Monday, June 18, 2012

The Quantification of Schadenfreude: Part I


Donatien Alphonse François, better know as the Marque de Sade once stated, “It is always by way of pain one arrives at pleasure.” It would be easy to dismiss the Marque’s claim, considering the pain he was referring to involved spanking teenage hookers and spent most of his days in an insane asylum, writing about spanking teenage hookers. But the moment I heard my grandmother, a caring and gentle woman, laughing aloud as I explained in detail how I managed to break my arm in half, I realized the Marque may have been more cunning than coo coo, and that the relationship between pleasure and pain is as complicated as it is symbiotic. 

Unfortunately for us English speakers, our language never got around to creating its own term for this relationship, and must refer to the German word schadenfreude, which roughly translates to damaged joy. And sure, I understand that the Germans have an above average grasp of sadism, but in my opinion, deferring to former genocidal fascists to define anything related to joy, damaged or not, is just bad policy. That said, the German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer once touted this type of pleasure  as the most evil sin of human feeling, saying, "To feel envy is human, to savor schadenfreude is devilish." And he might be right. In that sadism, in its purest form, is a choice, and in the case of schadenfreude, which is a seemingly automatic and pleasurable response to the unfortunate, is still a choice. -Albeit a subconscious, highly passive and much funnier choice, a choice nonetheless. Because of this, it’s easy to understand why Mr. Schopenhauer considered schadenfreude, and all of mankind for that matter, evil.

Aristotle wrote in his Nicomachean Ethics that envy, or rather the opposite of envy, or what he called, epikhairekakia, was the cause of man’s keenness of another man’s failure. John Ray, the father of modern English naturalism believed “misery loves company,” which means, when someone’s in pain, sobbing to those with similar sorrows will, in theory, make them empathetic and therefore feel better. But the Marque would have us believe the contrary, that company loves misery, and the reason miserable people feel better in the company of other miserable people is not empathy, but rather people observing others with problems worse than their own and are pleased to see their life could be worse. This is why you, i.e. company, can’t help but enjoy a grown man catching a baseball with his crotch, aka, misery. But why?        

Rob Reiner said it best when he stated, “comedy is when you fall into a pit and get impaled on a spike, and tragedy is when you stub your toe.” But are Mr. Reiner, the Marque De Sade, and Aristotle to have us believe humans are all merely a bunch sadistic pricks who revel, exponentially in the disproportionate severity of the suffering of others by imagining ourselves enduring said tragic event, and are just glad that it’s not us that's been impaled on the spike? With this logic, pain equals comedy, therefore more pain will equate to more comedy. As proven here:


But if comedy were this straightforward, wouldn’t struggling comedians simply take the stage, pull out a hatchet and begin hacking away at their limbs until humor is achieved? Probably. That’s why Mark Twain believed, “comedy is tragedy plus time.” Which means pain, or “tragedy,” would have to exceed a certain amount of time, or repeat itself (x) number of times, in order to become comically viable. This explains why stubbing a toe once can result in tragedy, but if a toe is stubbed, say two times in two minutes, comedy will increase because the initial tragedy has been repeated in a short amount of time. However, the severity of each stubbing, which theoretically should multiply the level of pain exponentially, would therefore increase the tragedy’s comedic value. For instance, if someone, other then yourself were to stub a toe, say five times in fifteen minutes and then happens to sever that toe upon the fifth stubbing, which causes massive bleeding and results in death, the event would unequivocally equate to humor. As proven here   






But death, as well as levels of pain exceeding 10, as seen in Figures 1 & 2, enter a grey area of schadenfreude. Because ultimately the level of humor will be based on the relative distance, both physically and characteristically of the relationship of the individuals taking part in the event which could literally involve millions of factors. For example: height, weight, age, sex, race, species, context, insecurities, occupation, religion, pain tolerance, distance, use of “cuss” words, and most importantly, irony*.
*All factors are subject to large variances due to subjectivity, sense of humor, and ability to detect and or appreciate irony.












As figure 3. illustrates, a thirty-three-year old male deriving pleasure from the death of a short, squat-heavy, elderly, African American, female, human, with a lisp, from Atlanta via multiple toe stubbings would be far more difficult, due to an inability to relate, then say, the toe stubbing demise of a tallish, thirty-three-year-old, white, well spoken, protestant, human, insurance claimant, from New Hampshire and is why we laugh at our friends, family and those we know well, when they trip and fall.   

