On humor theory

[ThunderChunky]

Laughing is release of tension and building rapport.

People that are nervous laugh a lot.

Everyone laughs at the boss' jokes but the boss does not laugh at everyone elses jokes.

Humor may be different...best theory I heard (dont know who came up with it) was that people find it funny when the brain recognizes an unusual/unexpected pattern or relationship. Recognizing these patterns would be useful and thus we evolved a reward response to them.

 

[quarky]

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..

Yes.

I find it 'funny' that threads about humor are necessarily devoid of humor.
The stuff that gets the big laughs around here is when someone is completely serious about something preposterous.

Analyzing funny kills funny. Asperger's territory. Unless we get to laugh at the one trying it. It's a bit cruel to do so, unless the one making fun of the one analyzing humor falls down a manhole. Slapstick is eternal.

 

[Chris Hegarty]

I have an honest question that I know will sound completely idiotic:

Why are farts so funny? I've tried to figure it out; I've asked all of my friends, close acquaintances, and even a few people I just met. Together, we've been completely unable to account for this phenomenon.

 

[fuelair]

ETA. I have no idea how there came top be two of these, but I killed this one!!

 

[fuelair]

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?

Not familiar with Oring - but will fix that. How are you on Stith Thompson, Gershon Legman, Vance Randolph and Zora Neale Hurston?

 

[jimlyttle]

Wow! That is a great list of American folklorists. I was being much more sloppy in my terminology; Oring is in Anthropology at CalState. My interest is strictly in humor, particularly as used for persuasion. I am not familiar with any writings about humor from those folklorists, although I suspect they did discuss it. You could read about Elliott Oring at his web site, which is similar to this (I cannot create links, as a new member): CalStateLA-edu/academic/anthro/eoring.htm

 

[fuelair]

Thompson did not write on humor as such, but did the motif/narrative orientation for america/english language folklore/stories, etc. Legman studied/ wrote on humor with special interest in dirty jokes/songs/stories and their analyses. He essentially, along with Randolph did the motif work that Thompson did not do in the erotic/obscene area of the material. Hurston wrote on Black humor (of her and past time) and collected stories of that time/place. Also, Mel Watkins' On the Real side is specifically about Black Humor over ca. 2 centuries - but covers general humor as well/by default.

My areas are: performance media - black specific due to a number of my students in the mid-90s and all general due to the rest of my time; literature - general but specialties in SF/horror/fantasy/mystery; cooking and then some other items (history of censorship/pornography/erotica as distinct/prostitution/warfare including fortifications, arms - especially explosives and other WMD's - and armor and edged close quarter and projected arms as well as siege engines and vicious biologicals/chem (wasps, hot sand,Greek fire,etc.). And, I like humor!!

 

[jimlyttle]

The essence of humor ... so far.

Humor scholars are familiar with Gershon Legman's "Rationale of the Dirty Joke" and Mikita Brottman's book (mostly about him) called "Funny peculiar." This line of thought seems sort of neo-Freudian, imputing subconscious motives to dirty jokes. It is hard to call them "studies," since they are more like thoughts on the matter: provocative, but not tested. I have two Mel Watkins books in my Endnote file: "On the real side" and "African American humor" in 2006.

I am always interested in trying to get closer to something like "the essence of humor." It seems that humor requires BOTH a stimulus that is incongruous (surprising, etc.) in some sense, and the response of (feeling sufficiently superior or safe and) finding it funny instead of threatening or confusing. Freudian release just seems like icing on the cake, to me, like props or music or any other "spicing up" -- not necessary (essential). And laughter seems to me like an epiphenomenon at best, of peripheral interest to a humor researcher.

This analogy may help: Horror is intended to generate fear, which can sometimes lead to a scream. When fear is not generated, the horror has failed, but not hearing a scream does not mean the horror has failed. Furthermore, when you do hear a scream, it is not necessarily related to fear (never mind horror). Humor is intended to generate mirth, which can sometimes lead to laughter. When mirth is not generated, the humor has failed, but not hearing laughter does not mean the humor has failed. Furthermore, when you hear laughter, it is not necessarily related to mirth (never mind humor). Robert Provine has found that most conversational laughter is courteous and/or nervous, rather than mirthful.

Any ideas about what needs to be added, in order to move closer to something like "the essence of humor"?

 

[Modified]

One form of humor that relies on a sort of incongruity is "saying what everyone is thinking but is afraid to say". It seems to be extra funny after a slight delay where everyone is silent. This is really a "you had to be there" kind of thing, and doesn't work very well in retelling, but here's one example:

While fishing with my father and cousin, my uncle and his girlfriend canoe past us and up an isolated and hidden stream that feeds the lake. Ten minutes later, another couple canoe up the same stream. The three of us are all silent for a few minutes, then my father says "It's gonna be hard for them to have sex now, with that other couple up there."

 

[blobru]

I have an honest question that I know will sound completely idiotic:

Why are farts so funny? I've tried to figure it out; I've asked all of my friends, close acquaintances, and even a few people I just met. Together, we've been completely unable to account for this phenomenon.

Burps, too. Maybe because they're involuntary noises, which resemble the sorts of sounds a baby makes when it's learning to talk (there's also making a stink like a baby). Coming from an adult, baby noises and stinks are embarrassing, incongruous, and funny. (Possibly why drunkenness, babyish babbling and gurgling, is funny too, sometimes).

 

[Baylor]

I am always interested in trying to get closer to something like "the essence of humor." It seems that humor requires BOTH a stimulus that is incongruous (surprising, etc.) in some sense, and the response of (feeling sufficiently superior or safe and) finding it funny instead of threatening or confusing. Freudian release just seems like icing on the cake, to me, like props or music or any other "spicing up" -- not necessary (essential). And laughter seems to me like an epiphenomenon at best, of peripheral interest to a humor researcher.

Welcome to the forums and thank you for joining the discussion. I've more or less come to the same conclusions you have regarding the hilited part. Themes of "repressed impulses" like sex or rebelliousness againt authority seem to create more amusement than a joke about an anthropomorphic cookie. This phenomenon leads the unskilled joker into making things more raunchy with the hopes of getting a better response; when in reality it's the incongruity that makes the joke funny.

 

[jimlyttle]

Influential humor ...

Thank you for the welcome; I really appreciate it.

I watched a tremendous stand-up teacher in New York, Stephen Rosenfield. He offers this test when comics are considering a borderline joke for their act: "If you take out the (dirty/insulting/whatever) part, is it still funny?" You are in very good company with your insight!

I am interested in humor as a tool of persuasion (advertising and politics, but also teaching and therapy). I have found that, when the humor fires, it improves liking for the source, signals a similarity with the listener/viewer, offers claims tentatively (plausible deniability), and relaxes the listener enough to discourage criticism of the message. (I am not in favor of bypassing critical thinking with this emotional appeal, but it does seem to work.)

However, even when the humor fires, it does not support an image of the source as competent or serious. It can distract listeners from the main message or trivialize the message. Humor that does NOT fire interferes with the above factors and may even offend and put off the listener/viewer. Messages that are not offensive to their intended audience (target market, for example) still might offend onlookers, with undesirable results.

Using humor effectively and responsibly in persuasion seems to be a complex art/science. I think that even professional comedians may be trying to persuade others of something with their humor, whether it is a social agenda or just that they are great and should be well paid! But I may be seeing persuasive attempts everywhere because of my own bias.

 

[TraneWreck]

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.

I think it's interesting you chose music as an analogy, because I see many of the same flaws in the discussion of comedy that I do in music pedagogy.

First of all, it's based on a false assumption: "We find music pleasureable when its tonic dissonance is resolved..."

Sometimes. Sometimes no. I can give many examples of non-resolution being very pleasureable to listen to and many examples of resolution that's obnoxious and unpleasureably.

One of the best examples is the note Miles Davis hits on the melody of "My Funny Valentine." All things being equal, it causes a great deal of tension and he just lets it hang, never really resolves it. The guy in my Avatar made a few similar such pieces, "After the Rain," being a decent example.

On the other side, we have every formulaic piece of pop-music ever written. They all follow the same basic harmonic patterns that resolve 99.9% of the time, and it's awful.

So, at best, resolution is only one of many potential reasons why music can be pleasureable. I think the same thing can be said for your description of comedy.

Think about political humor. I remember a Chris Rock joke concerning the irrational approach to drug laws, "It's alright if it's all-white. If the Phillip Morris family was a bunch of (African Americans) from Mississippi, do you know how illegal a pack of cigarettes would be?"

That's funny (lack of context and typing doesn't do it justice), but there doesn't seem to be anything incongruous. I don't think it's a surprising observation either. It's simply a deft phrasing of a social dynamic. It's the framing that makes it funny...or something.

Situational irony also need not be incongruous or surprising to be funny. When a friend throws down a bunch of money on a garaunteed sporting event, everyone knows there's a possibility of losing. Yet it's still funny when it happens. I guess this obeys the "misfortune of others" dynamic that others have mentioned.

A lot of physical humor isn't necessarily incongruous either.

I just can't imagine there would be a single rule governing any complicated human endeavor, whether music or humor. For every rule you develop, there will be a million counter-examples.

 

[cienaños]

Hello UNLoVedRebel. Humor theory... if I may ask, why this topic? For you I mean. Just a question.

Here's my humble take. You can't teach humor (the editorial "you"). You can analyze elements of humor, but that's it. A unification of physics theories may come someday. A unified humor theory? Snopes. Nuh-uh. You can't pin down sensibilities, personalities, moments, timing, taste, comfort, momentum, etc. It's a living thing greater than us. To deconstruct it is impossible.

That said, here's my personal experience with humor (abridged):

As a child, I lacked certain things; friends, attention at home, good teeth. But, I could read a room. People, moods, trajectories. And, I knew people liked laughing. Mostly it was waiting for moments, interrupting discussions whenever I saw an opening to flick in a piss. One liners that could only work in the context of what others were providing. I had an innate thing about timing. So, that, coupled with my mom making me sew my own underoos' elastic back together, this thing just kind of grew.

We also moved around a bit. This accelerated things. I sensed teachers would cut me slack, I guessed they thought if they had relaxed students, they'd have a smoother day. But the whole thing was instinct. My fifth grade teacher called me "Mr Sarcastic" - I was like, 'the **** you call me?'

Later, I experimented with context, shock, and eventually landed on the stage. Years later is when I analyzed the whole thing. My best guess is, it's something you have (in some portion), or don't. It's personal in other words.

It's like saying, "on UNLoVedRebel theory."

My sincere hope is that this was completely masturbatory and provided zero insight to the discussion.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach of Rule 10. Do not swear in your posts or attempt to bypass the auto-censor.

 

[Anerystos]

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.

et seq

But as Ken Dodd once pointed out about Freud on humour (paraphrased): Did [you] ever play first house Frinton Empire on a wet Thursday in August?.

 

[Baylor]

Hello UNLoVedRebel. Humor theory... if I may ask, why this topic? For you I mean. Just a question.

I have a degree in a social science.

Here's my humble take. You can't teach humor (the editorial "you"). You can analyze elements of humor, but that's it. A unification of physics theories may come someday. A unified humor theory? Snopes. Nuh-uh. You can't pin down sensibilities, personalities, moments, timing, taste, comfort, momentum, etc. It's a living thing greater than us. To deconstruct it is impossible.

Humor is an important social function and it helps to create and strengthen social bonds. The scientific investigation of humor is a worthwhile pursuit. While there may never be a 'unified theory' of humor, the current research on humor research has uncovered some remarkable findings. (I purposely left out the experiments because I didn't want to discourage anyone not trained in social science methodology)

Later, I experimented with context, shock, and eventually landed on the stage. Years later is when I analyzed the whole thing. My best guess is, it's something you have (in some portion), or don't. It's personal in other words.

I couldn't disagree more. Telling effective jokes is a learned skill. (I'm not denying genetics play a role but it's well beyond the scope of this discussion) On a side note, I abhor the "you either have it or you don't" meme when it's applied to any discpline. The human brain has a few hundred billion neurons, making for a limitless number of neural connections which can be used to master any and every skill.

It's like saying, "on UNLoVedRebel theory."

My sincere hope is that this was completely masturbatory and provided zero insight to the discussion.

Thank you for your comments. While "my dog spot" stories can be interesting, they have no validity in science.

 

[yomero]

.
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.

What did you say? I wasn't paying attention. There was a small ant moving around in my computer screen that I just couldn't brush off and it kept me distracted. Sorry.

 

[yomero]

I have an honest question that I know will sound completely idiotic:

Why are farts so funny? I've tried to figure it out; I've asked all of my friends, close acquaintances, and even a few people I just met. Together, we've been completely unable to account for this phenomenon.

According to Kurt Vonnegut, finding farts funny is the essence of our humanity. In his novel "Galapagos", as I recall, humans in the future have evolved to become unintelligent, fur-covered, seal-like creatures. As proof that they are still completely human, Vonnegut exemplifies by telling how when a group of them is laying on the sand by a beach with stolid looks on their faces, and one of them farts, the rest would start giggling silly.

 

[cienaños]

post quotes by unlovedsomethingorother

I have a degree in a social science.

I see. My hope is that one day, you will too.

Humor is an important social function and it helps to create and strengthen social bonds. The scientific investigation of humor is a worthwhile pursuit. While there may never be a 'unified theory' of humor, the current research on humor research has uncovered some remarkable findings. (I purposely left out the experiments because I didn't want to discourage anyone not trained in social science methodology).

I could disagree, but I won't. Because I agree. You on the other hand, will, and do. (see below asterisk).

cienanos' example of genius:
Later, I experimented with context, shock, and eventually landed on the stage. Years later is when I analyzed the whole thing. My best guess is, it's something you have (in some portion), or don't. It's personal in other words.

unlovedsomethingorother's example of not so much
I couldn't disagree more. Telling effective jokes is a learned skill. (I'm not denying genetics play a role but it's well beyond the scope of this discussion) On a side note, I abhor the "you either have it or you don't" meme when it's applied to any discpline. The human brain has a few hundred billion neurons, making for a limitless number of neural connections which can be used to master any and every skill.

Nope. Not beyond the scope of the discussion. You abhor my observation because you do not understand it. Nothing wrong with that. Did you even read what I wrote? You cancel your own argument when you say such things. ie. you have the abhor meme. Master any and every skill? Whaaah? Are you one of those "Utopia" people?

(below asterisk):unlovedsomethingorother says:

Thank you for your comments. While "my dog spot" stories can be interesting, they have no validity in science.

unlovedsomethingorother then says:

"Humor is an important social function and it helps to create and strengthen social bonds. The scientific investigation of humor is a worthwhile pursuit."

It's okay, really. Keep pushing those brain neurons. You'll get there.

Do not change a member's user name in order to insult. Also, remember Rule 0 and Rule 12.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[Baylor]

Leave your boring stories to yourself next time.