Talk:Theories of humor

Article life

See talk:Humor research#Article history. Laudak (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Opposing views

"Evolutionary psychologist, Geoffrey Miller contends that, from an evolutionary perspective, humor would have had no survival value to early humans living in the savannas of Africa."

Most primate researchers would disagree, I think. Unless he's using an extremely intellectual definition of "humor", it is in general a more survival-oriented reaction to social frustrations than anger. It would take a a really unusual definition of humor to assert believably that bonobos and chimpanzees, for example, DON'T have senses of humor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.160.105.110 (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Defence mechanism

So what about humor as defence mechanism? --Dennis714 (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Got a source? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As it stated in defence mechanism article: Humour: Overt expression of ideas and feelings (especially those that are unpleasant to focus on or too terrible to talk about) that gives pleasure to others. Humor, which explores the absurdity inherent in any event, enables someone to "call a spade a spade", while "wit" is a form of displacement (see above under Level 3). Wit refers to the serious or distressing in a humorous way, rather than disarming it; the thoughts remain distressing, but they are "skirted round" by witticism. --Dennis714 (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This can be added:

Humor as defense mechanism

According to George Eman Vaillant's (1977) categorization, humor is level IV defense mechanism: overt expression of ideas and feelings (especially those that are unpleasant to focus on or too terrible to talk about) that gives pleasure to others. Humor, which explores the absurdity inherent in any event, enables someone to "call a spade a spade", while "wit" is a form of displacement (level 3). Wit refers to the serious or distressing in a humorous way, rather than disarming it; the thoughts remain distressing, but they are "skirted round" by witticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis714 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

ok im not going to start the argument over whether american or british spelling is correct, but shouldn't the spelling in this article be brought into line with its parent article Humour? seems a bit silly to constantly change spelling —Preceding unsigned comment added by -ross616- (talk • contribs) 15:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the article should been moved so it is the same as the article on Humour, which could be considered its parent article. Bozzio (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:ENGVAR before moving articles. Also note that there is no requirement for an article to have the same spelling as a "parent article". Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge Laughter in literature into this article?

• Merge - The Laughter in literature article has good information that I would not have know about if not for the merge tag at the top of this article. All of the content there fits here, and would not make this article too long. PPdd (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• I tend to agree.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• At first glance, this may appear to make sense, however, they are really separate topics, and I think should be kept as separate articles. Some editors of the literature article may mistakenly add material which really belongs here. This is an error of the editors or contributors however. As topics, they are separate. Although theories of humor may be referred to in the article on literature, this does not make them the same topic. Literature is its own field, and the workings of humor in literature needs its own article. Including analysis of literature here would cause the article to become bloated. This article is just for the theories of humor, not theories on the analysis of literature.Deluno (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Most of the material seems to be theories of laughter. If there is anything else it could be moved to the main Humor article. If really large material regarding analyses of humor in literature as a separate subject should appear in the future then a separate article could be recreated. Even if the articles are not merged the theories should be moved here.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge with the general Laughter article. Looking closer I think the material should not be merged with this article but with the general Laughter article. The material is short enough to be a section in the short Laughter article. Also it is more about the history of specific persons thoughts about Laughter than about current theories about humor which is the focus of this article.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Own academic research

I have a plan to introduce my academic research and original theory of humor into this article, under a new heading of two equal signs. Can someone tell me if a self-published pdf file, from a blog, can be posted as the primary text presenting the new theory? cdg1072 4:15, 1 March 2012

In my opinion, no, that is not an appropriate source.--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I also read that doctoral dissertations might be accepted as sources, since they are vetted,but not MA theses and papers. I have written two, rather than one, MA thesis on the theory of humor. Does this make a difference, or is it the judgment of the discussion group that I must remove the entry? ?Cdg1072 (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Cdg1072 (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC) cdg1072

