“Scientists Hint at Why Laughter Feels So Good”
By James Gorman
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/science/14laughter.html
Laughter is something that is apart of our daily lives; or at least we hope it is! But why is this action enjoyable to human beings? This question is something that James Gorman reports on. Laughter has always been viewed in a positive way with no real explanation as to why this is the case. Dr, Dunbar, an evolutionary physiologist, has looked deeply into this socially accepted phenomenon. He proposes that laughter feels good to humans, not because of the intellectual affect that we enjoy humor, but because of the physical effect it immerses to humans. Many tests that him and his colleagues have performed, have proven that the muscle exertions involved in laughter give off endorphins into the brain. Endorphins are chemicals that have are neurotransmitters in the brain. Therefore, many of us know them as “feel good chemicals”, because they trigger a positive reaction in our bodies. To first test this, Dr. Dunbar and his team decided that they would test pain resistance of individuals, before and after laughter. The reason why he tested pain resistance is because pain resistance shows the presence of endorphins in the brain. Scientists are not able to analyze endorphins because they are brain chemicals, and thus cannot be seen in blood samples. His results eliminated the commonly known hypothesis that pain resistance is dependent on the well being of a person, rather than laughter. However, to further test these results on a higher level, he carried out further experiments. Dr. Dunbar decided to closely look into “social laughter”, laughter that he would describe as relaxed, unforced, natural, and contagious. In this study, he had humans watch comedy videos (test results of laughter), neutral videos (not intentionally meant to make someone laugh), and “feel-good” videos (positive videos, not made to make one laugh). The time each person laughed was recorded, and their pain resistance was tested before and after the showing of the films. The results of this experiment proved that the more laughter, the higher the pain resistance of a human being was. The good feeling videos had no effect on their pain resistance, and therefore, eliminated the other hypothesis. Therefore, because the laughter generated the most pain resistance, Dr. Dunbar was able to conclude that laughter creates many endorphins in the brain. His conclusions are the reason why we all enjoy laughter.
Laughter is with out a doubt a universal activity in our world. Dr. Dunbar’s discoveries about the benefits have laughter have a major affect on humanity. He has proposed that laughter contributed to the bonding of human beings since the beginning of time. And to this day, laughter continues to make social human beings. This proposal relates back to the study of evolution. Dunbar believes that laughter could have brought together groups of human beings. With out the bonding of humans, communities, towns, cities, countries, and even continents would not exist. Everyone would be on their own. If laughter is something that humans used to bond together, then by evolution theories, it must be an adaptation. This use of inductive reasoning shows that laughter was an early mechanism in primates. This is evident in the laughter of apes. The laughter of apes is them panting. This connection, has proposed that the sounds of apes laughing, “pant- pant”, eventually evolved into the sound of human beings laughing, “ha-ha”. Although this new discovery in science affects our world as a whole, it can individually affect us. Next time we laugh, we now know what is causing us to feel good. Therefore, now that we know that laughter causes endorphins, next time we are feeling down if laughing doesn’t do the trick, we can try to feel better by doing another activity that releases endorphins. For example, a physical activity such as running. Since laughter is a universal aspect of life, the studies of laughter in this article have a huge impact on the study of human beings.
Overall, I thought this article was extremely interesting. The topic chosen is something that is relatable to all readers. Whether you are interested in science or not, the topic was friendly to all interests. Therefore, the topic was relatable and personal to readers. Another strength of the article was the way Gorman followed the studies of one scientist. By doing this, the reader is able to follow the information clearly, with out any ambiguity as to what is being tested. Furthermore, Gorman also did a good job explaining the thoughts of Dunbar through relevant quotes. Last, I thought a strong point of the article was the way Gorman added in the information about evolution. This point makes the article strong because it gives readers insight on how human beings have evolved over time. Although Gorman has many strong points, one weakness was his organization. I think that he presented the information somewhat out of order, and should have grouped some information together as suppose to stating related facts in different sections of the article. However, overall I believe this article was very good and engaging.
