0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
177 Ansichten3 Seiten
There are a lot of theories, like this one, thattry to explain why we find things funny. But like the blind man's descriptionof the elephant, most of them are only partially right.
In their recently published book Inside Jokes: Using Humor to Reverse-Engineer the Mind ,MatthewHurley, Daniel Dennett, and Reginald Adams Jr. — a cognitive scientist, a philosopher, and a psychologist — set out to discover a grand unified theory of humor.
Originaltitel
Nina Rastogi - 5 Leading Theories for Why We Laugh and the Jokes That Prove Them Wrong
There are a lot of theories, like this one, thattry to explain why we find things funny. But like the blind man's descriptionof the elephant, most of them are only partially right.
In their recently published book Inside Jokes: Using Humor to Reverse-Engineer the Mind ,MatthewHurley, Daniel Dennett, and Reginald Adams Jr. — a cognitive scientist, a philosopher, and a psychologist — set out to discover a grand unified theory of humor.
There are a lot of theories, like this one, thattry to explain why we find things funny. But like the blind man's descriptionof the elephant, most of them are only partially right.
In their recently published book Inside Jokes: Using Humor to Reverse-Engineer the Mind ,MatthewHurley, Daniel Dennett, and Reginald Adams Jr. — a cognitive scientist, a philosopher, and a psychologist — set out to discover a grand unified theory of humor.
There are a lot of theories, like this one, that try to explain why we find things funny. But like the blind man's description of the elephant, most of them are only partially right.
In their recently published book Inside Jokes: Using Humor to Reverse-Engineer the Mind, Matthew Hurley, Daniel Dennett, and Reginald Adams Jr. — a cognitive scientist, a philosopher, and a psychologist — set out to discover a grand unified theory of humor. That theory would properly address questions such as: Why do only humans seem to have humor? Why do we communicate it with laughter? How can puns and knock-knock jokes be in the same category as comic insults? Why does timing matter in joke telling? And, ofcourse, what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a thing to be funny?
Inbrief, the researchers assert that humor serves an evolutionary purpose: In comprehending the world, we sometimes commit too soon to conclusions we've jumped to; the humor emotion, mirth, rewards us for figuring out where we've made such mistakes. In developing this view, the authors considered — but ultimately had to discard — some long-cherished theories. Here, they present five such hypotheses — plus the jokes that demonstrate that they don't hold water:
#1: The Superiority Theory
We learn a lot about humor on the playground, where taunts and teases produce laughter for the masses but shame and embarrassment for an unlucky few. Without a doubt, ridicule is one of humor's primary uses. Thomas Hobbes took this view very seriously when he suggested that laughter is a"sudden glory" we feel over the butt of a joke. But if humor actually did spring out of a feeling of superiority, then every time we felt better than someone, we would want to laugh — and every joke, in turn, would have to give us a sense of dominance. The former isn't true because we often win games and competitions without laughing,and because it's possible to insult someone without also ridiculing them. The latter isn't true either, since some jokes don't evoke any feeling of superiority in the listener. For example:
Police were called to a daycare, where athree-year-old was resisting a rest.
#2: The Incongruity and Incongruity-Resolution Theories
One of the oldest and most developed theories of humor — adopted by Kant, refined by Schopenhauer — is, roughly,that humor happens when there is an incongruity between what we expect and what actually happens. But the 19th -century Scottish philosopher Alexander Bain pointed out that not all incongruities are necessarily funny — like, for example, parental cruelty, a breach of contract, or an out-of-tune instrument.Beginning in the 1970s, psychologists began to revise Kant's notion into what is now called the Incongruity-Resolution theory: People laugh at a situation not just because it's incongruous, but because they realize that the incongruity can be resolved or interpreted in a different way. This theory seems to makesense when you consider how a punch-line works: First, a joke sets up a situation; then, a cleverly constructed punch-line causes the listener to reconsider what he's just heard.
But not all reinterpreted incongruities are funny, either. When House, M.D., encounters a strange set of symptoms that don't seem to belong together, and his team eventually diagnoses the reason, nobody laughs. Plus, there's a lot of non-sequitur humor that doesn't involve resolution:
A man at the dinner table dipped his hands in the mayonnaise and then ran them through his hair. When his neighbor looked astonished, the man apologized: "I'm so sorry. It thought it was spinach."
#3: The Benign Violation Theory
In the late '90s, a theorist named Thomas Veatch offered a model that is called the Benign Violation Theory. It helps take into account the deficiencies of theory #2, by claiming that we laugh when something is violated — like morals, social codes,linguistic norms, or personal dignity — but the violation isn't threatening. (Recently, as described in the April issue of Wired , the experimental psychologist Peter McGraw has been testing this theory in the laboratory.)
Okay, we'll admit: It's tough to find jokes that don't have something that could be construed as a benign violation. But that's not because the theory is right, but because the category is so enormous — it's not a specific enough descriptor. After all, it's also tough to find a car that isn't "bigger than a breadbox and mostly metal," but that descriptor doesn't define a car. We can say that there are plenty of benign violations that aren't funny at all, like when people drive just a few miles per hour above the speed limit, or without their seat belts on. So as an explanation of humor, BVT doesn't help us much. We did hear one malign, yet hilarious, joke the other day:
"Donald Trump said that he was running for president as a Republican. That's funny,because I thought he was running as a joke." — Seth Meyers, White House Correspondents' Dinner, April 2011
#4: The Mechanical Theory
Most comic characters depend for their laughs on enduring personality traits: Take Homer Simpson's inability to anticipate consequences — "Doh!" — or Austin Powers' single-mindedsex-drive. If Kramer , Al Bundy , Dwight Schrute ,or Blanche Devereaux are getting a laugh, anyone familiar with these characters can guess the general reason why within three tries. The French philosopher Henri Bergson believed that it is inadaptability or rigidity — the repetitive nature of our personalities — that is the source of humor. If this were true, though, our every ingrained habit would be hilarious. But we don't laugh every time we double-check to make sure the car doors are locked, or when we compulsively check our email at 2A.M., even when we know no one is sending us anything. Most jokes, in fact, are antithetical to this theory since they don't depend on any kind of monotony of behavior. Puns are easy examples:
"Email is the happy medium between male and female." — Douglas Hofstadter
#5: The Release Theory
Freud thought that hilarity and laughter were reactions we produce in order to release sexual or aggressive tension. The release, Freud said, would be triggered by the dramatic or surprising occurrence in the punch-line. But many dramatic surprises are not pleasant at all, and jokes that are neither aggressive nor sexual can work onus regardless of how tense we are.
"A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking." — Steven Wright
— Matthew Hurley, Daniel Dennett, and Reginald Adams Jr.
HENRY BERGSON Premium Collection: Laughter, Time and Free Will, Creative Evolution, Dreams & Meaning of the War & Dreams (From the Renowned Nobel Prize Winning Author & Philosopher)