Dear Gautier, As you are reading my last question, I want to let you know that the cited paper has been on submission to the journal Human Studies (Sociology)since 12/11. If my entry cannot now be sustained in the wikipedia article, I'd like to ask if it is possible to delay removal until we hear back from Human Studies, which could be in a few weeks. That may also clarify how the paper is being received. I have one MA with focus in humor theory/studies from UChicago, and another MA in philosophy, humor theory thesis, with coursework not yet complete. I understand if these are not deciding factors. Best, Cdg1072 (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Cdg1072, you would also need to satisfy _notability_. You should promote your theories within academia first (or another public space), and only then add them to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterstein (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

New section on Mimetic Theory

As you can see from the discussion just above, an editor has added a new section to the main article, titled "Mimetic Theory". That section is based on a single reference, a paper from the editor himself. I have a feeling that this is not an appropriate citation, so the section in question should not be included in the article, but I'd like to read the views of other editors.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a huge problem to me. Isn't this a clear violation of Wikipedia rules? The author of the paper (... of the University of Chicago) has contributed a new section to the article as user Cdg1072, based on nothing but his own work. To make things worse, he's attacking other theories in the article, and it seems clear to me from the article and talk page edits that he's using two IPs resgistered to the University of Chicago (147.126.46.147 and 147.126.46.145) as socks to bolster support for his section and further attack the sections he does not like. Another editor has suggested protecting the page until this is worked out. Meters (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like pure promo of an (unpublished) article of the editor. I have been looking at internet to find more information about the writer. 1 article on scholar (pré 2010) and 58 hits on Google Search,. It fails to convince me of his importance. I can't judge about the importance of the magazine, as I can't find it in the mess of completely unrelated stuff. As a clearly unimportant sociologist/philosopher, we can't allow him to promote his articles and ideas on Wikipedia. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This issue appears to have been settled, and it is agreed that all must be published AND reviewed before being given actual attention herein. I hope by this statement that I don't overstep any bounds. But though you have reasonable rules to which I promise to adhere, your criteria for what counts as reliable material produces an odd result, in the final analysis. I only suggest this for your reflection. Some of the material which I questioned turned out, on fair judgment, hardly to be of publishable quality. You require reliable debate to respond to these entries, when in fact some of those same entries are themselves unreliable or unintelligible. It seems off base, to assert that I attacked such theories solely for my own gain, without the proper regard or respect for them.Cdg1072 (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, it looks like we have consensus here. Dear CDG, can you please delete the section "Mimetic Theory" at this stage? You can add it later if your article is references or summarized in publications that are not authored by you.--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What is a Theory of Humor?

The idea "theory of humor" is not well organized in this article. Editors should consider that "benign violation" and other ideas of mixed emotions are accidental to humor, and that they clearly don't make a strong claim to a "theory of what humor is." Of course, this may not be reason to label the section "Benign Violation" as "disputed."

But if all theories pertaining to humor belong in this article, should there be a section for theories that merely describe something accidental about humor, rather than define the essence of it? For example, the topic of humor's moral impact is not unimportant. It may have applications in sociology, psychology and statistical analysis. "Benign violation" exists in things that are not humorous (mixed emotions, moral controversy). As the article already notes, there is a consensus that the classic theories of "incongruity, superiority, and relief," have all been shown to be accidental or fail to account for many features.

If an editor wants to claim that a section is unclear, this ought to be proposed in the talk page first. Then if there is at least some agreement that the section is difficult to understand, it can be so labeled. But, if a section gives solid counterexamples by means of basic logic, as does the Mimetic Theory, it is probably not unclear. If a theory claims necessary and sufficient conditions, then it claims to be a "holy grail theory," that is, it does not merely describe some property of humor which is present in other things. "Tension and release," for example, is in humor, but it is also in other things. The benign violation theory claims necessary and sufficient conditions. Many qualified scholars find this to be a very weak claim with many counterexamples.Cdg1072 (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.46.145 (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

A theory of humor is any supportable proposition about the nature of humor that is capable of being proved wrong. A theory of humor doesn't need to cover the entire subject, just the parts that it claims to cover. A complete and unified theory of humor might be a kind of ideal, but such a theory might never happen, and certainly doesn't have to be the starting point. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The Ontic-Epistemic Theory Refuted

Humor is concerned in a very general sense with delusions. The Ontic-Epistemic Theory instead focuses on the desire for "social reality." The OET is proposing that an ultimate desire, shattered in humor, is simply to see the world as meaningful rather than a collection of atoms without such meaning. But although this is a desire, it is a specific one motivated by intellectual traits. Desire in a general sense is broader and more palpable than the concern for the meaning of life and the world.

