Scientists locate sarcasm in the brain

[n2doc]

HAIFA, Israel, May 23 (UPI) -- Israeli psychologists say one's ability to comprehend sarcasm depends upon a sequence of complex cognitive skills based in specific parts of the brain.

The researchers said in order for listeners to comprehend caustic remarks, they must be able to infer the speaker's intentions in the context of the situation. That, they said, calls for sophisticated social thinking and "theory of mind," or the knowledge that everyone thinks different thoughts.

For example, autistic children with a limited or missing "theory of mind," have trouble understanding irony, of which sarcasm is a form.

The team -- from the University of Haifa and Rambam Medical Center in Haifa -- studied 25 participants with prefrontal-lobe damage, 16 participants with posterior-lobe damage and 17 healthy subjects for control. All participants listened to brief recorded stories, some sarcastic and some neutral, taped by actors reading in a corresponding manner.


http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2005/05/23/Scientists-locate-sarcasm-in-the-brain/UPI-53981116878375/

[Richardo]

1. THAT'S really useful

:eyes:

[tekisui]

2. Sure they did.

[JohnnyLib2]

3. Thanks for this post.

This may be an esoteric part of science/medicine, but has importance in the whole are of human relations.

[Ian David]

4. ...

[snagglepuss]

5. If this is soooo great and important why not give them an award or don't

you do awards?

[MineralMan]

6. I have located sarcasm several times, right here on DU...

Imagine that...

[BadgerKid]

7. Yeah right.

[snagglepuss]

9. Don't agree with your graph. Sarcasm is just a debased form of irony intended

to wound and humiliate its target.

[unblock]

12. completely incorrect.

humor, intelligence, and wit can all be used to wound and humiliate, or not.

when sarcasm shows up in a failing relationship as an outlet to sublimate anger, sure, it's meant to wound and humiliate, but that's hardly the only place it shows up.

[snagglepuss]

14. Nothing is more satisfying than to be proven right except perhaps the satisfaction

of proving another wrong. A quick little oogle at google was all that was necessary to substanstiate that you are flat out wrong. WooHoo.



"Sarcasm is the use of words to damage the reputation of, or hurt, another person. It is “a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter jibe or taunt.” <1> Some authorities sharply distinguish sarcasm from irony, as in: “Irony must not be confused with sarcasm, which is direct: sarcasm means precisely what it says, but in a sharp, caustic, ... manner.”<2>. However, others would argue that sarcasm may involve, or often does involve, irony. Thus: “sarcasm does not necessarily involve irony. But irony, or the use of expressions conveying different things according as they are interpreted, is so often made the vehicle of sarcasm…”; and “The essence of sarcasm is the intention of giving pain by (ironical or other) bitter words.” <3>



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm





Am I right to assume you regularly employ sarcasm? I assume so because I've never met a sarcastic person who didn't claim that their barbed comments were simply witty, playful, harmless remarks;)

[unblock]

16. not so sure....

http://www.sarcasmsociety.com/sarcasm

Sarcasm is defined in The Oxford Universal Dictionary, published in 1933, as "a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter gibe or taunt." More contemporary definitions often emphasize the false, mocking praise and verbal irony of sarcasm rather than its malicious or scornful intent. However, the etymology of the word "sarcasm" clearly indicates that wounding was--at least historically--the primary point. The word comes from the late Latin sarcasmus, derived from the Greek sarkasmos ("a sneer, jest, taunt, mockery") and sarkazein ("to speak bitterly, sneer"--literally, "to strip off the flesh" or "to bite the lips in rage").


i don't dispute your interpretation historically or etymologically, but modern definitions of sarcasm have evolved. i should point out that even where sarcasm is cutting, bitter, or biting, the target isn't necessarily another person; it could be the speaker or an idea.

personally, i employ (or try to employ) wit and irony and dry humor more than sarcasm per se, but i certainly appreciate good sarcasm.

[BadgerKid]

13. Yes, I think the graph is incomplete.

Sarcasm can touch upon many aspects: intelligence, humor, irony, overexaggeration, humiliation, etc.

I appreciate good sarcasm, and unfortunately I often fall short of creating it myself as evidenced by my original subject line x(

[charlie]

8. Computer program locates sarcasm online

Which is like recognizing water in the ocean, I suppose. Still, a pretty remarkable achievement...

...SASI, a Semi-supervised Algorithm for Sarcasm Identification, can recognize sarcastic sentences in product reviews online with pretty astounding 77 percent precision. To create such an algorithm, the team scanned 66,000 Amazon.com product reviews, with three different human annotators tagging sentences for sarcasm. The team then identified certain sarcastic patterns that emerged in the reviews and created a classification algorithm that puts each statement into a sarcastic class.

The algorithms were then trained on that seed set of 80 sentences from the collection of reviews. These annotated sentences helped the algorithm learn what sorts of words and patterns distinguish sarcastic remarks – those that mean the opposite of what they literally convey, or that convey a sentiment inconsistent with the literal reading.

They then turned the algorithm loose on an evaluation set. Pattern evaluation efficiency scored accurately 81 percent of the time, while the overall precision of the pattern recognition/sarcasm categorizing algorithm was accurate in 77 percent of instances. Not bad for a computer’s first shot at interpreting the human sense of humor...

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-05/computer-algorithm-can-recognize-sarcasm-which-soooo-cool

[tinrobot]

10. Oh, now you tell me.

[robinlynne]

11. why do people doubt this? mkes perfect sense to me.

the control group is small, but other than that, why the sarcasm?

[snagglepuss]

15. The replies you are interpreting as straight sarcasm are actually ironical.

[robinlynne]

18. ok. wasn't sure.

[mhatrw]

17. Wow! That's by far the coolest thing I ever read!

[Orsino]

19. What a huuuuuge scientific advance. They must be sooooo proud.

(But thanks for posting.)