KALSTER wrote:
1) "Great, Laughter makes crazy Old people happier than physical excercise. Amazing science there..." Nice Appeal to ridicule fallacy there. First off, please read the actual
Research Study (small PDF). Sure, the American School of Laughter Yoga is not a scientific institution, nor is Laughter Yoga science. The Yoga is just a tool. What the study did was test its efficacy in "decreasing depression and increasing life satisfaction" compared to exercise in a scientific way. You highlighted "Geriatric Psychiatry" for some reason, but I can't figure what it is. Not a worthy field?
Nice use of debative buzz words there
First off: I'm not attempting to ridicule. Merely stating the fact in a humourous way.
Geriatric psychiatry is the psychiatry of old people.
Did you miss the "Mental Disorder" I also highlighted?
i.o.w. The study is one of the psychiatry of mental disorders in old people and how it is affected by "laughter yoga". (ie. my use of "crazy old people").
Furthermore, what exactly is "life satisfaction"? And what relation does that have to physical health?
From what I can deduce, life satisfaction is simply how happy you are with your life. Correct? And other than a possible slight placebo effect, I can't see how that can improve one's physical health.
Therefore, my summary of the study is pretty accurate in that it is simply trying to prove that laughter makes depressed old women feel happier about their lot in life, than they would have felt if they had been given physical excercise only.
In other words, it is not at all a study, nor proof of any physical health benefits gotten from laughter.
What's more is that the only thing scientific about the study is perhaps the way the data was compiled and displayed. The study itself is of a non-scientific field, the method used to "treat" the mental illness, is not scientific, and I dare say that the data collection isn't scientific either. I mean, how exactly do you determine or measure a person's level of depression, or their "Life satisfaction"?
KALSTER wrote:
2) "There we go. More homeopathic BS.". Again, look at the actual
Study that they referenced. Homoeopathy is nonsense no doubt, but it doesn't mean everything they say is nonsense or actually homoeopathy, is it? The study was done by a legitimate University.
Firstly, I did read the study anyway, even though it is propagated by a bunch of loons ("Natural Wellness").
The fact that the study was done at a respectable university, doesn't make it more plausible. Remember that universities often study weird and wonderful things because a few people (including the professor) might believe it.
Unfortunately the article shows the flaws in the "study".
They showed groups of people clips from 2 movies, and measured the dilation (opening) or constriction (closing) of their blood vessels before and after each movie.
When the results were out, and the (remotely) funny movie proved to be more effective at increasing blood flow, they jumped to the conclusion, it seems, that laughter must have caused it.
Where is the data on the neurohormones (like serotonin) present in the blood of the subjects which would be the actual cause of the capillary dilation?
Yes, perhaps the effect is better after watching the "funny" movie, But it could equally be Vanessa Angel's outfits in King pin causing the increased blood flow.
My point is though, that it is the person's feelings that cause hormones to be secreted that effect the flow of blood, and there is no proof in this study that it is the laughter itself.
To quote their own findings:
"We don't recommend that you laugh and not exercise, but we do recommend that you try to laugh on a regular basis. Thirty minutes of exercise three times a week, and 15 minutes of laughter on a daily basis is probably good for the vascular system."
This is exactly the kind of fine print missed by the masses that also perpetuates Verimark products.
eg. "Take this pill, and you can eat what you want."
But the fine print everyone misses says: "Works best with a balanced diet and frequent exercise"
KALSTER wrote:3) "Nice science there". While the link does not demonstrate that laughter helps pain (blunder KK ), they present a pretty scientific treatment of the variety of sites proclaiming such by referencing actual research papers. It is a scientific treatment, just not in support of KKs premise.
My comment, "nice science there" wasn't an indication of the science in the 3rd study, it was an overall comment on the post.
I felt my quotes in response to the 3rd link showed my sentiment that it did more harm to KK's argument than good, since it effectively concludes that there is no proof of laughter having an effect on physical health.
in while looking at politicians squabble for scraps.
