Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 September 24

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 24

Early voting and changing votes in the U.S

For the sake of the question, let's say a person decides to vote early for President Barack Obama. Then, Mitt Romney surprisingly does so well in the presidential debates that the person who voted early for Barack Obama decides he or she wants to change his or her vote. If the person voted for one candidate during early voting, is it possible for that person to cancel his or her first vote and change it for the other candidate just in time before November 6? If so, how? 71.98.171.202 (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

First thing: there is no "In the U.S." for this question. Each state has its own voting laws and procedures, so there is no way to answer for the U.S., per se. That said, it is possible that all states that do early voting may treat this the same way. That being said, AFAIK, once a ballot is submitted it isn't refundable. If you submit your ballot at 8AM on "voting day" and change your mind by noon, you can't go back to the polling place and get your ballot back then either. --Jayron32 00:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I am tempted to suggest that in most states without voter ID laws you just go vote as two dead people to cancel out your mistaken earlier vote. But I won't. μηδείς (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Good idea since for starters that won't generally work properly in Maine and Nebraska which evidentally don't have voter ID laws [1] [2]. Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  States that require photo ID

  States that request photo ID

  States that require non-photo ID

  States with no voter ID law

]] There are many states that don't have any voter ID laws. When I recently voted in the primaries here in Vermont, all I had to do was supply my name so that they could mark it off their list. Dismas|^(talk) 07:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There might be a way to do this if you mailed in your ballot and your name were on the return address. Though I doubt that any state is going to bother with it and they'd just say that once it's done, it's done. It opens up too many cans of worms. And expanding on Jayron's point, if I cast my ballot at 8AM and then go back later, there's no way of telling mine from anyone else's ballot since my name isn't on it. It's just another ballot in a box full of ballots with no way of tracing any of them back to me. Dismas|^(talk) 01:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ballots that are mailed in, either "early voting" or absentee, are sent in a double envelope. The outer one has all the address stuff. The inner one is either blank or marked with basic information, such as 2012 Jones County General Election. If the inner envelope gets any other markings on it, it is considered void. The outer envelope is destroyed as soon as it arrives at the county voting office, and the inner envelope remains sealed until it is counted on election day. Therefore there is no way to know which ballot to give back if someone wanted it back.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 01:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There's actually a good reason why voters can't change their votes, other than the logical reasons that it's very tough to track down - extortion. We want to reduce the chances that another person threatened or extorted someone else into changing their vote. You cast a vote for X at 8 A.M. and then change it 4 hours later, it looks suspicious. --Activism1234 05:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it a secret ballot? How would an extortionist know who you voted for? HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Vote early and vote often works well in Texas. Thincat (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact, there is very little evidence of existing voter fraud in the US, and what exists appears slanted towards issues with registration (which can be caught prior to elections), not with voting itself. [3] [4] — Lomn 13:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a conflation of "voter impersonation" and "voter fraud", and a dismissal of unlawful registration as not a problem, since in fact such registrations are often not caught.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A postulation of "voter fraud is endemic" and 'evidence' of "we can't catch them, so they must be there" is not particularly persuasive. To the best of my knowledge, there is no credible evidence of widespread voter fraud in modern US federal elections, but there is plenty of evidence that suggests it is not [5]. — Lomn 14:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the more obvious area of potential corruption is allowing state governors with obvious conflict of interest, and/or their appointees, the right to rule on what hanging chads mean. HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No argument from me -- but obviously that's a very different sort of problem than the blithe assertions above regarding "vote early, vote often" and "just give them some dead guy's name". — Lomn 04:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hitler's Pope and The Myth of Hitler's Pope

I was wondering which of these two books best describe the role that the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope played during WWII? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 05:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a reference desk. Your question is beyond its scope. Gabbe (talk) 06:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. While we shouldn't necessarily provide our own opinion, we could provide links to reliable critiques of said works. That is, our opinions don't matter, but some people's do, and we could link to those that do. --Jayron32 06:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to see some reliable critiques of both of these. Futurist110 (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fair to characterize The Myth of Hitler's Pope as contrarian. Its publisher, Regnery Publishing, "specializes in conservative books characterized on their website as 'contrary to those of "mainstream" publishers in New York'" according to us. This suggests Hitler's Pope presents a more mainstream view, but that's hardly conclusive. Hitler's Pope appears to have been more widely reviewed, and and has a better article here. Contrarian opinions can be right, though. Why don't you tell us? Read them both, pay attention to their sourcing, and decide for yourself. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

For term or traditional logician; Can term logic be sufficient to be the content of philosophy in dealing with central philosophical topics?

