+298 It's cool how unlike talking and walking, we're never taught to laugh, yet we all do it in similar situations and with a similar sound, amirite?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Plagiarism.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay I'll pretend you didn't help me word it. That's not making fun of the rhyming.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You could've at least changed it a little d

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I took out what you had in parentheses. :P I tried to edit in a comma, but it was too late.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't think this post will do very well.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I hate you. You're the meanest chicken ever. :/

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Just being honest, look at how many votes it has!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

True. I didn't think it was that pathetic.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What's even happening here. Are you two banging or something?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't have relationships like that with birds.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

wary No...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Nack told me to say maybe... then it said no... so I felt stupid.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm still confus

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Did you just call me an it un

by Anonymous 11 years ago

THATS IT IM NOT BANGING YOU TONIGHT NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU BEG

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Fuck you.... (cry2)

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah you'd like that wouldn't you smirk

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Freaks

by Anonymous 11 years ago

This thread went from relatively normal to "What the fuck?" in under 5 hours.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I won't remember any of this tomorrow. I hope.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That'll probably take a lot of vodka.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Can we vote for a post to be potd based on the comments. And seriously nack, are you a boy or girl?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes you can. Do it. Nacks an it. I told you all that.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

All in favor of concluding that Nack is neither male or female?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

(cry2)

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Nack is nack. That's all that matters.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So Nack's not male or female, but not neither? These are too much thinks for my brain box.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Nack here's how you settle this. Take off your pants and underpants and post pics.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

There are males, females, and nacks. Nacks don't wear pants.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Can I sex a nack?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

we are taught to laugh, by our moms, you will find out when you have a baby. babies who are not played with and interacted with do not develop this response of smiling and laughing in fact they die.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

well, we aren't taught actively, but you are basically mimicking what your parent does when you see them smiling and laughing as you are an infant because it will get them to pay (more) positive attention to you. (i believe)

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Go away. We're talking about irrelevant stuff here.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

i didn't realize.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Are you male or female?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

why?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

See, brettward95, this is why you're my amirite crush. You're awesome. And yes I'm staying anonymous, don't judge me.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Go unanonymous so I can know who my fan is goo

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well, we're not taught to cry, either. Laughing is probably instinctual once a baby learns what kind of behavior is funny to it. Some say laughter is a defense mechanism.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Laughter as a defense mechanism? That's interesting. I can see it in some cases. When I'm angry, I laugh. When my dad tells a stupid joke, I laugh. But other times I laugh because...I just laugh. It's all so crazy. We're interesting creatures.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

We laugh when something unexpected happens, like someone tripping on a banana peel. The laughter tells our brain not to worry about the person, thus keeping our sanity. (That's one explanation)

by Anonymous 11 years ago

We aren't taught to walk or talk either. Not in the same way we learn calculus in a classroom or how to create acetylsalicylic acid in a lab, anyway.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

We do teach kids the language, though, by gesturing to people and objects and repeating their names.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And we also laugh in front of our children - same difference.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No, it isn't - babies can laugh without being taught how. It's a natural response to certain stimuli.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Babies can walk and talk without being taught how, too. Sure, babies have to endure people repeating words to them countless times, but none of them will tell the baby how to form the speech. And animals have been walking without being taught how for a long time.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Most parents teach their children to talk by constantly and obnoxiously asking them to say certain words.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That isn't teaching someone how to talk, though; it's just trying to get someone to mimic what someone else is doing. The process of speech is much more complex than just copying what someone else says; it involves control of the abduction of the vocal folds, manipulation of the tongue and the lips, and regulation of the flow of air through the respiratory tract. Walking is similarly as complex, involving control of a number of different muscle groups simultaneously. Sure, these are all things that we do subconsciously and without any real higher brain function control, but the fact remains that this is what it really means to talk or walk, and nobody actually teaches us how to do either of them in that way. They are really the next step up from crying and crawling, which are both things that we can do innately, without any outside influence, and without needing to be taught how.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Isn't getting someone to mimic something practically the definition of teaching?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Kind of. You're trying to get them to do the thing correctly. You show them how to do it, and they try to do it like you did.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No. The acts of mimicry and teaching are not one and the same; the latter takes many forms.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

