Talk:Seriousness

PamD
PamD, I think you might have made a mistake saying that the only source was a dictionary, when it was not. Personally, I find the development of a cognitive ability to distinguish between cognitive levels of seriousness to be of great interest. In any case, I added a bit more content and RS, which should indicate the direction in which this stub article can be developed, and removed the deletion tag because the only reason given for it was that it was a string of dictionary sources, when it is not. Please comment if you still think I am mistaken. PPdd (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the only source was a dictionary, but that the article seemed to be a series of dictionary definitions. I'm still not convinced it's anything useful. Will think about taking it to AfD later. (And please learn how to use "Talkback" if you want to use it - your message sent me to User talk:Seriousness, not the same thing at all!). PamD (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about tb, I will read up. I still don't understand "series of dictionary definitions". There is only one definition, and various fields where seriousness comes up, especially in law, humor, and philosphy of life. PPdd (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that there is a single entity called "seriousness" about which an article can be created: the psychological and the criminal-justice senses seem too distant (in the latter its almost quantitative). But life is too short to take this lot to AfD so I'll leave it to other people to do so if they want. PamD (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Sense of 'seriousness'" and "sense of seriousness"
An ambiguity that frequently arises is between a "sense of 'seriousness'" and a "sense of seriousness". The former is something detected in others, that they are serious, while the latter is a sense of what is serious and what is not, as used in developmental psychology, or theory of humor. PPdd (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Conflating terms
Seriousness as a personality/psychological trait is completely separate from the seriousness (or severity) of crimes. I think the latter does not belong in this article at all, since it is an alternate meaning that just happens to share the same word. Ocaasi (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The usages have the same meaning. Serious crimes are taken more seriously, e.g., misdemeanor marijuana possession is not a serious crime because it is not taken seriously in San Francisco, but it was a serious crime in the 1950's deep south, because it was taken seriously then and there. There's a reference that discusses "cultural variation" (which directly bears on cultural variation in usage) in views of "seriousness" in the law section, and a discussion of "seriousness of transgressions" (which directly bears on the legal use), in the developmental psychology section. PPdd (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Serious Expression.png