Logic is a very wide subject and is not only for tackling central philosophical issues as computer logic cannot conform to the field. Like wise if the concern is pure logic it cannot be directed to any other field for it is now a subject by itself, pure logic cannot be purely for philosophy. Thus to make logic more inclined to the needs of a certain field, say, philosophy, it should be scrutinized to be specific for the needs of philosophy, which is forming valid propositions, logical distinction and definition of terms, logical opposition, valid argumentation/ syllogism. So is it plausible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rt56h3 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Before I can even atttempt to address this please define what you mean by logic and philosophy because it is in no way clear from your posts. Hotclaws (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You have asked a few of these questions over the past few days, and I don't think the Reference Desk is really equipped to respond in the way you are looking for. Have you tried asking on a more philosphically focused forum? Livewireo (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Interpreting the old testament

When confronted with brutal passages of the Old Testament, some defending death penalty and condemning homosexuality, some Christians claim it is not really meant like that anymore, due to the change of times and such. Is this interpretation honest? Is it based on some recommendation in the New Testament? Ptg93 (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Like all theological questions, this has been debated to high heaven (no pun intended). The arguments and citations on this site are consistent with those who argue that Jesus' offer more or less undid all of the Old Testament laws. There are those who use a similar combination of cherry-picked and selectively-interpreted lines to come to the exact opposite conclusion. My basic anecdotal observation is that almost all modern Christians seem to prefer the former interpretation, because it gets you out of things like dietary prohibitions and stoning adulterers and other things that modern Christians consider to be, well, uncivilized and awful and generally inconsistent with the mode to salvation put forward by Christ. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

And are there any impositions in the New Testament which collide with modern western values? Like stoning, amputations as punishment, homophobia, and so on. Ptg93 (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The traditional Christian view is that the purely "ceremonial" or "ritual" requirements of the Old Testament are suspended for Christians, but the "moral" or "ethical" requirements remain in force. However, even when Christians still regard things as wrong which the Old Testament condemns as wrong, that doesn't necessarily mean that Christians feel bound to impose the same penalties laid down in the Old Testament. That's the framework within which such matters have been debated. As for the New Testament, it doesn't lay down a legal code, and the example of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery has pretty much eliminated stoning as a punishment in Christian-majority societies... AnonMoos (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I would perhaps take issue with the implication here that Christian-majority societies have been someway "softened" in their religious punishments because of the New Testament recommendations. Historically this isn't very clear. Western societies as a whole have been marked by a graduate retreat from religious prosecution and cruel punishments, but this is a relatively recent development compared to the spread of Christianity, and arguably has more to do with the movement of the Christian world out of secular power than anything else. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I said only that in most cases, Christian societies haven't felt obliged to implement Old Testament punishments to the letter, and that stoning hasn't been an official judicial punishment. This says very little about overall level of cruelty... AnonMoos (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, particularly in the Epistles (see, for example, 1 Cor 14:34-35, women should keep silent in church and only ask about stuff once they're back home). As with the above, there have been countless debates about whether various injunctions were written for the specific original audience as guidance, for all Christians as requirements, or for some position between the two. — Lomn 13:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Some Christians go with a more literal interpretation of the Old Testament. For instance http://www.conservapedia.com/Woman_caught_in_adultery dismisses the bit about Jesus and the women caught in adultery as just liberal hogwash added later to the gospel. Dmcq (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Scripture is the inspired word of God and the Bible is infallible. Conveniently, however, We The Right People get to decide what is Scripture, and what not. I bet there is more biblical scholarship in The Brick Testment than in all of Conservapedia... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If you had cared to check the reference, you'd have noticed that it is from Bart Ehrman, who is an outstanding scholar and anything but conservative (he's an agnostic btw). In fact, if you look at the wikipedia article Jesus and the woman taken in adultery, you'll discover that the manuscript evidence is indeed against the passage being original (all manuscripts before the 5th century exclude it). - Lindert (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

