Those I’ve met who had the greatest wit and sense of humor were also quite intelligent, however, my point is that the correlation is less that perfect since I’ve also met some people who had high intelligence and extensive academic training, but were completely devoid of humor, both in neither being able to generate it nor recognize it.
Humor crosses over into very subjective territory, however it seems like a very high logical temperment is detrimental to humor - also, (for the lack of a better word) stupid people are very easily amused.
It seems to me it just matters how much humor is involved in your everyday life. As more intelligent people seem to be more introverted and thus have less interaction with others, their involvement in humorous situations would seem to be less, thus they would get less practice with humor. #armchairphilosophy
It seems to me that humor, or at least some humor, is the result of an acute ability to recognize illogical ideas or inconsistencies, particularly in regard to human interaction. I think it may take a very high, somewhat rare type of intelligence to recognize absurdity and then “dumb it down” so the rest of us can appreciate it. Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, Groucho Marx, Mark Twain, John Cleese, Charlie Chaplin, Gary Trudeau, Bill Watterson; does anyone think these people are, or were, unintelligent? Perhaps it’s a type of intelligence that’s hard to measure, one that is less easily assessed than the type of intelligence that produces the mathematician or physicist.
It seems to me that humor, or at least some humor, is the result of an acute ability to recognize illogical ideas or inconsistencies, particularly in regard to human interaction. I think it may take a very high, somewhat rare type of intelligence to recognize absurdity and then “dumb it down” so the rest of us can appreciate it. Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, Groucho Marx, Mark Twain, John Cleese, Charlie Chaplin, Gary Trudeau, Bill Watterson; does anyone think these people are, or were, unintelligent? Perhaps it’s a type of intelligence that’s hard to measure, one that is less easily assessed than the type of intelligence that produces the mathematician or physicist.
So, apparently, smoking pot increases your risk of testicular cancer. Sucks, I know. But there is good news. It seems that the risk can be lowered by using cocaine. So, you know. Toke ‘em up, boys. But for the love of your children, think of your health and snort some damn blow afterward. For the children.
So, apparently, smoking pot increases your risk of testicular cancer. Sucks, I know. But there is good news. It seems that the risk can be lowered by using cocaine. So, you know. Toke ‘em up, boys. But for the love of your children, think of your health and snort some damn blow afterward. For the children.
Hee, I dug it out.
You don’t have to resort to cocaine use. The higher correlation with testicular cancer was only with guys who didn’t use pot very often. Just use it regularly, and your testicles should be as safe as anyone’s.
I find a lot of stories about seemingly bizarre and/or pointless research conducted by scientists. And rather than fill the board up with links to them, I thought I’d make another of my category threads and just dump them all here.
I can most definitely say that I am not one these men. Not because I don’t find size-five feet attractive, but because I don’t really find any feet attractive. As far as I’m concerned all feet, regardless of size, are unattractive, clunky, and utilitarian appendages and unless a woman has hooves I don’t factor her feet in when I consider how attractive she is.
The formula for a perfect woman’s foot is a size five, wearing three inch heels and red toe nail varnish, according to the study.
Research by foot plaster company Compeed revealed nearly half of men will look at a woman’s feet on a first date and a third will make a character judgement based on the state of them.
Why?
Further research that shows that men who judge women by their foot size don’t get enough sex to test the theory.