Where humor is focused on desire in any way, it always means some form of delusion is shattered. The possibility of delusion is a basic fact of every instance of love. Since there are many such examples, together they all indicate that humor is to be explained in terms of desire. Although our perceptions of meaning and social identity may count as humorous deception, this is a specific case.

It is difficult to miss the ubiquity of lying and deception in humor. It even shows up in ambiguity, since this idea strongly suggests misinterpretation of context or of reality. This concept is sufficiently humorous to serve as evidence pointing toward a general concept of humor. A "theory of humor" must mean a general theory that encompasses every form of the phenomenon. The idea of "pleasant delusion" or "shattered pleasant delusion" fits that requirement. Cdg1072 (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the Computer Theory of Humor frivolous?

The Computer Theory of Humor is similar to the claim that humor is like something paradoxical or untrue, being fed to a computer. And as though the input damaged the machine, the claim is that such damage resembles laughter. Is the explanation pseudoscience? This question is raised respectfully and inviting the opinion of others.

"A realization of this algorithm in neural networks justifies naturally Spencer’s hypothesis on the mechanism of laughter: deletion of a false version corresponds to zeroing of some part of the neural network and excessive energy of neurons is thrown out to the motor cortex, arousing muscular contractions." Cdg1072 (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Pattern Recognition Theory is too Vague

"Pattern recognition" is too vague to make a noteworthy case for the meaning of humor. There may be specific patterns mentioned in the full version of the theory. But to group them together as merely "patterns" skirts the demand for some substantive idea that unites them. The "humor theory" article ought to feature the history of humor theory, but within reason and plausible examples. There is justification to delete the Pattern Recognition article. Cdg1072 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear CDG, I'd like to thank you for taking the time and making the effort to contribute to Wikipedia, but items like the above are original research which cannot be used to justify modifications to Wikipedia articles. You need to come up with references that way something in order to add/modify/delete an article.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You win. But two things concern me. One is that there is a threshold of coherence in this topic. That threshold is being stretched. There is a point at which common sense is sufficient to judge a piece as incoherent or implausible, and such judgment might not count as research, at all. I have thoroughly examined the material in question, and I have written two separate MA theses on this topic. But it does not require such expertise to see that this book (Pattern Recognition) does not meet any standards of professional scholarship; it is not of publishable quality. It makes no valid contribution. It is very strange material, much of it actually meaningless verbiage, or gibberish. In particular the vague use of categories without explanation, and the lack of any connection to previous views are red flags. It is unlikely in such a case that academic conversation would be productive, or that it would even occur. Second, it has been said that an entry is original research, because the citation is unreliable. And the cite is unreliable, because use of it is original research. To get out of this circle, I have resubmitted the removed material to a journal.Cdg1072 (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear CDG, you identify above the limitations of Wikipedia, please see wp:rs.--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You can submit all the material in the world to a journal and become the acknowledged world's leading expert on the subject and that still won't justify your removing material based on "common sense" or any other judgment of yours, even if it is published in those journals. All you could validly do here is reference criticisms of the material, not remove it. -- Jibal (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to remark that this theory also struck me as weak and there doesn't seem to be a lot of coverage of it either, so it could probably be removed for basic notability reasons. We can't include every theory of humor ever published. You seem to imply that if something is referenced it gets to stay no matter what; this is not how Wikipedia works. After all, we don't include Gene Ray's views on time in the article on Day. 138.16.21.199 (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: Mimetic Theory of Humor

Editors ask me to delete the so-called "Mimetic Theory" or Delusion Theory, and I comply by deleting it, but you put it back. What's your intention?Cdg1072 (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the material. He probably reverted you for making an unexplained deletion. Please leave edit summaries. I have posted on his talk page to explain.