But Ehrman does not hold the position that the Bible is inspired and/or infallible. And, of course, the fact that it is a later addition to John in no way necessarily implies that it is more or less true than John. It's completely within God's (if you beliefe in that thing) power to have his wisdom converge from different sources.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Lindert -- The "pericope" of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery did not originally belong to the one of the four canonical gospels, but that's not the same thing as saying that it's not rather early... AnonMoos (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that reference to The Brick Testament, Revelation is far better than anything at Trapped in the Closet (South Park) ;-) Dmcq (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose this depends on how you look at the Bible. Jesus at no point said that he had come to undo the Old Testament, but rather, Jesus is the fulfilment of it. (To grossly simplify, this is why the Old Testament is still relevant to Christians, without it, Jesus is just 'some guy', but with the Old Testament, he can become the promised 'Messiah'.) However, there are some passages in the New Testament which go against some of the passages in the Old. Examples being:

• Jesus stating that Man wasn't created for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man (which I would read as meaning that the prohibition on working on the Sabbath is only applicable so long as it benefits man)
• St. Paul wrote that circumcision wasn't necessary, so long as all the other commandments are followed.
• Jesus stated that nothing that you eat can make you unclean, only what you say can make you unclean.
• Jesus stating that forgiveness is more important that punishment. (You are to forgive not 7*7 times, but 7*77.)

So, there certainly are some passages in the New Testament that would seem to negate passages in the Old. As for the rest, as others have pointed out, today, Christians focus more on the charity and forgiveness parts in the New Testament, rather than the stonings in the Old. Homosexuality, though, is even condemned in the New Testament, and arguments to legalise gay marriage within the framework of the church is more esoteric than 'Jesus invalidated the Old Testament'. V85 (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "it is not really meant like that anymore"? Meant by whom? The people who wrote the Old Testament are long dead, so they certainly can't "mean" anything today. As for Christians themselves, they've proven themselves capable of picking and choosing from scripture to support whatever belief they want--from under-the-radar pacifism under the Roman Empire, to corrupt tyrannical theocracies ruled by the Roman Catholic Church, to Westphalian sovereign states, to genocidal colonialism, to Nazism/Communism, to modern secular democracy with Enlightenment ideals.

If you really meant "did the Old Testament's authors really mean to say what they did?", it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise because of modern values. How can you possibly expect people in ancient Judah and Israel, separated from us by more than 2500 years, to have adopted the ideals of social movements that are less than 100 years old? There is no historical, cultural, or scientific reason to suspect that the authors believed anything other than what they claimed to. It's nonsensical to criticize the Ten Plagues for violating the laws of war, violating human rights, or harming civilians, because there was no concept of "laws of war", no concept of universal human rights, and no concept of protecting enemy civilians. It's nonsensical to criticize ancient Israel for not being democratic, because there was no concept of democracy or popular sovereignty, and there wouldn't be for another 2000 years. It's stupid to criticize Corinths or Timothy for being sexist and homophobic respectively, because feminism wouldn't become a major cultural force until the 1900's and LGBT wouldn't become mainstream until the 21st century. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

One thing to note, the Bible only condemns sexual relations between homosexuals, not homosexuality itself. I welcome any verse that point to the contrary. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, I only condemn the act of murder, not the thought of wanting to murder somebody. Prohibiting a thought is a futile undertaking until mind reading is invented. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Condemnation and prohibition are not equivalent - the Bible condemns hate-induced thoughts of murder, but does not prohibit it. This is why repentance is crucial, to willingly stop and turn away from sin. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is controversial, and not my field, but one idea is that there is a difference between the "Old Covenant", the arrangement of Abraham to make his seed "as numerous as the dust of the earth", and the "New Covenant", the teachings of Jesus by which men might receive eternal life. Things like a prohibition of homosexuality have a sort of sense to them if your goal is to have innumerable descendants. But if the goal is to be redeemed of sin in a perfect world, then universal love is the priority. Wnt (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, at least early Christians differentiated between the Noahide Laws, which applied to all humanity, and the Abrahamic covenant which e.g. requires circumcision and applies to Israel only. That was the argument to not demand circumcision and adherence to the Mosaic food laws from non-Jewish converts to Christianity. Of course, the Noahide laws forbid the consumption of blood (which is the substance of life and reserved to God), so black pudding is still out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The prohibition on blood is repeated in the New Testament as well (Acts 15:29). --Trovatore (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So, who wins in the cage fight between Acts 15:29 and Matthew 15:1-19? More relevent is the different standard entirely as expressed in Romans 7, Romans 14, and 1 Corinthians chapters 8, 9, 10. That rather unambiguosly deals with how Christians should decide which behaviors they should and should not do. And it has nothing to do with any written law. --Jayron32 20:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons I fell away from the "Christianity" in which I was brought up is that Christians can't agree on what it is. This thread reinforces my view. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

For my part, I wasn't saying anything about what Christianity is or isn't, or what it does or doesn't require in terms of the eating of blood. I just pointed out that, textually, the prohibition does appear in the NT as well.

