I think that this article presents an interesting perspective on seemingly innocent behavior and responses to that behavior. People tend to see the outward response elicited by tickling in a positive light. While I do think that there are social bonding elements to tickling, I can definitely see the plausibility of it being an evolutionary trait, designed to prepare individuals against attacks to vulnerable spots. I also remember that being tickled for me was often an unwelcome experience, often accompanied by a sense of vulnerability. When we engage in tickling games are we really rehearsing roles of dominance and subordination? I found the part in the article that talks about dogs appearing to smile when in a state of submission to be interesting. When some people are nervous, they will appear to smile as well (they will have the appearance of a taught smile). I have a question. What about people who laugh when they know they are about to be tickled? I know that the article talks about the element of surprise in relation to the effectiveness of tickling. But sometimes, when a person is trying to tickle me or touch a sensitive part of my body I will start giggling (without that person's hands actually coming into contact with the sensitive spot). Could this also be some nervous reaction? A tick?
Interesting article. I wonder about the thoughts on the ticklish parts of the body being those needing the most defending and that it is practice-play. Are the feet really so crucial?
Also, I don't think a closed survey can be done if the subjects are aware that they are going to be tickled, either by machine or person. I wonder what the results would have been like if they had no prior ideas of what was to happen?
This was an intriguing article, in that I really have always wondered about the strange mind-body relationship that comes about with tickling. My question would be why are some people more ticklish than others? Also, I wonder how and if people can learn to suppress this perhaps reflexive response to being tickled. If it is in fact an evolutionary physical response to danger, why would it be in the form of laughter? I wonder if they have used brain scans to answer any of these questions.
This was indeed a fascinating article. I would've enjoyed more information about how tickling or being tickled is directly linked to ways in which the brain functions which relates to some of the things we've learned in class. I would also like to know more about the author of this article and what her field of interest is.
What stood out to me, perhaps the most, was the question: "why can't people tickle themselves?" There was an answer given that it isn't a surprise when a person tickles his or herself. This is interesting when considering Dr. Alexander's logic behind tickling. He believes that no one would buy the Tickle Me Elmo doll if the toy tickled people. The author of the article provides no more of an explanation to his statement, but if tickling achieves laughter as a result of surprise, then who would buy a toy to tickle them when there would be no element of surprise? Furthermore, another scientist went on to say that tickling provides babies with an early defense strategy against attacks considering the most sensitive parts of the body to tickling are the same sensitive parts to attacks. So again, who would want to buy a Tickle Me Elmo doll to be willingly attacked?
Great article. I wish I used the names of the other scientists I was referring to in this coment but I would have to do a lot of going back and forth between pages. We'll discuss it in conference tomorrow.
The act of being tickled elicits laughter. As is stated in the article, laughter is a reflex, but as I've felt and observed, laughing also involves the contraction of muscle groups. This seems to be a protective response, much like a fight or flight reaction. Although one is normally friends or family with the people who tickle us, the ticklish areas are sensitive. Many of the areas go untouched in the every day (such as the armpit and the stomach) Perhaps, due to a lack of attention, the body maps in these areas have not fully formed. The Blakeslees place tickle with pain, itch, and temperature in relationship to emotion and homeostasis. Are we attempting to achieve a certain balance with laughter as a response to being tickled?
One thing that I found to be an interesting notion to this article early on is the idea that laughing is linked to happiness. The experiments conducted by Dr. Leuba in 1941 explained that he wore a mask; including an element of fear into the act of tickling, and the tone of the article suggest that it is odd that the response is laughter because laughter signifies ease and a certain level of 'happiness.' Perhaps there are different types of laughter? Is the laughter when tickled different than the laughter when a joke is told? Is the brain stimulated in the same way?
Another question that this article raised in my mind is a certain evolutionary concern for those who are in fact not ticklish. There are people that, even if tickled, do not laugh or flinch away to protect themselves. Is this an evolutionary gap? I also wonder about when a person is extremely ticklish, so much so that they shy away completely when someone is about to tickle them.
I also think there is a lot of truth to the idea of tickling as a play for dominance, especially between those who are of similar ages--and when they are related. This idea would also perhaps help to explain why the Tickle Me Elmo doll was so popular—especially when marketed to small children who do not have a lot of control over anything in their lives, except for perhaps their toys. This idea plays into the previously mention concept that tickling and the shrinking away/laughter is a way of protecting the vulnerable parts of the body.
This is reminiscent of some of the reading we recently did, though it was interesting that in this article the part about not knowing the exact place of stimulus being an important factor in why one cannot tickle oneself. I wonder if the assumption that people enjoy tickling (as it elicits laughter and smiles) is ACTUALLY held by the majority of people, because I am inclined to think that those who are ticklish, such as those test subjects, are much less likely to think tickling is so great. I also am curious as to how they determined the "ticklishness" of the person, if at all (ie just calling for "ticklish people"). I also agree with the "What's so great about the foot" sentiment, though I could see how that would be more socially acceptable as the researchers are strangers. But I know that, while an extremely ticklish person, my feet are not easily stimulated.