And please don't delete or edit Talk page dicussions, particularly by usin gdiferent accounts or IPs Meters (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Incompatible statements

"Proponents of each one originally claimed their theory to be capable of explaining all cases of humor, however, they now acknowledge that although each theory generally covers its own area of focus, many instances of humor can be explained by more than one theory."

This statement does follow, it is not a non sequitur. It is true that the assertion, "many instances of humor can be explained by more than one theory," contradicts the assertion that some theory is "capable of explaining all cases of humor." But, while the statement does contain a correct logical implication, it has other problems, because "areas of focus" implies that there are several types of humor covered by different theories.

The statement has it appear as though several theories were limited to certain classes of humor, and that explanations of these classes were largely satisfactory. These assertions are inaccurate, however, since the theories generally don't limit themselves to groups of humor instances, but it is assumed that they select some aspect applying to the totality which they hold to be the single most important. It has been proposed that explanation is shared (see Rod Martin, 2007). (That is trivial, and only follows from the proliferation of theories). But, even if several theories limited themselves to isolated classes, it could not also be true that many instances of humor can be explained by more than one theory. Those assertions are incompatible. There cannot be isolated theories of types of humor and "many" instances of shared explanation. The latter implies that theories are basically global.

Only a linguistic theory might purport to explain just a class, or an "instance of humor." No global theory does. We are not told what an "area of focus" means among the other theories, we don't know whether it means a type of humor or a way of explaining humor generally. Cdg1072 (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Inside Jokes

This page is severely lacking in not mentioning the Hurley/Dennett book/theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jibal (talk • contribs) 20:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Expert needed

I think the theories mentioned in this article should be collated and perhaps pruned. The article currently does not present the theories in any relation to each other. Even sections like "Predominant theories" and "Alternate theories" would be helpful, but it would be better to try to categorize the theories into different types and organize the sections according to this categorization. I'm not sure if there exist good sources for such categorization, though.

The other thing is that some of the theories seem to be very minor ones. For instance, who is Alastair Clarke and why should we care about his pattern recognition theory of humor? Essentially, the theory seems to be that humor arises when "the brain recognises a pattern that surprises it". In other words, humor arises when your mind encounters something funny. What a useful theory! At least the other theories attempt to explain why some patterns are found to be funny and others are not.

To summarize, this page needs cleanup from someone familiar with the subject, who can sort out the important theories from the fringe ones and who can organize the sections in a meaningful way. 138.16.21.199 (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I fear that what you propose would be original research,and thus not allowed. You would have to find a source that does what you outline, then you could cite it.--Gautier lebon (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. There is a difference between original research/synthesis and editorial oversight, and I am merely suggesting we apply some of the latter.138.16.21.199 (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"This article needs attention from an expert in Comedy or Psychology." This article needs attention from a philosopher, but they are all too serious. Do they think humor is a joke or something? Wastrel Way (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Eric

RE: Clarke's "Information Normalization Theory"

In response to the last talk entries, it should be noted that Mr. Clarke has also published another theory called "Information Normalization." Furthermore, that later theory is similar to the "false belief" theory of Matthew Hurley and Daniel Dennett. Editors here might consider whether it would be original research, merely to mention that similarity. Maybe it would be, and thus should not be allowed unless it has been published elsewhere. I myself don't intend to describe the comparison here, or the difference between them (though I know that as well).Cdg1072 (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Zac Toa

A contributor to this article has recently added an entry concerning a "Five Elements" theory of humor. This material is clearly original research, and not admissible in wikipedia as the author has self-published it through amazon.com, without any academic vetting. A better theory was removed from this article, on the grounds that it too lacked an established journal or publisher. The "Five Elements" is not an actual theory of humor, but only an outline of types of humor, or things that happen to be funny. That much is trivial, and uninformative. A "theory of humor" is expected to present one idea that is common to all humor, not five. This entirely self-proclaimed author has no known qualifications in psychology or philosophy.Cdg1072 (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.223.195 (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

In the book, the element of surprise is shown as the central element, and the other four are just manifestations of that element. In addition, the two requirements of humor just qualifies surprise. So it is one cohesive theory, centering around surprise.