(By the way, drop by talk:mathematics some time and see whether mathematicians can agree on what mathematics is.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

But I'm not likely to go to hell if I ignore the laws of mathematics. (That's if we can agree on what and where hell is, and whether or not it exists.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia really the best place to have an argument over Christianity... C'mon guys, no one's changing their views here, best to move it along. --Activism1234 00:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Btw, if you're interested in learning more about the Judaic interpretation of the Old Testament (the only book common to all 3 Abrahamic faiths, not just Christianity), I'd recommend checking out the article Talmud, Midrash, and Mishnah. They don't help much for Christian interpretations though. --Activism1234 01:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's no book which is "common to all 3 Abrahamic faiths" in the sense of being accepted as an authoritative scripture by all three. The traditional mainstream Muslim position is that the Qur'an and other Islamic books contain everything about religion that it is needful for ordinary believers to know, and if anything in Jewish or Christian scriptures contradicts anything in the Qur'an (even in the slightest detail), this automatically means that they are ipso facto "corrupt"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

For Islam, Tafsir and Esoteric interpretation of the Quran are good articles as well, as though don't apply to the Old Testament as much as to the Qur'an. --Activism1234 01:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

@StuRat, thanks for that revert, I didn't notice it (result of edit conflict). --Activism1234 01:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Monogamy as part of culture

I was told that Punjabi culture or Sikh culture is or are the only culture(s) that practices monogamy meaning that they shouldn't divorce or do polygamy. Is there any other cultures that do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.120 (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

But surely, that is also the ideal in the traditional, Christian view. Jesus forbid divorce (which is why Catholics get their marriages annulled), and one should also only have one wife. Is that how most Christians have lived during the last 2000 years? I don't know. Is it how most Christians live today? Possibly not. Is it an ideal aspired to by many? Absolutely. V85 (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Many, if not most, cultures throughout recorded history have held forms of monogamy as ideal. Are you referring to a specific set of cultures because Punjabi and Sikh cultures are hardly unique in their views of marriage? --Daniel 19:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd take a partial objection to that. Most societies have held female monogamy as an ideal. They've been rather inconsistent on the notion of male monogamy. Polygyny is far more common than polyandry, which is very rare indeed. Men, who historically have held most of the political power in societies, have decided they don't want their women running around on them, but they want to keep their own options open. --Jayron32 19:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Surely it would be possible for a society to have monogamy as the ideal, even if it allowed for polygamy. V85 (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

While that may have been ture in ancient times, a lot of these same cultures have pretty much done away with polygamy for males, unless that's the nature of the country you live in (I know people in Lebanon where it's normal for them, while their brother in America would find it odd). As for divorce, there haven't been too many societies that say divorce, and only one I can think of is really Christianity. --Activism1234 23:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't understand your last sentence, Activism1234. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Epic hand spasm fail. I meant to write "haven't been too many societies that forbid divorce..." --Activism1234 22:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Gadsby copyright concern

O.K., so I'm readying an Amazon Kindle reissue of Gadsby, the 1939 novel Ernest Vincent Wright wrote without an "e". I've been working on it from the time I saw this Guy Kawasaki post on Google+. As part of the efforts, I've been busy with a biographical essay that will be included in this edition. (Almost 300 footnotes so far at this writing!)

I have a Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) account, and part of the job there is to ensure whatever books I sell do not violate any copyrights. Gadsby is already in the U.S. public domain due to renewal failure (back in the late 1960s), and its copyright has already expired in countries observing 70 p.m.a or less.

But looking at the list of countries' copyright length, one thing bugs me:

Is the work really under copyright...in Spain?

It's worrying, because for authors who died in 1987 or earlier, Spain observes 80 p.m.a. according to the list. Wright died in 1939, so that would allow for a 2020 expiration. Then again, it's now a 70 p.m.a. since their laws changed in the 1990s.

