Talk:Knismesis and gargalesis

Untitled

This is a scientific term and should be included in Wikipedia. Perhaps the article needs to be edited - but it should exist!

Perhaps it should be moved to wiki dictionary?--Fenigan Brack 21:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio

Could this be a copyvio of http://www.doctoryourself.com/medline.html? The text is similar, but I can't understand if the site copied Wikipedia or Wikipedia copied the site. -- ReyBrujo 04:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This is no longer an issue I have basically rewritten (and merged) the article--DO11.10 00:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Humans and Primates?

Response to the gargalesis type of tickle is likely limited to humans and primates - I strongly disagree.

My dogs both respond to tickling. If you roll a (friendly!) dog onto it's back and tickle between chest and forelegs - the dog will wriggle, kick frantically and do everything a human would do short of actually making a laughing noise. When you stop they jump up and run happily and at great speed around the room. This is pretty strong evidence that at least some other social animals exhibit this phenomena. SteveBaker 15:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I had a great laugh imagining trying to roll an unfriendly dog on it's back and tickle it's chest! To respond, here is the exact phrase where I got that information from:

• Provine, R. R. (1996): Laughter. American Scientist 84: pp. 38–45.: Tickle may be a kind of Rosetta Stone for such comparative laugh research because it triggers laugh-like vocalizations in all of the great apes and perhaps other species.

He does then ask the following questions: Can you tickle your pet dog or cat? How can you tell? Is a laugh-evoking stimulus that works equally well in a variety of species the ultimate example of "low" humor? But also in

• Harris, Christine R. (1999): The mystery of ticklish laughter. American Scientist, July–August v87 i4 p344(8): Gargalesis, the heavy tickle associated with play and laughter and seemingly with pleasure, may be limited to the primates, but not solely to human beings. Most primatologists seem to agree that chimpanzees and perhaps other apes tickle eachother in the course of rough-and-tumble play, producing the equivalent of laughter.

That is not to say it doesn't happen in other species, maybe there hasn't been a conclusive study, but I did find the same phrase repeated several times during my research for the tickling article. Draw what conclusions you may.--DO11.10 15:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Because none of the above states that it's limited to humans and primates, and because of the common observation that dogs are ticklish, I changed the sentence to say gargalesis works on humans and primates, and possibly on other species. Tempshill 17:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. I just don't think it is necessary to mention dogs specifically, since there is no (published) evidence for it.--DO11.10 17:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem may be that the term 'gargalesis' specifically requires vocalisation - in which case we need a new word. My dogs don't make any sound at all - but they can't produce a sound that's anything like laughter - so that's unsurprising. However, they do react in the same "Stop it, stop it - I like it" kind of way - they thrash about with their limbs - truly just like a human child. SteveBaker 18:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Merger

Maybe it should be a subcatagory, scientific definition of response, under tickling, and tickling also as a subcatigory under Knismesis and gargalesis as cause of Knismesis and gargalesis . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pyonchan (talk • contribs) 18:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I largely disagree with the merger as "knismesis" and "gargalesis" are medical terms that most people will not know of, whereas "tickling" is a word that most are familiar with. I believe both articles should be kept separate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shauniemac (talk • contribs) 18:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The articles should be merged, but the search string "tickling" should still be directed to the article. Maybe people will actually learn the proper terms for tickling :-)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.240.32 (talk • contribs)

The above suggestion does not make sense, either merge or don't, those are the options.

I agree with Shauniemac these articles should remain seperate for the very good reasons he/she states.--DO11.10 16:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

susie dent

as much as i love susie dent and would i lie to you, i'm not sure if it's particularly has much relevance. you wouldn't talk about that one time david mitchell ranted about nuts that aren't technically nuts on "the unbelievable truth" on the wikipedia page for walnuts. the only difference is that walnut has a decent sized article, whereas this doesn't. makes mentioning it seem like filler Farleigheditor (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)