But if you don't want it on the Wikipedia page, fine. Just please remove the one-star review I got, it's been hurting my sales. I won't edit on Wikipedia again if that's what you want. 63.143.241.191 (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That junk "review" was put there by someone called "F. Vallee" ... that is not Cdg1072. -- Jibal (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Is Five Elements of Humor an example of Original Research?

Five Elements is a self-published brief essay. It has no "academic vetting" of the sort mentioned in wikipedia guidelines. Why is it allowed? Cdg1072 (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

My interpretation is that it isn't, per WP:N. I note that it keeps getting re-added, usually by ip editors. if the burden of removing it (I'm sure there will be further additions of this material, it's happened often enough) gets to be too great, we may want to submit a request for page protection of some sort. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I see. I thought I might have misidentified the relevant guideline.Cdg1072 (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope. WP:N and WP:RS certainly apply. I think WP:SELFPUB WP:SELFPUBLISH too, in this case. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, right now there is a poor review at Amazon's page for the book that mentions the Wikipedia spamming explicitly, and which someone who may or may not be Mr. Toa appears to confirm that they are using WP as an advertising medium. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Expansion of Superiority Theory

The "Superiority theory" section has quite a bit of evidence behind it, yet it consists of only a few lines about its origin. Also, simply suggesting that people laugh because they feel are better does not do the theory justice. There needs to be more application, and the full biological reasoning on why some psychologists believe it.

...I really can't write a formal article, and I never have. When I can, will link to a useful book on the subject. Burriloom (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Burriloom

Suggest deleting the "Computational-Neural Theory of Humor" section

On notability grounds. The only references are papers by one man. CiteSeer and ResearchGate don't give it much weight. I don't mean to question the value of the research itself. But it would seem to be too small & untested for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterstein (talk • contribs) 16:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I recommend against deletion. I have heard this particular "debugging" theory of humor discussed in other secondary sources (though I can't lay my hands on them at the moment), and the section contains other worthwhile material, including connections to other related theories of humor. It would make ideally make up a small part of a recommended rewriting of this article, where the broad range of theories of humor, many of which shade into one another, would be presented in a more coherent manner.CharlesHBennett (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Humor in animals?

Many human emotions and behaviors, e.g. anger, play, have counterparts in animals, it so it might be expected that humor would also. I know people who think their dogs have a sense of humor, but aside from such dubious anecdotal evidence, there must have been serious research into whether and in what sense non-human animals exhibit or experience humor. If so, it should be part of this article.CharlesHBennett (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how one could find a scientific proof of humor in animals, but when cats destroy card-houses that a person has built (see youtube), or find a bag of walnuts, dig them out of a cupboard and play games with them and leave them all over the house when you are gone (personal experience), they know what they are doing. Whether they think it's funny is hard to say. Wastrel Way (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Eric

the actual authoritative, consensus view of "relief" and "superiority" theories

The current introduction to this wikipedia article tries to establish that there is a reasonable amount of consensus in humor theory, that the relief and superiority theories have a place in the center of theory. It claims that those ideas combine significantly with incongruity to help it form a complete picture of what humor is. Even if the incongruity theory is true (and I am increasingly confident that it will eventually be considered marginal), there is no such authoritative consensus about relief and superiority having such an important supplementary role. The sources in this wikipedia article used to support the said consensus are not enough to establish the consensus. Furthermore, the source used as an example -- the only example -- is by a Professor Vandaele, an obscure humor theorist who works in another field, and isn't an authority in the subject.