KDP lets authors and publishers determine whether the book can be sold worldwide, or in a different set of countries, as conditions permit. For the latter option, there's a set of buttons that can turn on availability depending on the book's PD status.

With two weeks to go, I'd like to know: Should I turn on Spain's button or no? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

We are not permitted to give legal advice here, and I'm afraid this question falls into that category. Looie496 (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Where should I place it, then? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, the best place to ask copyright questions is at WP:MCQ. There are some knowledgable people (not lawyers, they're advice is useful but meaningless in a legal context) who frequent that board. --Jayron32 19:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Lawyers' advice are meaningless in a legal context?? The questioner needs a Spanish copyright lawyer (or someone, e.g. Amazon, who has access to one), not random people on the internet. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Jayron32 meant the advice of people on MCQ is useful but meaningless in a legal context because they're not lawyers (or if they are, they're definitely not providing legal advice). However I should add AFAIK the people at MCQ only really help with questions relating to wikipedia. They're not likely to help for questions which don't relate to wikipedia, particularly for real world cases that don't relate to wikipedia. I don't think Jayron32 intended to suggest otherwise but it's perhaps important to clarify. Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not the lawyers who are useless in a legal context, its the MCQ people who are. I was unsure of the OPs original intent, but I recommended him to MCQ because at least some of the people there seem to have a grasp on copyright in some way. --Jayron32 12:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't legal advice, but international copyright law (and the question of which country's laws matters, when the dates don't like up) is handled by the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. It can be slightly complicated, but generally most countries follow the rule of the shorter term, which means that if it is public domain in the country of origin, then it is public domain everywhere else. I provide this to you not as a means of telling you how to run your business, but just to give you the terminology you need to ask other professionals educated questions about this issue. I don't know the specifics of Spain at all. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is legal advice because it concerns the questioner's actual rights and obligations - it is not an academic legal question in the abstract. The questioner needs to get some legal advice - presuambly Amazon has standing advice for Spain that can help? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What I meant was, "my response is not legal advice," not, "this is not a request for legal advice." What the OP needs to do is find someone who can just answer the question, "is a work published in the United States that is now in the public domain because of copyright expiration still under the copyright term in Spain?" I suspect the answer is no, for the reasons given above, but I am not a lawyer, and I should not be trusted with this. But an intellectual property lawyer can probably answer this question in about five seconds. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Laughter

Why is laughter so contagious and how is it spread? Ankh.Morpork 18:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Contagion is a result of systems that are built into our brains, but how it works is not very well understood. (I have linked to a disambig page because we have several related articles, although all of them suck.) There is a possibility that it is related to so-called mirror neurons, which are brain cells that are activated both when a person performs an action and when the person observes somebody else perform that action. Looie496 (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It probably has similar causes as the contagiousness of yawns. Yawn#Contagiousness has some information there. --Jayron32 18:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that yawning is a lot more contagious than laughing -- in some contexts, one feels no urge to laugh when other people are laughing, while it's easy to yawn without thinking after someone else (even of another species) yawns... AnonMoos (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

While studies have shown that people who are in the same room as yawning people are more likely to yawn, or even reading a book or watching a movie about yawning will make you yawn, it's not clear what is the reason for yawning. --Activism1234 23:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as an evolutionary cause, laughing along with others is an important part of social bonding, and having a strong social bond with others has historically been important to both survival and procreation, and thus passing on your genes (less so these days). StuRat (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere about a behaviorist (I think B.F Skinner) that instructed nobody to smile at his infant to assess whether laughter and smiling was learned or innate. Has there been any studies on this? Ankh.Morpork 23:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, but if he was anything like Watson, Mariette Hartley's grandfather, he must have been miserable to be around. That sort of thing nowadays would be considered child abuse. As to learned or innate, have you noticed that laughter sounds the same no matter the language? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not according to The Simpsons, where Nelson says "Ha Ha !" and his French equivalent says "Ho Ho !" StuRat (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that it sounds the same. Many can distinguish from the chortle of a Russian and the hearty laughter of a Frenchman. --Activism1234 00:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There are different individual styles of laughter within any group of language speakers and even for the individuals. Listen to audio of a crowd laughing, especially a large group of children, without any visual or language reference, and I think you would be hard pressed to say with certainty what their language or ethnic group is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)