Tuesday, September 30, 2025
Tuesday, September 16, 2025
Ya know what!
Ya know…this domestic life s*cks. I just bought a house, and it is so boring to be here. I don’t belong in a domesticated environment. It doesn’t work for me. I need to be loose. The city is where I love. It’s so important to be in the city. Even if I don’t do anything, it’s where I belong. But the cost is prohibitive. Ya, I’m with you. IDK what it will take. A studio or a 1500sqft home. Let me think about it…
Interesting Movies
I'm just getting tired of watching interesting movies. I'm I'm just getting tired of it thats all.
Sunday, September 14, 2025
A Seasoned Thought
Introduction
The idea that young people might laugh at the mention of murder can be unsettling for adults. Murder, as one of the most serious social and moral violations, typically evokes feelings of horror, grief, and condemnation. Laughter in response to such a subject is therefore often misunderstood as evidence of cruelty or a lack of empathy. However, psychological and developmental research suggests otherwise. Young people’s inappropriate laughter at murder is more accurately explained through cognitive immaturity, defense mechanisms, and peer dynamics, all of which affect their understanding of death and violence.
Cognitive Development and the Concept of Death
Young people’s limited grasp of mortality plays a central role in shaping their reactions. Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development demonstrates that children gradually progress toward abstract reasoning, reaching what he termed the formal operational stage around age 11 (Piaget, 1972). Yet even at this stage, understanding the permanence and finality of death requires personal experience and emotional maturity. Without such grounding, murder can appear less like a tragic event and more like an abstract or exaggerated idea. Media further complicates this developmental gap. Violence is often portrayed in films, television, and video games in ways that distort its consequences. Characters may be “killed” only to return in sequels, or digital avatars may be eliminated and immediately respawn. These portrayals can blur the line between fiction and reality, encouraging some young people to treat murder as a spectacle rather than an irreversible act. When confronted with the subject in real life, their laughter may stem not from disregard, but from interpreting it through the lens of fictional, consequence-free violence.
Laughter as a Defense Mechanism
Psychological theory also explains laughter as a means of coping with discomfort. Sigmund Freud (1928) argued that humor and laughter often serve as defense mechanisms, protecting individuals from anxiety-provoking material. For young people, murder can trigger confusion, fear, or unease. Yet lacking the emotional tools to articulate these feelings, they may resort to nervous or inappropriate laughter. In this context, laughter functions not as cruelty but as a release of internal tension, a way of managing what they cannot fully process.
Social Dynamics and Peer Influence
Beyond individual psychology, social dynamics strongly shape young people’s responses. Lev Vygotsky (1978) emphasized that learning and behavior are heavily influenced by peer interactions. Within adolescent groups, laughter at dark or taboo subjects can serve as a bonding mechanism, signaling detachment or maturity. In such cases, laughter does not necessarily reflect a personal attitude toward murder but rather a desire to conform to group norms. Adolescents often test social boundaries, and laughing at something forbidden may be a form of this experimentation.
Moral Development and Empathy
Over time, as young people mature, their responses to violence tend to shift. Lawrence Kohlberg’s (1984) theory of moral development highlights how individuals move from self-centered moral reasoning in childhood to more principled ethical thinking in adolescence and adulthood. With increased life experience—particularly exposure to death, grief, or real-world consequences—young people develop deeper empathy. The nervous or dismissive laughter that once accompanied discussions of murder often gives way to serious recognition of its human cost. This trajectory suggests that laughter at murder is not evidence of inherent callousness but rather a temporary developmental phase.
Conclusion
Laughter at murder among young people should not be interpreted as a lack of compassion or an endorsement of violence. Instead, it reflects their stage of cognitive development, the influence of fictionalized portrayals of death, the use of laughter as a defense mechanism, and the powerful role of peer dynamics. As they grow older, their understanding of death deepens, their empathy expands, and their moral reasoning becomes more sophisticated. What once prompted nervous or inappropriate laughter evolves into sober recognition of the devastating reality of murder.