While familiarity and relatability are important, physical distance is one of the most critical factors. Because if the man in figure 3. is standing, let’s say three-feet from the man when stubbing his toe, he would not, assuming he’s not a sadistic fuck, be able to laugh as they say, in his face. Therefore, it’s fundamentally important to witness a tragedy from a distance far enough to, A. conceal all enjoyment, i.e. pointing and laughing, and, B. not be required to help. Hence, the popularity of books and movies, which places the observer at the scene, just not physically, and allow he or she to do nothing but safely snicker from somewhere from the future and not offend those involved.

As proven here:






Then of course there’s context. In that, do those incurring the pain deserve it or not? Immanuel Kant, in his Lectures on Ethics, regarded the desire for revenge as, “the sweetest form of schadenfreude.”  It's difficult to argue with Kant here. For thousands of years, and even today, to a lesser degree in the United States, humans garner enjoyment from watching the guilty pay for their sins in public. Therefore, proximity aside, if we had witnessed the aforementioned man, say, dropkick a couple of puppies and then stub his toe, we would have chalked it up to karmic revenge and laughed in his face, wishing the man was then mauled by a pack of wolves with AIDS and suffered more than the puppies. As proven here:   
 However, even allowing for all aforementioned variances, including distances and context, there can be no absolutes. In that, if the elderly black woman after the fifth stubbing happens to use profanity during her final words by proclaiming, in a lispy southern accent, “Mossafoka’! I fink I loth my mossafokin’ thoe!” the incident’s comedic value would most likely surpass the younger, more relatable tragedy. Because in the world of quantitative humor, cuss words, specifically the word fuck and its many connotations, represent an unknown and dynamic dynamic that, depending on context, can approach infinity. As proven here: 



Irony, unlike cuss words, which can backfire in certain company, has the ability to transcend all levels of sadness and suffering and make comedy an absolute**.  For example, even if the elderly black woman’s last words included a lispy cuss word like “mossafuka,” if someone at the younger white man’s funeral, say the pastor,  happens to stub his or her toe on the casket during the ceremony, the irony, depending on the veritable quantity and quality, can actually multiply infinity and prove to be so overwhelmingly comical, not even a mourning mother would be safe from the comedic effects of schadenfreude. As proven here:




















**All factors are subject to large variances due to subjectivity, sense of humor, and ability to detect and or appreciate irony.












Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Don't Hate on Haiti



Every so often we earthlings get dealt a blow to humanity that rattles, if not destroys, our belief in all things good. This past week we watched as an earthquake leveled the island of Hispaniola, killing and injuring thousands of Haitians. Predictably, nations will join together to whip up a large scale humanitarian effort, the religious wingnuts will climb upon their soapboxes to tell us this was the devil’s doing, (video) and right-wing talk-show hosts will attempt to tarnish the Whitehouse’s efforts. But as I lay comfortably on my couch, (in the middle of one the world’s larger fault lines) and text aid Haiti’s way, I have two questions: Did the devil and or the White House have something to do with this? And second, how prepared am I for a cataclysmic event?

Below is the Venice Beach Tsunami Evacuation Map. This map is to be used if we Westside Angelenos endure an earthquake lasting longer than ten seconds.


As we can see, the greater Venice Beach and Marina Del Rey community will be completely engulfed by the Pacific Ocean. Now, I am unaware of any pacts made with the devil by Mayor Villaragosa, but a closer examination of this evacuation map and we reveal a very curious detail. Just north of Rose Ave a small area appears impervious to any and all tidal danger. Isn’t it a little curious that two entire towns will be lost while simultaneously creating the Rose Ave Peninsula? I would say so.


So who occupies this wave free haven? Perhaps a long lost descendent of Napoleon III who never learned to swim? Maybe Satan himself saw a real estate opportunity he couldn’t walk away from? Alas Mr. Robertson, there is no mark of the beast found on this building. It’s a quaint Hare Krishna temple. That’s right. These peace-loving, melodious, do-gooders are ripe to survive the next catastrophe Southern California will face. So one has to ask, is going veggie and dancing along the 3rd street promenade your best bet to survive God’s wrath? This tsunami evacuation guide seems to be proof enough for me. Then again, maybe these pastel laden folk just negotiated a better deal with the devil than those silly Haitians? Either that, or Mr. Robertson is absolutely insane.


I am not sure who actually follows Pat Robertson or listens to Rush Limbaugh, but they all need to make their way over to a mirror so they can accurately punch themselves in the face and wake up. The death and suffering of hundreds of thousands of people is not a “blessing in disguise,” nor does it involve any “pact with the devil.” It was a natural disaster that occurred in an impoverished country. America needs to lead by example and do everything we can to help the devastated nation of Haiti. Please Mr. Robertson and Mr. Limbaugh I plead of you, stop spreading your lunacy and racism to others and just be gone. Because there was no demonic pact made with any devil, a hill witch, or the boogie man. And I can assure you President Obama is not sitting around, rubbing his knuckles as the death toll rises in Haiti trying to figure out how to gain popularity with the “light skinned and dark skinned black community.” And while I am neither a doctor nor physically helping with the rescue effort, I am giving money rather than dissuading others from doing so, which, ironically, makes you Mr. Robertson look like the devil and you Mr. Limbaugh as a bona fide racist.


That said; if you happen to catch a flock of Hare Krishnas skipping around in life vests, I’d seek higher ground.


Donate: www.redcross.org

Friday, April 3, 2009

Think Healthily.


Getting the news these days is a lot like going to the grocery store. We have the ability to roam the aisles at leisure to pick and choose from a wide variety of products. Don’t care for Chris Mathews? POOF! Be gone. Hello Mr. O’Reilly. Mr. Olbermann’s rants not your cup of tea? Just hop in the car and crank up an earful of Rush. Matt Drudge’s blog leaning a little too far to the right for your liking? Then just paddle yourself on over to Miss. Huffington’s post. To be honest, listening to any of them for too long will ring even the deafest of ears, but, alas, we are what we eat. And unfortunately these bias pundits don’t come with that helpful list of nutritional facts to guide us to a healthy and sound perspective. But, then again it does not take all that much intuition to realize that Oreos, reduced fat or not, ain’t that good for you.

Now, I understand that giving conservative America a hard time right now is like watching one of those killer whales maim a baby seal by rag dolling it up and down the shoreline, but listening to some of the people that FOX News and Clear Channel have chosen to place in front of the mic has gone too far.

Clear Channel, owned by former Governor Mitt Romney, now pays Rush Limbaugh 50 million a year to play God to his listeners. Knowing that he is, for all practical purposes, the mouthpiece of conservative America is down right frightening. If you spend about five minutes listening to Mr. Limbaugh you get a very clear picture of where the conservatives get their foolish fodder. References to communism, socialism, a bias media, high taxes, big government, and an assault on the Bill of Rights by the left are what get broadcasted to his 20 million faithful. Mr. Limbaugh’s self perpetuating diatribes are nothing more than scare tactics, forced down the throats of the ignorant and bitter loyalist of conservatism. To me it’s just sad that one-liners about Teleprompters and articles regarding incorrect phone numbers are all that remains for this group to cheer about. Is this petty bitterness really going to last for the next four years? Will I have to continue to listen to the right talk about their freedom and watch as they masturbate to the mirage that is Ronald Reagan’s imaginary “shining city on a hill”? Has logic and knowledge been replaced by sound bites, partisanship, and living in the past?

The self-proclaimed “fair and balanced” FOX news channel has recently given Mr. Glenn Beck a television show. The fact that this guy’s comedy act is running on an alleged “news” channel is beyond me. Between Mr. Beck, Mr. Cavuto, and Mr. O’Reilly’s commentary I often wonder if FOX’s programming is all just a brilliantly executed practical joke being playing on the American people by Australian billionaire Rupert Murdoch. If this is the case, kudos to you sir. You got us. Good one. Really. Now please fucking stop. By distorting the truth, feeding the uninformed bias opinions, and mocking the intelligent you only hinder progress. But maybe that’s the point?

We need remember that our news will always be dispensed without warning labels, which is why our ability to think as individuals is paramount. Listening to the opinions of these former drug addicts and religious wingnuts because they have been given a higher perch from which to speak does not make them righteous. It makes them wealthy and self-aggrandizing, which in my opinion makes these sort of outlets a very dangerous source to receive one’s information. Not unlike this blog.

Monday, March 23, 2009

The "I" Phone


Last week I joined the 3 million other Americans who enjoy the mysterious wonders of the Apple iphone. I have said for years that technology is merely the progression of laziness, and after spending one week with Mr. Jobs’ new doohickey I can say with confidence that the iphone is a true contender for skippering this slothy movement.

“What’s that? You’re in the market for a purple sombrero? Let me find you one real quick.”

“Filipino cricket highlights? Let me see if I have an app for that. Eh! Whadda know?”