Citation:
Gorman, James. “Scientists Hint at Why Laughter Feels So Good” New York Times Online. 15 Sep2011. 13 Sep2011.
This review by Amanda was a very well-constructed response, and there are many aspects that were particularly well presented. Firstly, her hook at the beginning of her review was a strong statement that was not only funny but made the point of the article clear, thus making the reader want to read further. Also, she presented the experimentations of the scientists particularly well. She explained the various experiments mentioned in the article very thoroughly, and she made clear the reasons behind the particular experiments. Lastly, she provided interesting insight to the article that everyone can learn from and compare their thoughts to on the article itself. While there are many positive aspects of the review, there are improvements that could make the review better. The last paragraph of the review was repetitive in the beginning, and Amanda could have elaborated on the fact that running releases endorphins more. One thing that I learned from the article was the fact that our laughs as humans evolved from the laughs of apes. Overall, I though Amanda’s review of this fascinating article was thorough and well presented.
ReplyDeleteAmanda did a very good job summarizing the article. She picked an article that is interesting, and relevant and summarized it in a way that was easy to understand. Amanda also did a good job in defining terms like “endorphins”. Another strong point is how the article encompasses the history of laughing and how it has evolved as we as humans has evolved. To improve the summary Amanda can fix a few grammatical errors for example “him and his colleges have…” Amanda also could condensed the summary a little more because she repeats some of the same points. Overall I found this article very interesting, especially the fact that before humans apes, using laughing to build relationships just like we do.
ReplyDeleteAmanda did a great job presenting her review on this article. She wrote it in a well-structured systematic manner; bringing the reader into the subject; clearly stating what was going to be discussed, that laughter is a phenomenon that humans enjoy because of the physical effect it has on the brain; the experiments done to test that hypothesis; how it effects our view on human evolution; and her thoughts on the article. Writing her review in that way made the subject very coherent and strengthened it because it flowed. Amanda presented the experiments preformed by Dr. Dunbar to prove his hypothesis very well by thoroughly explaining the procedures so that they were comprehensible, like why endorphins cannot be analyzed directly. By presented Dr. Dunbar’s proposal that his conclusions are proof that laughter is key to human existence by being an evolutionary adaptation that brought humans together as groups Amanda does a great job of connecting Dr. Dunbar’s work and making it relevant to human activity today. In Amanda’s review she makes very strong points but there are a few things she could do to make it stronger. She could be a little less repetitive in her conclusion by condensing it, and going a little bit more into depth about what it would impact specifically on the study of human beings. I loved reading about why laughter feels so good and was very interested by the evolution of laughter in humans, from the panting of primates, to the chuckle it has become.
ReplyDeleteAmanda did certain things very well in her review. The first is the amount of detail she included. From the description of the experiment to her explanation of endorphins and their function, a reader felt very well informed. Another thing I found was very well presented was her indication of the importance of laughter in our world. The sentence regarding the formation of communities was especially influential. Her last paragraph, which gave her own opinion about the article, was very interesting to read. She explained why it related to a reader quite well.
ReplyDeleteThere are other things Amanda could work on for her next review. The first involves grammar. There were a few sections that could have been cleaned up a little bit, like when she wrote, “him and his colleagues,” and “with out,” (as opposed to without). Also, some word usage was confusing, like when she described laughter as “universal.”
One thing I learned from this article that stuck out was the relationship between pain and laughter. The fact that laughter reduces pain is quite intriguing.
This review by Amanda was exceptionally well. She picked a very interesting topic that any biology student would enjoy reading about. Amanda did a few things really well. Firstly, she wrote the article in simple terms, which allowed anyone to understand it. A more complicated write up would have confused the topic and weakened her review, but she did a great job keeping it straightforward. Secondly, Amanda did a really good job at providing a lot of detail. This kept the reader interested as they were going through his experiment. Finally, Amanda did a good job relating this article to the global scale. She explained perfectly how laughter was part of evolution, as an adaptation. This showed really goof insight and analysis in the article. One thing Amanda could have done to improve the review, might have been to condense it a little. Towards the end it seems a little redundant. Secondly, she could have elaborated on other endorphins. Overall I thought this was a great review. I found the section about evolution particularly surprising, because I would have never guessed that ape’s panting evolved to our “ha-ha.”