References
Freud, S. (1928). Humor. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 9(1), 1–6. Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development, Vol. II: The psychology of moral development. Harper & Row. Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. Basic Books. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
The idea that young people might laugh at the mention of murder can be unsettling for adults. Murder, as one of the most serious social and moral violations, typically evokes feelings of horror, grief, and condemnation. Laughter in response to such a subject is therefore often misunderstood as evidence of cruelty or a lack of empathy. However, psychological and developmental research suggests otherwise. Young people’s inappropriate laughter at murder is more accurately explained through cognitive immaturity, defense mechanisms, and peer dynamics, all of which affect their understanding of death and violence.
Cognitive Development and the Concept of Death
Young people’s limited grasp of mortality plays a central role in shaping their reactions. Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development demonstrates that children gradually progress toward abstract reasoning, reaching what he termed the formal operational stage around age 11 (Piaget, 1972). Yet even at this stage, understanding the permanence and finality of death requires personal experience and emotional maturity. Without such grounding, murder can appear less like a tragic event and more like an abstract or exaggerated idea. Media further complicates this developmental gap. Violence is often portrayed in films, television, and video games in ways that distort its consequences. Characters may be “killed” only to return in sequels, or digital avatars may be eliminated and immediately respawn. These portrayals can blur the line between fiction and reality, encouraging some young people to treat murder as a spectacle rather than an irreversible act. When confronted with the subject in real life, their laughter may stem not from disregard, but from interpreting it through the lens of fictional, consequence-free violence.
Laughter as a Defense Mechanism
Psychological theory also explains laughter as a means of coping with discomfort. Sigmund Freud (1928) argued that humor and laughter often serve as defense mechanisms, protecting individuals from anxiety-provoking material. For young people, murder can trigger confusion, fear, or unease. Yet lacking the emotional tools to articulate these feelings, they may resort to nervous or inappropriate laughter. In this context, laughter functions not as cruelty but as a release of internal tension, a way of managing what they cannot fully process.
Social Dynamics and Peer Influence
Beyond individual psychology, social dynamics strongly shape young people’s responses. Lev Vygotsky (1978) emphasized that learning and behavior are heavily influenced by peer interactions. Within adolescent groups, laughter at dark or taboo subjects can serve as a bonding mechanism, signaling detachment or maturity. In such cases, laughter does not necessarily reflect a personal attitude toward murder but rather a desire to conform to group norms. Adolescents often test social boundaries, and laughing at something forbidden may be a form of this experimentation.
Moral Development and Empathy
Over time, as young people mature, their responses to violence tend to shift. Lawrence Kohlberg’s (1984) theory of moral development highlights how individuals move from self-centered moral reasoning in childhood to more principled ethical thinking in adolescence and adulthood. With increased life experience—particularly exposure to death, grief, or real-world consequences—young people develop deeper empathy. The nervous or dismissive laughter that once accompanied discussions of murder often gives way to serious recognition of its human cost. This trajectory suggests that laughter at murder is not evidence of inherent callousness but rather a temporary developmental phase.
Conclusion
Laughter at murder among young people should not be interpreted as a lack of compassion or an endorsement of violence. Instead, it reflects their stage of cognitive development, the influence of fictionalized portrayals of death, the use of laughter as a defense mechanism, and the powerful role of peer dynamics. As they grow older, their understanding of death deepens, their empathy expands, and their moral reasoning becomes more sophisticated. What once prompted nervous or inappropriate laughter evolves into sober recognition of the devastating reality of murder.
References
Freud, S. (1928). Humor. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 9(1), 1–6. Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development, Vol. II: The psychology of moral development. Harper & Row. Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. Basic Books. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Friday, September 12, 2025
Ya new concert
Ya well you do a new concert it has meaning. Not like today shows but meaning. I just want to do a show with meaning ...ok
Friday, September 5, 2025
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)