It is not imaginary, it is happening now, children are becoming more independent faster than they were before. In some cases due to the parents not wanting to stifle the child or impose their own upbringing. In other cases it is just the demands on the parents' time. There can be a lot of consequences both good and bad but mostly dependent on why the child became so independent so fast. Primary, though it will most likely result in a divergence of the child's goals from the parent's goals, sooner.
I am not sure how are children in general are becoming more independent faster. Children seem pretty attached to technology these days, and through technology socially to other children, or they exchange their independence from their parents with dependence with other children, online groups according to their interests.
Still why does that constitute faster human development? Humans are spending more time with their personal interests these days, in general, but aristocrats, or child-prodigies of the past did that also, and their human development seems to have stopped where their efforts stopped, and this happens when it stops being fun for one to continue.
Today more people have more choices, true, but humans in the past, who were given the time to spend their efforts in something and develop their skills did so.
I don't see humans developing faster or evolving into anything else, but variations of what we humans call humans.
How is it you conclude that humans are developing faster? Skills take a certain amount of time and effort spend to develop, and you never know exactly this time, you may simply have and idea, but you will find out only in the end.
Not by the definition you said we would use, it would be dictated by what is required to make good practical decisions.
So let's go this way.
Let's assume that people commonly say something for specific occasions. ("when this happens blah blah blah")
Is this something they say, required to make good practical decisions for similar occasions?
Let's assume it is not required to make good practical decisions for similar occasions.
Then people would be commonly saying something for specific occasions which is not required to make good practical decisions for those specific occasions, over an indefinite amount of time...but that doesn't happen does it?
People commonly saying something for specific occasion doesn't have a specified amount of time, because when people commonly say something for specific occasions, enough time has passed for experience to be built (so that people end up commonly saying something for specific occasions).
People commonly saying something for specific occasion this year, is not common sense. But if they have been saying these things in the past also, and they still seem valid to us, it is. And it is required to make good practical decisions.
No I'm not looking for a fight and sorry it if it seems that way but unfortunately confronting someone's assertions can often have the appearance of looking for a fight.
No reason fun can't also be informative. Remember the definition "good sense and sound judgement in practical matter". Well that often takes practical knowledge. Something you alluded to yourself by noting people "get pointed back by consequences that happen more often to them".
ok, let's continue then
You seem to be conflating reputation with experience. Even having done the operation a few times, for whatever reason, and doing it well thus having a good reputation for those times the heart surgeon has done a knee reconstruction. They can still lack the experience of the orthopedic surgeon who specializes in that field and perhaps might not even have the best reputation. Making good practical decisions often involves making good practical trade offs.
"Even having done the operation a few times, for whatever reason, and doing it well thus having a good reputation for those times the heart surgeon has done a knee reconstruction. They can still lack the experience of the orthopedic surgeon who specializes in that field and perhaps might not even have the best reputation"
So there is an orthopedic surgeon, who specializes in that field, has all the experience for the specific operation, and people are looking not for this person but for the heart surgeon who does knee reconstructions as exceptions from his/her actual specialty?
Let's assume this happens for heaven's sake, is this what seems to be happening in society to you? That people wanting a knee reconstruction are looking for the heart surgeon with the best reputation?
One gets experience in something one does.
This experience has to be able to be verified by other people, before they approach the specific person (because they can choose from many different people and need a way to be able to make a good practical decision).
Information about the experience one has in something, can be in the end when it reaches other people's ears helpful or unhelpful. If it is helpful, people keep following it, if it is not people drop it, because it makes no sense to keep it.
In order for a reputation to be build, the information reaching other people's ears about one has to be helpful to them, according to their own judgement.
The reputation one has in a field is summarized information about the experience this person has in the field, so it is not the same thing as experience in a field. But, people who don't have experience in a field, are not judging the experience another person has in the field (they don't have the experience to do that), they are trying to find information of what other people thought of the person after they had experience with them (once or repeated).
You were asserting things that people had in common as if it represented some kind of "common sense". Much like you did above with "what people commonly say for specific occasions". That's not common sense by the definition we agreed to work from, nor is it inherently sensible simply because it is common. Hack, things common to one group isn't common to another so just commonality has to take a very limited context in the way you keep trying to use the phrase "common sense". Which is why that usage is an oxymoron.
"common sense" and "what people commonly say for specific occasions" was clarified above.
Regarding "You were asserting things that people had in common as if it represented some kind of "common sense""
I am saying exactly that, correct. Why? Let's use an example people have in common, music.
You will notice in music, that a band that lives in one place of the planet, can when heard for the first time from a person in another part of the planet, make quite an impact to the second person, if it falls within his/her taste.
To isolate a bit further in time, when jazz or rock n' roll where first heard in Europe, there were no prior references people had to those sounds. But they intuitively understood them, and this is what they said if they wanted to use the least words: "This is fun!"
Music is part of our common sense, as we commonly as humans understand music. How? Some is within your taste some is not according to you taste, but you know it is music.
And what is the practical use of music? People relax and commonly spend time together without conflict and by repetition they learn to be a bit more patient with each other.
Things that humans have in common intuitively, when they appear with statistical significance in populations, and for an extended period of time, are part of our common sense.
