On humor theory

[Baylor]

Incongruity theory and its revised version, the incongruity-resolution theory, have long been the leading theories of humor. What it lacks in explanatory power it makes up for in predictability -- a joke with a moderate of degree of incongruity will be perceived as humorous when the incongruity is resolved. But not all jokes are incongrous and not all incongruent forms of expression are humorous. Is incongruity theory wrong or just incomplete? Other theories have attempted to replace incongruity theory which we will explore later.

Incongruity theory can be described by the following syllogism. X = M1, X = M2, M1 ≠ M2. Theorists have hypothesized that this incongruity creates a "cognitive imbalance" which we find amusing. An example is given, in this G-rated joke.

Why did the cookie cry? Because its mom was a wafer so long.

Even though the incongruity is resolved phonetically, we perceive it in written form.

A wafer = Away for (phonetically)
A wafer = cookie
Away for ≠ cookie

The above is an example of the strength of incongruity-resolution theory. We perceive two meanings resulting in a cognitive imbalance that we describe as humorous. Now we shall see two different examples in which there is resolution but no incongruity and incongruity but no resolution.

Resolution but no incongruity
Why did the cookie cry? Because its mom was in the oven.

In the above example, the cookie is anthropomorphized and the joke is resolved but it lacks incongruity rendering it unfunny.

Incongruity but no resolution
Why did the cookie cry? Because the sky is blue.

In this example, the joke is incongruous but its lack of resolution makes it incoherent and thus not funny.

We can conclude that the incongruity evokes feelings of pleasure, excitement and activity when resolved. The duration is short-lived but its effect is felt nonetheless.

What if incongruity-resolution theory is wrong? What then makes things funny?

Although jokes invariantly have a degree of incongruity, humorous situations are not often incongruent. Other theorists have drifted away from incongruity-resolution and explored other theories. One such theory is the "cognitive shift" theory which says that things are funny because our cognition is shifted from an "unrelaxed" state to a more "relaxed" or unthreatening one. Take the following story as an example.

A girl is at her friend's grandma's house. Her grandma is 90 years old and spends most of her time in her wheelchair watching TV. The girl is listening to a conversation between her friend and grandma about a TV show grandma likes. The friend expresses her dislike for the TV show. Grandma turns to her granddaughter and says "**** you." The girl, listening to the conversation, laughs. The innocuous old grandma unexpectedly bursted out a profanity, albeit an unthreatening one.

There is no incongruity in the story yet it would still be humorous if witnessed in real life. A "cognitive shift" theorist might explain that the situation took the girl from a dull conversation to an unexpected outburst. If the girl had just witnessed the profanity and not the preceding conversation, it would not have been funny. The fact that her cognition went from point A to point B makes the situation funny.

The "cogntive shift" theory has its strenth in explaining the entire perception of humor and not just jokes that have a simlilar pattern like the incongruity-resolution theory. But its strengths are offset by its lack of Operationalization.

Discussion
Both theories fall short in terms of explanatory power. The incongruity-resolution theory cannot account for a large portion of humor and the cognitive-shift theory lacks operationalization and empirical evidence. The author concludes that the incongruity-resolution theory is the superior theory because it ties closely with other forms of expression. We find music pleasureable when its tonic dissonance is resolved much like we find humor pleasureable when incongruity is resolved. Further research needs to be done to determine if humor theory and music theory create the same pleasure, psychologically.

 

[calebprime]

...
Why did the cookie cry? Because its mom was a wafer so long.

...
Why did the cookie cry? Because its mom was in the oven.

...

First joke: Not funny.

Second joke: Pretty funny.

Humor is pain. Your pain, not mine. However, those of us who are used to looking at things from multiple points of view tend to view ourselves with detachment, anyway.

One of the bigger laughs I had recently was when I was riding my bike, and got sideswiped by a taxi. When I realized I was fairly unhurt, I laughed. A lot.



Mel Brooks: 'Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die.'

eta: on resolution in music. Berklee school of music, 20 years ago, 'advanced' harmony class (so, not so advanced, not so far out): 'Anything can follow a V (Dominant Seventh) chord'.

I'm not denying that music has to make some kind of sense to the listener, only saying that listening skills and expectations vary.

The Aristocrats--That to me, was really funny.


But, this thread is a brave attempt, don't let me dissuade you from your purpose.

I agree that both theories fall short.

 

[JWideman]

I have to agree with calebprime. The first joke was just a groan-worthy pun, not even a real joke. Not that I don't like puns, but they don't make me laugh. But the second, now that's funny.
Comedy and tragedy aren't as opposite as people think.

 

[calebprime]

There was actually a one-legged cookie in Shrek--with a crutch--that was pretty funny.

 

[Baylor]

The "wafer" joke is a commonly used example to show how incongruity creates a "cognitive imbalance." I concur that its theme is to lame to be considered "funny." Maybe amusing is more appropriate. Like I said, it's this lack of operationalization that makes the social sciences so frustrating. Maybe Jeff Corey can weigh in.

 

[Ysidro]

The second joke is only funny with awareness of the first joke or at the very least an expectation of a punchline similar.

Also, talking about funny is not funny.

 

[calebprime]

The second joke is only funny with awareness of the first joke or at the very least an expectation of a punchline similar.

Also, talking about funny is not funny.

Evidence?

I disagree with both points.

 

[HansMustermann]

Humor is pain. Your pain, not mine. However, those of us who are used to looking at things from multiple points of view tend to view ourselves with detachment, anyway.

One of the bigger laughs I had recently was when I was riding my bike, and got sideswiped by a taxi. When I realized I was fairly unhurt, I laughed. A lot.

In other words...

"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die." Mel Brooks

Was not true when he said, still isn't true when repeated. Funny, yes. True, no.

If it was that simple, then splatter movies or The Passion Of Christ would be sold in the comedy aisle, and would have the people laughing their lungs out in cinemas. They don't. Predictable pain actually never does.

Second, there are plenty of jokes which don't actually involve pain, and wouldn't even rank above the rank of mild embarassment. There are plenty which aren't even that, they're just humorous misunderstandings.

Steven Wright, for example, is considered by many one of the best commedians, but most of his jokes are really just surrealistic nonsense. The ones which involve anyone getting hurt in any way at all, are a minority. People laugh anyway.

Third, humour seems to be a very personal thing. Just because you only laugh at someone getting hurt, doesn't mean everyone else does.

E.g., probably the best illustration was a coleague having fits of laughter over some minor character's talking with his mouth full and pronouncing a word wrong in a cartoon. It wasn't even the joke of that cartoon.

Fourth, but the most important: don't confuse humour with nervous laughter or paradoxical laughter. Yours after that accident is actually very likely the latter, and has nothing to do with humour at all. It's a response linked to rather abnormal mental states, shock after an accident being a possible cause of such.

 

[Baylor]

Evidence?

I disagree with both points.

Subjects were asked to rate the funniness of that particular joke and found it wasn't funny when there was no incongruity and resolution.

I also note that you are talking about content while the OP address form. Themes of derision, taboo, sex, rebilousness against authority are common in jokes but the jokes form seems to remain constant; that is jokes have a degree incongruity.

 

[Baylor]

Take Picasso's Bull's Head painting. It is a picture of bicycle parts that resembles a bull's head. When the incongruity is noticed, it creates an excitory response which would be absent if the incongruity weren't present.

 

[I Ratant]

...
If it was that simple, then splatter movies or The Passion Of Christ would be sold in the comedy aisle, and would have the people laughing their lungs out in cinemas. They don't. Predictable pain actually never does.

...

.
I watch those "Crash & Burn and Hurt" videos and laugh at the fools that do that to themselves.
That the video is on one of those shows is a "prediction" that some dork is gonna hurt himself, sometimes very badly.

 

[HansMustermann]

But did you laugh simply at someone's pain or at their lack of judgment?

If I showed you a flick of hostages being shot, would you find it funny? What about the execution of some political dissident? A pedestrian run over by some drunk driver while crossing at a green traffic light?

What about looking at the pictures in the Stroop Report, of the liquidation of the Warsaw ghetto by the SS? Does seeing those people jumping off balconies to their deaths, because the SS set their house on fire, get at least a chuckle?

Oh wait, maybe it has to be the result of the victim's own action... hmm... let me see...

Do you laugh if you see a video of the firemen injured trying to save the 9/11 victims? What about a bomb squad officer ending up blown to bits by the bomb he was trying to disarm? The people jumping off the Hindenburg in flames to their deaths?

Nope still doesn't seem to me like someone else's pain is by itself funny. Since that's the kind of claim I was talking about.

There has to be some bad judgment that actually makes it funny. There has to be that incongruity that UR was talking about.

 

[Ysidro]

Evidence?

I disagree with both points.

Go ahead. You're still wrong.

 

[I Ratant]

But did you laugh simply at someone's pain or at their lack of judgment?

If I showed you a flick of hostages being shot, would you find it funny? What about the execution of some political dissident? A pedestrian run over by some drunk driver while crossing at a green traffic light?

What about looking at the pictures in the Stroop Report, of the liquidation of the Warsaw ghetto by the SS? Does seeing those people jumping off balconies to their deaths, because the SS set their house on fire, get at least a chuckle?

Oh wait, maybe it has to be the result of the victim's own action... hmm... let me see...

Do you laugh if you see a video of the firemen injured trying to save the 9/11 victims? What about a bomb squad officer ending up blown to bits by the bomb he was trying to disarm? The people jumping off the Hindenburg in flames to their deaths?

Nope still doesn't seem to me like someone else's pain is by itself funny. Since that's the kind of claim I was talking about.

There has to be some bad judgment that actually makes it funny. There has to be that incongruity that UR was talking about.

.
I know some folks who get their jollies out of the tragedies you mention.
These are sick puppies, but that's what they enjoy.

 

[Praktik]

Incongruity but no resolution
Why did the cookie cry? Because the sky is blue.

In this example, the joke is incongruous but its lack of resolution makes it incoherent and thus not funny.

Whats interesting is that some find this funny precisely because there is no joke there.

My dad had a few along these lines:

What's the difference between an orange? A bicycle, because ice cream has no bones

I added a few in high school:

Two penguins are sitting in a swamp, one of em pokes his head up above the muck and says "Gee - I coulda sworn it was thursday!

and

Two guys are in the shower and one of em says to the other - "Hey, couldja pass the soap?" the other replies "What do I look like, a typewriter?"

I must admit I've caught myself chuckling at these kinds of jokes. Maybe its this development of my humour that has me loving the non sequitir and the trainwreck comedy of shows like The Office.

But its an interesting example, the complete absence of humour being humourous..

 

[HansMustermann]

.
I know some folks who get their jollies out of the tragedies you mention.
These are sick puppies, but that's what they enjoy.

Well, ok, I guess the spectrum of human reactions _is_ wide, but at least it can't be generalized to simply some version of "humour is someone else's pain". Since that's a generalization over everyone else.

 

[fuelair]

First joke: Not funny.

Second joke: Pretty funny.

Humor is pain. Your pain, not mine. However, those of us who are used to looking at things from multiple points of view tend to view ourselves with detachment, anyway.

One of the bigger laughs I had recently was when I was riding my bike, and got sideswiped by a taxi. When I realized I was fairly unhurt, I laughed. A lot.



Mel Brooks: 'Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die.'

eta: on resolution in music. Berklee school of music, 20 years ago, 'advanced' harmony class (so, not so advanced, not so far out): 'Anything can follow a V (Dominant Seventh) chord'.

I'm not denying that music has to make some kind of sense to the listener, only saying that listening skills and expectations vary.

The Aristocrats--That to me, was really funny.


But, this thread is a brave attempt, don't let me dissuade you from your purpose.

I agree that both theories fall short.

The problem as I see it is looking for a one theory fits all solution to the Theory of Humor. I prefer thinking of humor as having many Theories that apply - which allows for multiple forms of humor that cause the laugh reaction for different reasons: comfort, shock, surprise (distinct from shock), agreement (related to comfort but not the same thing), personal or general anger( revenge, comeuppance feeling). Many of these are non-physically directed/appreciated aggression and others are non-physically directed/appreciated comraderie.

Dick van Dyke beautifully illustrated parts of this on two shows in which, at some point , he explained comedy to his cow-orkers/an elementary school class. He did not go in on the negative side but it is definitely there (think of the shows where one or more persons are pretty consistently trying to trick other persons (Gale Storm in My Little Margie [and, to a slightly lesser extent, in Oh!Susanah] and Lucy/Ethel in I Love Lucy) who then try to trick/humiliate them back). And, much more obviously mean/nasty, in Married with Children two decades later.

 

[Jeff Corey]

The "wafer" joke is a commonly used example to show how incongruity creates a "cognitive imbalance." I concur that its theme is to lame to be considered "funny." Maybe amusing is more appropriate. Like I said, it's this lack of operationalization that makes the social sciences so frustrating. Maybe Jeff Corey can weigh in.

Sorry, I didn't catch this until later. I actually team taught a "Psychology of Humor" course with a cognitive colleague. We figured incongruity was part of it, but concluded that it

 

[Jeff Corey]

The "wafer" joke is a commonly used example to show how incongruity creates a "cognitive imbalance." I concur that its theme is to lame to be considered "funny." Maybe amusing is more appropriate. Like I said, it's this lack of operationalization that makes the social sciences so frustrating. Maybe Jeff Corey can weigh in.

Sorry, I didn't catch this until later. I actually team taught a "Psychology of Humor" course with a cognitive colleague. We figured incongruity was part of it, but concluded that it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w somewhat silly.

 

[jimlyttle]

Regarding humor theories, they probably all contribute something to the discussion of what humor is, but they do not describe different types of humor. One cannot usefully sort jokes (or other humor stimuli) into incongruity types, superiority types, and relief types. Instead, why not think of them as different perspectives on the same phenomenon?

Things are not usually funny unless they exhibit requisite incongruity, as folklorist Elliott Oring calls it. Neither routine things nor really odd things seem very funny. And, things are not very funny unless that incongruity is somehow "resolved" (in the sense of being explained, rather than "handled").

Things are not usually funny if they currently scare or overwhelm us. Sure, we can laugh about horrible things, but usually while we are removed in some way (such as temporally). Things are generally more funny if they touch on highly-charged topics. If we clean up a dirty joke, it should still be funny, but less funny.

Thus, much humor could be characterized as "someone else's pain" because (a) painful incidents are usually incongruous surprises, (b) as observers, we are removed from that pain, and (c) it is "naughty" to enjoy someone else's distress.

Most other statements about humor (often starting with "humor is nothing but ...") are simply abstractions from ubiquitous, but not essential, qualities of humor. This causes some people to abandon the quest for a definition, saying that humor has no essence. However, it seems reasonable to presume that several things referred to by the same word (humor) likely do have something in common.

Regarding "lame" jokes, (a) there is tacit agreement amongst humor researchers to not spoil great jokes with analysis (which creates resentment), and (b) a joke like the "wafer" one, a child's joke to begin with, is probably more old and stale than lame or weak.

But, who asked me?