, non-interactive, purely physical wave disruption of consciouness. [probably of some particular size granularity]

The idea bobbles around and essentially tickles the mind but makes no rational type of connection.

Tears occur when an idea/image pierces/connects_with the mind.
Makes it spiritually bleed if you will.
Makes an emotional connection.
A sob is a kind of spasm response of consciousness.
Sort of an attempt to free the mind from the idea/image/associated_pain.

The really wierd thing is that i think both are probably, with appropriate stimulus, completely chemically/physically inducible.

Which is disturbing, because it says our beliefs in what is real and unreal are to a great degree subjective. The mind can be trained, i believe to do anything, at least once. [experience may or may not create counter training]

Our entire view of [connection with/feeling about] 'reality' is actually emotionally based.
Here is a case of a son, David, who could not, after an accident, 'believe' 'accept' that his mother and father were real. He thought they were imposters because his brain's vision to emotion center connection was severed. But because the auditory to emotion center was not severed when he spoke to them on the phone he felt [emotionally] that they were real.
NOVA: Secrets of the Mind

You could probably with internal stimulous/blocker implants train a human [or animal] brain to do anything. Especially by accessing and intercepting the emotional center connections.

If you can manipulate a person's view/feeling of what is real and not real you are at the heart of what motivates a creature to action or inaction.

We are completely dependant on what we perceive as real and not real. But if that is completely synthesizable, then everything we define as real and unreal has to, the intelligent mind, be treated as ambiguous.

In a competitive environment with sparring minds, laughter equates, i think, to a feint. Something has swiped at you and you are quick, nimble or tough enough that it does not cut/injure you.

But laughter is not a solution to everything. People who laugh a lot ofter don't pay as much attention to self-care and therefore can live shorter lives.

So there must be [under most circumstances] some optimal perception of what is 'real' and what is 'not real'.

Anger i think is an outward seeking response that works towards infliction of injury or at least conquest of that which has unfairly [at least in the mind of the actor] caused some form of injury. Like i said before, in many and perhaps most circumstances this has far more to do with perception than reality. Again to truly resolve or aleviate unfavorable conditions the rational approach is, i would estimate, the most [the only?] effective means of action.

I suppose anger does give one a kind of power, but with so little control that it is often [but i would guess not always] self defeating.
Anger is about destruction. Rationalized as destroying that which has offended one. Sometimes there is an intent to offend someone. Conversely much of the time the offense has exclusively to do with the sensitivities of the one who is offended.

I think we should be cautious about what we see as good triumphing over evil, in history and in our lives may really just be an overpowering of that which is less well equiped to defend itself.

I guess what i am saying is anger is often an illusitory reality.
Maybe one should keep one's potential for anger as deep seated as possible.

Offenses always have taken place in the past. The ability to shield one's self from the same type of offenses in the future seems a better tack to take rather than offensive action. It points out a vulnerability we have and no matter how much revenge we might take that vulnerability still exists, until we deal with the vulnerability itself.

*arguing with self*
"shut up you blow hard"
.