I think that this article presents an interesting perspective on seemingly innocent behavior and responses to that behavior. People tend to see the outward response elicited by tickling in a positive light. While I do think that there are social bonding elements to tickling, I can definitely see the plausibility of it being an evolutionary trait, designed to prepare individuals against attacks to vulnerable spots. I also remember that being tickled for me was often an unwelcome experience, often accompanied by a sense of vulnerability. When we engage in tickling games are we really rehearsing roles of dominance and subordination? I found the part in the article that talks about dogs appearing to smile when in a state of submission to be interesting. When some people are nervous, they will appear to smile as well (they will have the appearance of a taught smile).
ReplyDeleteI have a question. What about people who laugh when they know they are about to be tickled? I know that the article talks about the element of surprise in relation to the effectiveness of tickling. But sometimes, when a person is trying to tickle me or touch a sensitive part of my body I will start giggling (without that person's hands actually coming into contact with the sensitive spot). Could this also be some nervous reaction? A tick?
Interesting article. I wonder about the thoughts on the ticklish parts of the body being those needing the most defending and that it is practice-play. Are the feet really so crucial?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't think a closed survey can be done if the subjects are aware that they are going to be tickled, either by machine or person. I wonder what the results would have been like if they had no prior ideas of what was to happen?
This was an intriguing article, in that I really have always wondered about the strange mind-body relationship that comes about with tickling. My question would be why are some people more ticklish than others? Also, I wonder how and if people can learn to suppress this perhaps reflexive response to being tickled. If it is in fact an evolutionary physical response to danger, why would it be in the form of laughter? I wonder if they have used brain scans to answer any of these questions.
ReplyDeleteThis was indeed a fascinating article. I would've enjoyed more information about how tickling or being tickled is directly linked to ways in which the brain functions which relates to some of the things we've learned in class. I would also like to know more about the author of this article and what her field of interest is.
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out to me, perhaps the most, was the question: "why can't people tickle themselves?" There was an answer given that it isn't a surprise when a person tickles his or herself. This is interesting when considering Dr. Alexander's logic behind tickling. He believes that no one would buy the Tickle Me Elmo doll if the toy tickled people. The author of the article provides no more of an explanation to his statement, but if tickling achieves laughter as a result of surprise, then who would buy a toy to tickle them when there would be no element of surprise? Furthermore, another scientist went on to say that tickling provides babies with an early defense strategy against attacks considering the most sensitive parts of the body to tickling are the same sensitive parts to attacks. So again, who would want to buy a Tickle Me Elmo doll to be willingly attacked?
Great article. I wish I used the names of the other scientists I was referring to in this coment but I would have to do a lot of going back and forth between pages. We'll discuss it in conference tomorrow.
The act of being tickled elicits laughter. As is stated in the article, laughter is a reflex, but as I've felt and observed, laughing also involves the contraction of muscle groups. This seems to be a protective response, much like a fight or flight reaction. Although one is normally friends or family with the people who tickle us, the ticklish areas are sensitive. Many of the areas go untouched in the every day (such as the armpit and the stomach) Perhaps, due to a lack of attention, the body maps in these areas have not fully formed. The Blakeslees place tickle with pain, itch, and temperature in relationship to emotion and homeostasis. Are we attempting to achieve a certain balance with laughter as a response to being tickled?
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I found to be an interesting notion to this article early on is the idea that laughing is linked to happiness. The experiments conducted by Dr. Leuba in 1941 explained that he wore a mask; including an element of fear into the act of tickling, and the tone of the article suggest that it is odd that the response is laughter because laughter signifies ease and a certain level of 'happiness.' Perhaps there are different types of laughter? Is the laughter when tickled different than the laughter when a joke is told? Is the brain stimulated in the same way?
ReplyDeleteAnother question that this article raised in my mind is a certain evolutionary concern for those who are in fact not ticklish. There are people that, even if tickled, do not laugh or flinch away to protect themselves. Is this an evolutionary gap? I also wonder about when a person is extremely ticklish, so much so that they shy away completely when someone is about to tickle them.
I also think there is a lot of truth to the idea of tickling as a play for dominance, especially between those who are of similar ages--and when they are related. This idea would also perhaps help to explain why the Tickle Me Elmo doll was so popular—especially when marketed to small children who do not have a lot of control over anything in their lives, except for perhaps their toys. This idea plays into the previously mention concept that tickling and the shrinking away/laughter is a way of protecting the vulnerable parts of the body.
This is reminiscent of some of the reading we recently did, though it was interesting that in this article the part about not knowing the exact place of stimulus being an important factor in why one cannot tickle oneself. I wonder if the assumption that people enjoy tickling (as it elicits laughter and smiles) is ACTUALLY held by the majority of people, because I am inclined to think that those who are ticklish, such as those test subjects, are much less likely to think tickling is so great. I also am curious as to how they determined the "ticklishness" of the person, if at all (ie just calling for "ticklish people"). I also agree with the "What's so great about the foot" sentiment, though I could see how that would be more socially acceptable as the researchers are strangers. But I know that, while an extremely ticklish person, my feet are not easily stimulated.
ReplyDelete