In the end, it more often than not comes down to mimicry. Your math teacher tells you the steps to solve an equation and you copy what she's doing. Eventually you learn how to do it on your own.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Maybe when you're 13, but that will stop working for you pretty quickly if you intend to do anything worthwhile with your life.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Is there really another way lessons (as in school) are taught? The teacher shows you what to do, you take notes and practice it until you've mastered it. And for the record, I'm talking about being taught a skill. Obviously if you're being taught about how many gallons of water are in the ocean, mimicry won't work.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Teaching is about sharing and conveying knowledge, principally. It's more closely related to learning, which is also not the same as mimicry. You don't seem to get that, though. Learning a skill isn't about mimicry either (but nice one, I see what you did there, 'clarifying' what you meant now rather than two days ago in your initial comment). Learning a skill involves developing competence, which is not the same as mimicry. Would you want a surgeon to say he learned how to do bypass surgery or hip replacements through mimicry? I wouldn't.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Obviously mimicry isn't all it takes to learn a skill, but in a lot of cases it is a part of it and, in the case of learning to talk and walk, it's the only way to learn. What are you trying to imply? I realized as I was writing my last comment that are things, such as the example I mentioned, that definitely can't be learned through mimicry, so I was simply saying that I understood what I was talking about can't be applied in all situations. But you would probably complain if I acted like it did apply all the time too.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It really isn't the only way to learn. I don't think you really know what you're talking about - and I don't expect you to have the wealth of knowledge I do at your age. I do hate to patronise people who are younger than me, but, in this case, it just makes sense. Read a behavioural sciences textbook about learning and then you will understand. Maybe.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

How else do we learn to talk, then? And I've discussed this at length with people older and smarter than me during a workshop, the majority of whom agreed with what I was saying.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Being smarter than you doesn't mean they automatically know what you're talking about. I have seen people readily accept some pretty stupid things. Read a book about speech acquisition if you want to know how we learn to talk; I'm not about to summarise decades of work in a box on this website.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They said outright that they agreed with me, I'm going to guess that means they might have known what I was talking about.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

People agree outright with things all the time. That doesn't mean they understand. Patients readily accept everything that doctors say to them, even if they hold doctorate degrees themselves. The doctor could be spouting utter bullshit and the patients would still agree if it was plausible enough. Or the government. Just look outside your window and you'll see a similar thing at work there. Consensus doesn't automatically make what you're saying credible.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

We're not talking about any of those situations. What she's saying goes along with what I have learned more than what you are saying.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well I would still encourage you to read the same books I have recommended to the other girl, because my own knowledge (which I trust more than either of yours') contradicts this very page.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm much older than her and I find her to be more convincing than you.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's nice. I don't really care if you find a 13-year-old girl who is obsessed with some guy more convincing than me. You don't know my credentials so I don't feel I have anything to prove or defend. And even if you did, this is the Internet so I wouldn't be inclined to try.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Because finding somebody attractive automatically makes me less intelligent and my points less valid? Damn, everybody who's in a relationship must have the IQ of a railroad spike.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I didn't say that. The children of amirite sure do like to put words into other people's mouths and come to conclusions that were never alluded to. But, since you said it, it wouldn't surprise me if there was a correlation between pop star obsession and specialist intelligence - which, being at high school, you lack anyway.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

"I don't really care if you find a 13-year-old girl who is obsessed with some guy more convincing than me." In that sentence, you implied that both my age and liking Nate Ruess (who, by the way, is not just some pop star bubble-gum sensation) made my points less valid.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No, I was not. I was merely using descriptive words for the purpose of clarification of who or what the subject of that sentence was.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You really don't think we're taught how to walk?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think that animals have been mobilising unaided for millennia and toddlers manage to start toddling without their parents' help or encouragement. Though they may be learning how to walk, that does not mean to say that they are taught.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

There's no button for me to reply to the other comments. What is this?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

^This is to OP's reply to my comment. I can't reply on any posts. ;__;

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I can't on either (cry2)

by Anonymous 11 years ago