There is a demonstrable laughter gap between the sexes. Why is that?

For background on the laugh gap—including the crucial datum that laughter is less often a reaction to genuine humor than an involuntary response that functions as a social lubricant*—go here. For competing explanations, go here.

* People in groups laugh heartily at quips that are marginally humorous at best. People laugh at the boss’s weak jokes. And so on. Yet more dissection here. Laughter is a way we reassure one another that we’re “playing, not fighting.“

“I thought the Times-Dispatch was in favor a preserving a place for smokers to lite up?“ (Margie)

Yes, in one editorial they did pose some type of rhetorical question on whether or not a smoker should still be allowed a place to light-up. It was in the form of a question and not a statement of belief. Overall—in the 3 or 4 editorials that they even mentioned the topic—the Times-Dispatch only faintly re-stated their blanket preference of “the market” determining such issues.

When the Times-Dispatch is AGAINST an idea they go after it viciously: Strong, cutting statements and pointed cartoons. They did not even put their gloves on for this communist-like smoking proposal.

In summary, Margie, the RT-D seems to be saying they hope all restaurants ban smoking on their own accord — so that the government doesn’t come-in and do it for ‘em. But they are clearly in favor of seeing the ban happen—even if they’re only doing so as Closet Commies.

“...it will pass, sooner or later, because most people want it to.“ (Margie)

I don’t believe that.

I’m a little confused. I thought the Times-Dispatch was in favor a preserving a place for smokers to lite up? Did I misunderstand their editorial? And yes, it will pass, sooner or later, because most people want it to.

Hi Margie, Yes the pseudo-progessive Times-Dispatch defiantly trumpets a return of this dumm-dumm bill — even going so far as to wildly predict its passage. ‘We’ll be back.‘ Shakin’ in my boots I am.

My friends at RT-D confuse this type of law with progress. But progress is not simply doing any ol’ thing that the neighbors do. Rather, progress is the implementation of meaningul changes (i.e., to Think Big). Stopping Freddy from lighting-up in an Oyster Bar is not a meaningiful change—it does not actually improve quality of life for most people.

Just followed the last link. So, ok, if I don’t laugh much it isn’t because I lack a sense of humor, it is bacause I am high enough up the business or social chain that I no longer have to laugh. Got it. I’ll have to practice holding a poker face. Could it possibly be that all this is a pseudointellectual overanalysis of a simple case of we just laugh because it makes us happy?

Alas, Larry, it ain’t over yet! They’ll be back next year and the next for as long as it takes. Guess the old saying,“He who laughs last, laughs best” would be appropriate here. The tobacco and business lobby will put up a good fight but it is doomed to fall before the majority will in the end. As it should be, whether I like it or not.

I think in Central Va, at least, the Laugh Gap may have decreased drastically over the past couple of weeks. Both females AND males laughed in unison at Gubbner Kaine’s ludicrous proposal…which I won’t belabor any further.

Don’t you all think that it’s highly amusing that Bart headlined his piece about humor with an extremely funny (due to its stark bluntness) headline?

I’m wondering if there might be an evolutionary factor here not mentioned. Have women, over the millenium, discovered that men who laugh often and easily, who joke and find life amusing, are less threatening and intimidating? Do they encourage this trait instinctively by rewarding it with laughter and approval? The rules of civilization have not always applied to male behavior toward females and their size and strength had to be dealt with in more subtle ways than combat. Did that deeper empathy develop in females as a self-defense mechanism? Fasinating, as Spock would say.

Post Your Comments: