Theory of Humor

[Symbology]

I have long been fascinated with the mechanism of humor. (Think of "Data" from Stark Trek's quixotic searches) I was first introduced to the concept in an objective fashion around 1994 by Marvin Minsky of the MIT Media Lab, also known as the father of artificial intelligence.

 

On his home page he posted a paper on Jokes and Cognition in which he expounded on Freud's basic premise that laughter is the brain's mental stop sign to not go any further. Danger Will Robinson! On the other side might be errors in logic, contradictions, or just plain bad things we don't really want to consider.

 

A key evidence of this point is the classic blond who blows right on past the stop sign and continues to consider the point where all the others in the room are laughing. Then as they circle around and come back to finally discover the contradiction, they laugh several seconds after the rest of the group.

 

Or as in my case, I will say "yeah, but have you ever considered the Truth of that statement?!" - "It's just a joke Allen"

 

Earlier in the day I was on the Keirsey web site and discovered an excellent viewpoint from Lisa Fairhurst on the 4 different archetypes and their types of humor. Well... she couldn't identify any humor for the Guardian SJ's (nor can I) but I'm sure if we have some SJ's out there they could enlighten us.

 

In looking for Minsky's article today to add to her discussion, I discovered Alexander Chislenko's additions to Minsky's concepts which identifies the key point that most humor involves a twist or surprise - and that is likely the biological source of our interest - in that we are supreme identifiers of exceptions, even within our own logic.

 

It is programmed into us biologically, to look for all kinds of exceptions in the outside world: changes in the level of signals, something suddenly appearing, blinking, bursting, jumping, etc. This attention to surprises is a result of millions of years of evolution, and can be traced from bacteria to humans. It is natural to expect that increasingly intelligent organisms would pay attention to increasingly complex surprises - including those that challenge their internal models of the world by suggesting unexpected connections between different ideas and interpretations.

...

The cooperation went through the language, by sharing facts for building models, passing models that seemed right - AND sharing unexpected twists that either challenge the models, or help define limits of their applicability, or teach when [not] to use them, or just train your brain on amusing puzzles.

[/Quote]

 

Anyway, I wanted to share all that in hopes of gaining any Hypographer's additions to the concept. I went looking for prior threads on the philosophy of Humor, but only found collections of humor. Any hypo-veterans that can steer us back to old topics would be welcome.

 

Thanks,

Symbology

[Turtle]

...Anyway, I wanted to share all that in hopes of gaining any Hypographer's additions to the concept. I went looking for prior threads on the philosophy of Humor, but only found collections of humor. Any hypo-veterans that can steer us back to old topics would be welcome.

 

Thanks,

Symbology

 

Funny you should ask. :doh: >> http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/9558-sense-humor-whats-up.html?highlight=laughter

[coberst]

Why so witty are Jews and African-Americans? I know!

 

“What must this people have suffered, that they might become thus beautiful?”—Nietzsche

 

Wit is about many things but power may be its most important characteristic. I think that Jews and African Americans are successful wits in our society because wit provides them both an escape from the world’s discrimination and because it provides the witty with power that serves as a defense against the strong hate and discrimination that the world showers on Jews and Blacks.

 

The other day I listened to an interview on NPR with Jerry Seinfeld. The interview took place many years ago before Seinfeld had made his appearance on the “Jerry Seinfeld” show. Jerry said something that surprised and impressed me. Jerry made it clear that he considers wit to be a very powerful force when welded in the hands of the comic.

 

Wit allows the comic to manipulate the audience into becoming completely in the control of the comic. The successful comic quickly grabs the audience and makes them her captive, which s/he can lead in whatever direction desired.

 

Freud wrote “Wit and the Unconscious” early in his career. This book is considered to be Freud’s most significant contribution to the theory of wit, which is, by extension, the theory of art.

 

In this book Freud “affirms the connection between art and the pleasure-principle…he also affirms the connection between art and childishness; however childishness is not a reproach, but the ideal kingdom of pleasure which art knows how to recover…with scant effort…Play on words—the technique of wit—is recovered when thought is allowed to sink into the unconscious…Freud’s analysis of wit invites extension to the whole domain of art.”

 

Psychoanalysis is about the nature of repression; the essential characteristic of the human psyche.

 

There is a constant conflict between the conscious and the unconscious. Societies repress the individual and the individual represses the self.

 

Neurotic behavior, dreams, and various “Freudian slips” provide us with e-mails from the unconscious that elude the conscious repression mechanism. These behavior characteristics are meaningful because they manifest the purpose of the unconscious that remains hidden from consciousness.

 

The conscious mind strenuously disowns and resists the rumblings of the unconscious. The conscious self disowns and resists its human nature.

 

Neurosis is the label given to these human phenomena of conflict between the conscious and unconscious self. All of us are neurotic to one degree or another. When this neurosis interferes with ‘normal’ human behavior then, and only then, does it require outside interference by society.

 

Universal neurosis is the analogy of “original sin” for theological doctrine.

 

In “Life against Death” Norman Brown develops, with the help of Freudian theory, a theory of art. There are no paradigms in art; the psychoanalytic themes in art offer a perspective in the doctrine of “there is no single meaning to any work of art”.

[Symbology]

 

In “Life against Death” Norman Brown develops, with the help of Freudian theory, a theory of art. There are no paradigms in art; the psychoanalytic themes in art offer a perspective in the doctrine of “there is no single meaning to any work of art”.

 

"There is no spoon"

- The Matrix

 

Of course there is a single meaning in art! Mine is the only valid viewpoint! ;)

 

"A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament."

~Oscar Wilde

[jedaisoul]

There are no paradigms in art; the psychoanalytic themes in art offer a perspective in the doctrine of “there is no single meaning to any work of art”.

It seems to me that this statement can be read two ways:

• It may refer to the artist putting complex messages in the piece of art, hence there is no single meaning in it.
  
• Alternatively, it rates the meaning attributed by the viewer/listener equal to that of the artist who created the piece.

 

The first may be true, but how do you (or anyone) know it it be so? Is it not conceivable that, at some time, an artist has put only one meaning in a piece of art? Or no meaning? (That is another form of a single meaning - none). Basically it is unknowable.

 

I've always been deeply suspicious of the latter view. It seems to me to be a cop-out. Art is (or should be) a form of communication. So the meaning that matters is put there by the artist. That others may see different things in it is irrelevant.

 

For example, someone with a phobia for water may see a scene of a lake as threatening, foreboding etc, but the artist may have depicted tranquility and calm. That is what other viewers may see in it, and, as such, they are "correctly" interpreting the artist's intent. The person with a phobia has his/her own agenda, and is seeing things which were not put there by the artist. This is relevant to their experience of the piece, but is irrelevant to the art work itself.

 

So I don't see either interpretation as standing up to scrutiny.

[coberst]

jedaisoul

 

I have been reading some material regarding art. This material divides art into two classes Empathy and Abstract. Empathy art is representational art and abstract art is the attempt of the artist to communicate to the viewer raw instinctive emotion. In either case I would guess that the possible meaning to both the viewer and artist to be a very wide range of possible meaning. I would guess that the probability of similar meanings would be very low for coincidence with the artist and coincidence among various viewers.

[Turtle]

"There is no spoon"

- The Matrix

 

Of course there is a single meaning in art! Mine is the only valid viewpoint! :)

 

"A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament."

~Oscar Wilde

 

I agree that mine is the only valid viewpoint :lol:, & 'a poet can survive everything butt a misprint.' (~OW) :)

 

Anyway, here's a new thought on developing a theory of humor. Let's started hookin' folks up with those real-time MRI machines & what-not, & start tellin' them jokes or such a matter to see what areas of their brains light up. Does a pun stimulate the hypothalamus, wheras a pratfall the pineal? Does any type of humor stimulate the kind of response seen when looking at religious experience. Does it look like a brain on jazz? Curious minds want to know by strapping people into machines with wired shower caps on they heads. :shade:

 

On a final note, I haven't yet read Born Standing Up by Steve Martin, but Steve was on Charlie Rose a few weeks back and talked extensively about his analysis and development of humor in pursuit of a laugh & career. You might find it interesting. :doh: :QuestionM

[InfiniteNow]

Anyway, here's a new thought on developing a theory of humor. Let's started hookin' folks up with those real-time MRI machines & what-not, & start tellin' them jokes or such a matter to see what areas of their brains light up. Does a pun stimulate the hypothalamus, wheras a pratfall the pineal? Does any type of humor stimulate the kind of response seen when looking at religious experience. Does it look like a brain on jazz? Curious minds want to know by strapping people into machines with wired shower caps on they heads.

 

If your mind is curious, then look here and check out the references they provide.

 

 

A skeleton walks into a bar and says to the bartender, "Give me a drink and a mop." :shade:

 

 

http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/mcb/165_001/papers/manuscripts/_116.html

 

One such experiment was performed at the college of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. Here, Derks elucidated the unique pattern of brain wave activity via electroencephalograms during the perception of humor. He found that during the set up to the joke, there was activity in the cortex's left hemisphere. This is where the brain begins its analytical function of processing words. Shortly afterward, most of the brain activity moved to the frontal lobe. This is the center of emotionality. An instant later, activity spreads to both the right and left hemispheres as the right hemisphere's synthesis capabilities joined with the left's processing to find the pattern and "get the joke." A few milliseconds later, before the subject laughed, the increased brain wave activity spread to the occipital lobe. This area of the brain processes sensory information. The increased fluctuations in activity reached a peak and crested as the brain "got" the joke and the external expression of laughter began. (Derks, 1992) These findings show the involvement of many areas of the brain in response to a humorous stimulus.

 

In line with this finding, Fried and Wilson found that electrical stimulation in the anterior part of the human supplementary motor area (SMA), located in the cortex of the left frontal lobe, stimulated mirthful laughter. In each case of stimulation, the patient attributed the laughter to an external stimulus such as people in the room, but it occurred at precisely the moment of stimulation. Also, the duration and intensity of laughter increased with increasing stimulation, ranging from a smile to robust laughter. (Fried and Wilson, 1998) This shows that at least part of the pathway runs through the cortex of the left frontal lobe and that the pathway can be triggered by external stimulus. Moreover, the patient's identification of an external stimulus speaks to the point at which this area exists in the pathway. This may open the door for more specific research done on either the mechanism of laughter, or the results of such a burst.

[Baz]

Hello fellow laughter lovers,

If you would like to view an essay that puts forward a new theory of humor and points out where many researchers have gone wrong in their attempt to fathom its nature, go to the link below and scroll down to the picture of the blind men and the elephant.

 

Academic on HumorLinks

 

(You will also find an overview of the topic below my contribution "The philosophy of humor".)

 

Laughing and crying as displacement activities: the implications for humor theory.

 

IN THE VEIN OF GODFREY SAXE’S POEM ABOUT THE BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT

 

IT WAS THREE MEN, OF THOUGHTFUL BENT,

TO LEARNING MUCH INCLINED,

WHO TRIED TO PLUMB THE HUMOROUS

TO SEE WHAT THEY WOULD FIND.

AND EACH ONE CONTRIVED AN ANSWER

TO SATISFY HIS MIND.

 

THE FIRST CRIED, “I’VE FOUND AGGRESSION;

THE THING IS BASED ON SPITE,

AND CRASS SUPERIORITY.

I’M SURE THAT I AM RIGHT.”

“I SEE“, QUOTHED HE,”THAT HUMOUR

IS VERY LIKE A FIGHT!”

 

THE SECOND SAID, “THERE ARE TO ENDS

THE ANSWER’S IN THE MIDDLE,

IT’S BASED ON INCONGRUITY,

A COMPLEX MENTAL FIDDLE”,

“I SEE”, QUOTHED HE, “THAT HUMOUR

IS VERY LIKE A RIDDLE.”

 

THE THIRD ONE SAID, “IT IS RELIEF

THAT IS AT HUMOUR’S HEART,

IT’S THE VOIDING OF A BUILD-UP.

I KNOW BECAUSE I’M SMART.

“I SEE“, QUOTHED HE, “THAT HUMOUR

IS VERY LIKE A FART.”

 

AND SO THE MEN OF THOUGHTFUL BENT

DISPUTED LOUD AND LONG,

EACH IN HIS OWN OPINION

EXCEEDING STIFF AND STRONG,

THOUGH EACH WAS PARTLY IN THE RIGHT

AND ALL WERE IN THE WRONG.

 

In this speculative essay I question the widely accepted views concerning the natures of laughing, crying and pleasure. I also highlight what I see as an erroneous approach to humor theory that has led to the wrong questions being asked and hindered the exposition of a coherent theory covering all aspects of the phenomenon we know as laughter.

 

Baz

[Ahmabeliever]

As a comedian there is one basic rule for stand up comedy - it needs to be funny. A fart gag, an angry political diatribe, a clever twist (crucially, that the audience may follow themselves) dark, surreal, ridiculous, brilliant, it doesn't really matter, so long as it's funny.

 

A basic tenet to performing - Every audience is different.

 

So the clever people are all at home and you pull out the fart gags. Comedy is a two way interaction, you can amuse yourself yes, but humor, as an artform, is intended to be not only heard, but funny to others, that calls for the audience to relate. The humorist must adapt their communication till the audience can 'see what they see'.

 

Laughter is cathartic, healing. Humour is like many art forms, the valve on a pressure cooker, in this regard, it is an important social function.

 

How it works, we have many buttons that can be pushed with many emotions, I have very little comprehension of the complexity of this. Suffice it to say humour pushes good emotional buttons. and when you relate, you're not alone in your head for that time.

 

The best feedback I ever got after a show at a university

 

"You say all the things we're afraid to talk about and make them funny."

 

Humour tackles sensitive issues, it is not a mask hiding the real truth, it is a means of exposing truth. It allows us to heal, after we cry, we need to laugh too, after the mourning period comes the jokes, the first sign that a subject is now discussable as opposed to an emotional hotbed.

 

Humour is an indicator of societal healing or willingness to question an issue. How do the public feel, comedians will tell you first as "it's just a joke, right?".

[Galapagos]

Humor Shown To Be Fundamental To Our Success As A Species

 

ScienceDaily (Jun. 12, 2008) — First universal theory of humour answers how and why we find things funny. Published June 12, The Pattern Recognition Theory of Humour by Alastair Clarke answers the centuries old question of what is humour. Clarke explains how and why we find things funny and identifies the reason humour is common to all human societies, its fundamental role in the evolution of homo sapiens and its continuing importance in the cognitive development of infants.

...

Pattern Recognition Theory is an evolutionary and cognitive explanation of how and why an individual finds something funny. Effectively it explains that humour occurs when the brain recognizes a pattern that surprises it, and that this recognition is rewarded with the experience of the humorous response.” says Clarke.

...

Humour is not about comedy it is about a fundamental cognitive function. Clarke explains: “An ability to recognize patterns instantly and unconsciously has proved a fundamental weapon in the cognitive arsenal of human beings.” Recognising patterns enables us to quickly understand our environment and function effectively within it: language, which is unique to humans, is based on patterns.

[Baz]

Humor Shown To Be Fundamental To Our Success As A Species

 

Galapagos, did you read my essay, re-entered below, because if you did you would have seen that Clarke makes the same mistakes as most writers on the topics of laughter and humor. Below is my reply posted to the original releasers of the news.

 

Clarke said: "For some time now it's been assumed that a global theory of humour is impossible. This theory changes thousands of years of incorrect analyses and mini-theories that have applied to only a small proportion of instances of humour. It offers a vital answer as to why humour exists in every human society"

 

A global theory is impossible, and remains impossible, because a scientifically acceptable definition of the word "humour" is impossible: as is a scientifically acceptable definition of the word "funny".

 

There is a lack of logic in Clarke's statement that humour is fundamental to our success as a species :

His argument as I see it.

a) Pattern recognition is vital to our survival [it is, in fact, vital and present in virtually all animals]

:) Humour can be viewed as a process utilising pattern recognition.

c) Therefore humour is fundamental to our success as a species.

 

I cannot see the book as anything other than a description of a universal phenomenon (pattern recognition) linked to the idea that humour depends on pattern recognition, which is only a rewording of the old incongruity theory.

 

If you would like to read a full critique of theories of the kind above please go to my annotated essay:Laughing and crying as displacement activities: the implications for humor theory. at:

 

BasilHughHall - ******* Humor And Laughter Research

 

Basil