ReplyDeleteIn her response to the article, “Scientists Hint at why Laughter Feels So Good” by James Gorman, Amanda was able to successfully incorporate the major points that made the article thought provoking and entertaining. Throughout the article, Gorman stresses that laughter clearly has an impact on the way that a person experiences pain, and Amanda effectively brought up the different scientific trials that are mentioned. In particular, Amanda discussed Dr. Dunbar’s laughter trial, which consisted of a person wearing an ice bandage around their arm before and after laughter so that pain resistance levels could be documented. It was important for Amanda to mention this point because a major aspect of Gorman’s article is analyzing how laughter physically effects the human body. Amanda also mentioned that laughter serves as a bonding between humans and groups, therefore bringing people together. Amanda used this fact in order to emphasize that a major reason that laughing feels so good is because people are able to share active happiness with one another. Thirdly, Amanda successfully presented the type of laughter that Gorman says is the source of the “feel-good” mood as people laugh, which is the easy, natural laughter.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Amanda did an amazing job in presenting this article, there are a few elements that the review could also include. One factor that was not presented in the review was how laughter knows no language, and can come just as easily if the laugher has no idea what is happening than when it does. Another important factor is the comparison that Gorman made with laughter to grooming. Gorman talks about how laughter brings people together in such a way that can be directly related to the way that grooming occurs between monkeys. A particular point that was very impressive in this article and review was how laughter opens up a “brain barrier” that allows for endorphins to rush to the brain, creating a good feeling in the body. Both this article and review were very well written and it was enjoyable to read both because several facts about a natural act were introduced to me.
Amanda did a fantastic job of reviewing this article. She very clearly described the experiment and procedure the scientists were performing, and gave good background information on some of the chemicals involved to make sure everything was understandable. It was a wise choice to examine an article like this as laughter is such a prominent part of human life. The connection she made between early civilizations and the bonding power of laughter was also very insightful and a good read. She also had a very strong review of the article herself. However, there were quite a few grammatical errors that should be fixed when posting a review. As well, there was lots of redundancy throughout the review, though for the most part it flowed very nicely. I had never really thought about how laughter may have positively influenced past societies, so I was surprised and excited to learn a bit about that history. Overall Amanda’s review was incredibly informative and detailed, while staying on topic.
ReplyDeleteAmanda Austi wrote a review on an article that dealt with the biological consequences of laughter. One point that was well presented was how laughter is believed to release endorphins, which causes our bodies to “feel good.” She also presents well how the experiment was undertaken. She describes that James Gorman was testing “social laughter” and that he had different groups watch different videos to account for different variables. In this case he had one group watch funny videos that were meant to produce laughter, another group watch unfunny, interesting videos, and one more group watch “feel-good” videos that were not meant to make people laugh. By testing these groups Gorman was able to derive the consequences of laughter through the use of pain tests administered before and after the watching of the videos. Amanda also presents well the evolution of laughter. She explains how primates bond together over panting (which is their form of laughter.)
ReplyDeleteOne aspect of Amanda’s review that could be improved is her spelling and grammar. There are several cases throughout her review where she either uses an incorrect word, or a word that simply does not fit into the sentence. Also, she could work on making smoother transitions from one idea to another. For example, she states, “His conclusions are the reason why we all enjoy laughter.” The reader understands what she is trying to say, but there are a million better ways to form that sentence.
I am amazed by the fact that social laughter exists outside of the human species. I had always thought laughter was unique to humans because I believed it required more sophisticated brain functions to even understand something that would cause laughter in the first place. The fact that primates have their own form of laughter is incredibly interesting to me.