Most of the things humans of the past did which we have physically today (buildings, art, technology etc.), we can commonly understand still today to a degree, even if we didn't live in their time. We don't need too much training to do this intuitively, and categorize them as fun or not fun to us ("I like it" / "I don't like it").
On the other hand there isn't any training I could think of where a dolphin would be interested in listening to human music.
So humans have human senses, and when their senses are common, this is common sense. Why is this practical? Because where human senses are common, usually it is what seems to be happening for humans.
When this isn't the case, then our common sense failed us, and we'd better update our information, as something else seemed to be happening for this occasion.
If it's not both then it is not common. Again this demonstrates the lack of commonality in what is often colloquially referred to as common sense.
Let's start from the beginning here.
you:"Some people have have lots of things in common, some of them nonsensical."
me: "Nonsensical to you, or to them?"
you: "If it's not both then it is not common"
If it is both, it is nonsensical to you and to them.
If this is so, how do those people have things nonsensical to them that they have in common?
Can you give us an example of what you mean?
Also I hope we are not spending all this time here for the case where you meant "Some people have lots of things in common, out of coincidence, but not because their senses point them to those same things common", yes that can happen too, this is called coincidence.
When it is specifically due to their senses , it is common sense. But if you use music as an example, you will notice music is quite varied, some humans like this type of music others the other, some are not even interested in music. But all commonly understand what music is, even though it would be quite a challenge to explain this to any cat.
So there you have 'common nonsense', as I mention before as a type of humor.
"common nonsense" is how the one who doesn't have these things in common with the rest feels about them, the rest of the people feel good about having these things in common, call them common sense (unless nature proves them otherwise).
And here you are back to the 'sensibility' part being learned and thus not inherently common even with the 'common' part no longer being common when considering the distinct aspects of groups of individuals. Again this is where the more colloquial usage of the term 'common sense' tends to fall apart. In that the sensibility is learned and even when learned not often common across larger groups of people. So I implore you to just stick with the definition we spoke of before "good sense and sound judgement in practical matter". Still perhaps not common but not really group dependent either as it is something that can be gained by experience. Mostly in making bad practical decisions. What we often find here (not saying this is you) is people asserting what is simply their intuition as being "common sense".
"In that the sensibility is learned and even when learned not often common across larger groups of people."
Whatever sensibility you learn, it can be verified back by other people if it is of any use to them, through their senses, in a way that is common, or else sensibility wouldn't be helpful for people.
You may not be skilled at something, but for the subjects which interest you, your senses can guide you up to a point, and then they fail.
People watching a great movie, may not have the sensibility of the director of the movie, probably they can't make as good a movie (or any movie) , but they can judge the movie after they experienced it as a great movie.
The ones who spend time and effort patiently on a practice, can become good in that practice, so that they can perform it intuitively. Others can't perform the practice intuitively, but they can verify the practices results intuitively.
For a song to be heard a single time by a listener and enjoyed, the performer has to spend quite more time and effort, so that the song is performed with emotion, or intuitively.
Nope, I let people express themselves so not being sociable or being impolite are decisions they have to make. Why should I have to interact with someone in order for them to be unsociable or impolite?.
You don't have to interact with someone in order for them to be unsociable or impolite.
You have to be patient when interacting with someone, because whether one is impolite or unsociable, is judged by you at that specific occasion, you may be right or you may be wrong in that case.
In the second case (since this is the one you are trying to avoid) you are the impolite or unsociable, but this won't be possible to be seen by you, because you are not using your common sense, and assume beforehand that what is polite and sociable for you, is polite and sociable exactly the same for all.
There isn't a human being who has the ability to do that, know what is sociable and polite for all occasions, this is common sense also.
What is polite and sociable for people in japan is a bit different than people in Spain.
If a Japanese person visits Spain and some Spanish person does something which is rude for a japanese person but accepted for Spanish people, both the Japanese and Spanish have common sense to be a bit more patient in their interaction, as the things they have in common are less in this case than the things they would have in common with their country's people, and that latter thing they both know, commonly (when they don't they find out quickly...)
Now to bring it back around to your OP, see that's the thing about comedy while there may be some general rules of thumb there are no universal methods nor some type of logical decision chart. Though trying to assert such can be a joke in itself. It's often just an application of what's going on, so we get a true but hopefully humorous assertion of anti-social sociability. So in accordance with the discussion above 'common sense' for comedy would mean making good practical decisions in comedy which, as discussed above, would require good practical experience in comedy.
The "general rules of thumb comedy" are also part of our common sense, because we can commonly see that these rules of thumb work.
The universal method is that as a human being you can do fun stuff for other people. How? By being patient with them.
Why? Because you need patience to have fun. Why? You need patience to find this out. Why again? Because you find this out in a funny way.
Sometimes it is more fun than what you can handle at that moment in your life, sometimes it is less fun than what you can handle at that moment in your life, but when you are having a good time, it is just the right amount of fun.
And to find those times, it comes back to the beginning, you need patience to have fun. And if you are passing this part of the text fast, you are not being patient.
And patience doesn't have any winners and losers, only fun happens with patience.
.
