Obama explains ‘Why I’m a Christian’ during visit to Albuquerque « New Mexico Independent

South Valley resident Lisa Murphy had told the president she had three ‘hot-topic’ questions for him, including “Why are you a Christian?” …

“I’m a Christian by choice,” the president answered. “My family didn’t — frankly, they weren’t folks who went to church every week. And my mother was one of the most spiritual people I knew, but she didn’t raise me in the church. So I came to my Christian faith later in life.

Obama explains ‘Why I’m a Christian’ during visit to Albuquerque « New Mexico Independent

On one local news show, the reporter said, “Obama was asked why he chose Christianity.” That is not correct reporting and it subtly alters the impact of the question and answer.

This was the question asked of Mother Theresa, who answered it was the best way to serve god. That must be why god made me an atheist.

It took me a long time to realize that I use the word irony differently from anyone I’ve ever discussed the term with. Most people speak of irony as intentional – “I was being ironic” – which is impossible for me. I prefer to call “intentional irony” sarcasm, as in “I’m sure you agree this is interesting …” Then there is real irony, which cannot ever be intentional, as I use irony. You worry about the safety of your car, so you trade it in for a new one. Driving out of the lot, you are hit and killed. That’s ironic. (As it would be, if I were hit by a car soon after writing this. I rarely challenge irony so publicly.)

To me, irony is beyond our control, which makes everyone else’s use of the word ironic. We recognize irony – we don’t plan and execute it. In fact, we appreciate irony. I think that may be the one thing that separates humans from all other creatures.

Do children understand irony? New study reveals they do

New research findings from the Université de Montréal reveals that children as young as four are able to understand and use irony.

Do children understand irony? New study reveals they do

The study does not determine whether children comprehend irony, as I use the word. In my idiolect, children understand sarcasm. Note, in fact, the irony that the title uses the wrong (IMO) term while the researchers do not.

"We examined children at home and took into consideration four types of non-literal language: hyperbole, euphemism, sarcasm[,] and rhetorical questions." … The study, which was done in collaboration with Holly Recchia from Concordia University, revealed that the children understood at least one ironic remark made by one of the parents. Although children can fully comprehend this language by age six, certain forms of irony such as hyperbole were understood at age four. In 22 of the 39 families studied, it was sarcasm that was best understood overall by the children.

“Ironic remark” is an oxymoron (for me), not real irony, but sarcasm. I wonder if the reporter made the leap that the “four types of non-literal language” are collectively irony. (Surely, euphemism isn’t irony.)

We think language can be so precise, yet it is all subject to interpretation. Ironic, isn’t it.

Overall, hyperbole and sarcasm were most often used during positive interactions with children, while euphemisms and rhetorical questions were mostly used in situations of conflict. Also, mothers and fathers did not use irony in the same way. Mothers were more inclined to use rhetorical questions and fathers preferred sarcasm.

Again, is the subsuming of the four types of non-literal communication under the irony umbrella something the reporter is choosing? Does the last sentence imply mothers were in conflict and fathers more positive? Or is there a gender basis for which of the four non-literal forms are used in a situation (taking both the parent and child’s gender into consideration). I think we need more grant money. (Sarcasm.)

I used to say sarcasm was my first language. I’ve always assumed I learned sarcasm from my mother. It would be ironic if that weren’t the case. Interesting that sarcasm is used in “positive interactions.” Another reason to associate sarcasm with my mother. It may also offer a hint at why some people have trouble grokking sarcasm.

"Children’s understanding of complex communication is more sophisticated than we believed in the past," says Alexander. "If parents are conscious that by age four a child can take a remark literally, especially in situations of conflict, using appropriate language can help defuse a potentially explosive situation."

Sigh. We spent the whole article learning that children comprehend non-literal communication at an early age and from that Alexander draws the conclusion that parents should be conscious that their kids “can take a remark literally.” WTF?! Isn’t the point that parents should learn that children can take a remark non-literally – that they (we, once) might understand more than the obvious or intended? Pffft.

PS: I suddenly realize the original study may have been done in French. Gawd knows what happened in translation. If I had been born a native French speaker, would I have the same view of a word everyone else uses differently from me? Language shapes mind. You are what you speak.

---

Synchronicity brings two other stories to my attention at the same time. It’s all related, if only here.

Children and adults see the world differently, research finds

Unlike adults, children are able to keep information from their senses separate and may therefore perceive the visual world differently, according to new research. … The results, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, imply that children’s experience of the visual world is very different to that of adults.

Children and adults see the world differently, research finds

Children under four and children with autism don’t yawn contagiously

If someone near you yawns, do you yawn, too? About half of adults yawn after someone else does in a phenomenon called contagious yawning. Now a new study has found that most children aren’t susceptible to contagious yawning until they’re about 4 years old — and that children with autism are less likely to yawn contagiously than others.

Children under four and children with autism don’t yawn contagiously

I’m tickled that contagious yawning and appreciation of the four types of non-literal communication both click by the same age (four). Have you hugged your brain today?