“What do you mean you can’t find a good strip joint that serves all-you-can-eat crab legs? Hold on a sec.”

I would be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy this kind of convenience and multiplicity, who wouldn’t? But I have put off buying an iphone for a few years now because it seems to me that of all the magical feats this device can accomplish, its two greatest abilities are dumbing us down and making friends disappear. It’s as if the iphone has allowed common sense and conversation to take a back seat to global positioning and text messaging.

Maybe I am being a little sensitive here, but when I go out for a drink with someone and they sit there slamming away on their “smart phone” instead of conversing, I feel like a real dick. I understand that there’s always going to be someone or something more interesting on the Internet than my company and that it’s all just a finger's flick away, but put that shit away. Why is it that we as a society have allotted unspoken rules of etiquette when talking on cell phones, but not for texting or surfing the web? One of the biggest problems is that surfing the web and texting among friends is contagious. If you stop paying attention to me and start finger jogging around the information super highway, I too will have to pick up my phone and start poking around. When this occurs I wonder why I'm even out? The two of us could have just stayed home, lounged around in our under ware eating cereal, and just send each other witty You Tube clips.

When it comes to navigation, I understand that some people are more challenged than others. But phones that tell you where to go and don’t have that synthesized voice shouting instructions are just dangerous. This past weekend I found myself driving at 50 mph looking down at the screen in order to find a Mexican restaurant instead of just looking for the sign that says “Mexican restaurant.” As I drove haphazardly down the road I pictured the glinty smirk on the face of the highway patrolman who had the duty of removing my severed arm from the side of the road. And feared that the officer, over a large pile of nachos, would make some tasteless joke involving the fact that, cradled in my lifeless palm, was an illuminated iphone telling him El Guapos was right around the corner. I am not sure, but is getting lost that terrifying? Are U-turns the end of the world? Can’t we all just leave a little earlier incase we loose our way? Sure you could ask one of the passengers in the car to pull out a map, but chances are they’re probably neck deep in a scorching game of isolitaire.

The irony here folks, is that our effort to become more connected has resulted in just the opposite. “B @ the bar @ 9” “C U there.” Yeah, I will just GPS the directions, and if I don’t die on the way there, “C U @ 9,” drunkenly sex messaging some ex-girlfriend in New York for an hour. What’s happened to using your noodle and figuring out how to get somewhere, or just turning off your phone when hanging out with friends?

I myself will make an effort to figure out where places are located before I hop in the driver’s seat, as well as try and keep my shiny new gizmo in pocket when among the dull.

Does anyone know if there’s an app that can help me with that?

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Dope Benedict XVI

Just when you think the Catholic Church can’t get any further behind the curve they once again trip over their flowing robes and fall right on their face. Today the Pope, on his first trip to Africa, told his followers that condoms were not the solution to AIDS, but rather part of the problem. That’s just brilliant. Is there anything more ludicrous than listening to a bunch of men, who may or may not have ever had sexual intercourse, give the world a sex ed lesson? Maybe I after finish this post I’ll just run down to the Kennedy Space Center and teach those boys a thing or two about ballistic rocket flight?

There are over twenty-two million people, the population of the state of Texas, living with the HIV virus in Sub-Saharan Africa, including eleven million orphans. You would truly have to believe that you’re anointed by God, which they do, in order to be this obtuse. Someone needs to explain to me how the Pope can show up, ironically dress up like gigantic rubber, and tell a dying continent lies about how to help itself because sex out of wedlock is a sin? Excuse me sir. What’s the ninth commandment again?

The World Health Organization has told the Vatican that by telling its followers that condoms don’t work will only cause more harm. Does the Vatican listen? Right. Why would they? They answer to a higher power, i.e. the voices that are trapped inside their thick skulls. The WHO has said that condoms, when used correctly, help reduce risk of HIV by 90%. Sure the Vatican can counter by saying abstinence can produce 100% effectiveness. Yeah, because people are going to suddenly stop having sex. And I think we’ve all seen how well abstinence has worked out for this pious bunch. The only thing the Catholic Church has ever done near 90% effectiveness is proselytize low hanging fruit and shuffle around its pedophiles.

Religion, at least in this case, has once again proven to be more harmful than helpful. We will have to unfortunately continue to wait in vain for something good to actually come from the supposed “good book.”

Paradoxically, Africa is the fastest growing region in the world for Roman Catholics. I guess when you can no longer sell ice to the Eskimos there's always Africans?