This is the first statement related to the consensus issue, that the introduction is trying to establish:

"However, they now acknowledge that although each theory generally covers its own area of focus, many instances of humor can be explained by more than one theory."

That statement is plainly contradicted by those who are acknowledged to be the major authorities in humor theory, namely Noel Carroll, John Morreall, and Jerrold Levinson. Professor Levinson is clear about the relief and superiority theories not being theories of what humor is. And he does not appear to concede that those theories are important in another way, as supplementary ideas that make the incongruity theory more complete. Carroll and Morreall have a similar opinion. Morreall does say that there is an important element of play or the playful, but he doesn't suggest that relief or superiority have such roles. My conclusion is that this article distorts the actual authoritative consensus on theories of humor. I'm not going to say there is any ulterior motive, but the false claim of a consensus involving the three traditional theories, makes them look stronger than they really are, especially incongruity.

Finally, I should mention that the theory of humor that I have put forth (and mentioned here before) is quite well known in academic circles, and it isn't mentioned here, even though very good arguments suggest that it is a better theory than all of those shown here, of what humor is.Cdg1072 (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. The article sucks. What is you suggestion how to improve it? (BTW, try to forget that your theory is the best. I mean no disrespect. While a good researcher has to be his own devil's advocate, he also has to be sure he is on the right track. It is just in wikipedia we have a policy of WP:COI: let others write about you.) - üser:Altenmann >t 02:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The democratic view that portrays the "big three" as if each had a shot--does reflect the opinion of a few, and maybe a sizable few. But the more updated scholarly position (with me out of the picture) is that incongruity resolution, often called appropriate incongruity, is the explanation of jokes, while a more unresolved incongruity is thought to describe most other humor. This also clears up that passage in the article that speaks uncertainly on whether it is straight incongruity or where resolution comes in. On this picture, relief and superiority are thought to be ideas involved with humor but not part of the essence. But again, this does not describe my own view. Thanks.Cdg1072 (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You did not answer my question, which is of major importance for wikipedian's work: how to improve the article? - üser:Altenmann >t 01:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. If you think that your opinion worth inclusion here, please give me the references to your published works, and I will try to help you out. - üser:Altenmann >t 01:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

P.P.S. This does not mean I know humor better than you. But I suspect I know wikipedia ropes reasonably well to write a text that sticks. - üser:Altenmann >t 01:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought I was answering your question, because the point of my last reply was that an edit could be done that would 1) explain better how incongruity and incongruity resolution theories are currently applied, in the mainstream view, and 2) explain in what sense superiority and release/relief theories are currently regarded. After hearing from you recently and thinking about it more, I feel less interested in seeing this done, though it would be an improvement. It might help but overall the article covers not only the historical theories but many recent developments. It's quite informative in that sense. As to the original research and COI issues, I am pretty sure that, at this time, my work does not meet the criteria of what you mean by published. And if it was published, I would have by now asked someone else to mention it in this article. It is mentioned in the Of Mind and Mirth conference website through Colby College, but there only as an abstract, not a whole article or speech. At that conference, the work was informally, or orally, vetted by Dan Dennett and John Morreall. Thus, except for my online self-published posts or reviews, it is not published. But I'm not very worried, since recognition of the theory seems to increase gradually. Eventually it may possibly become the mainstream theory of what humor is, displacing the dominant incongruity tradition. But it's hard to say how many years that shift would take.Cdg1072 (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

O'Shannon's book is about humor appreciation, not the "theory of humor"

Mr. O'Shannon's book does not present or advance a "theory of humor" in the sense of the incongruity theory, or benign violation or the like. It doesn't belong in that category, it has nothing to do with the "theory of humor" in that sense. The phrase "theory of humor" doesn't mean a set of guidelines for how to be funny or make jokes or comedies. Nor does it have much to do with humor appreciation due to external factors that make humor either more or less effective.

But we find O'Shannon's book placed in the "theory of humor" list. Why? It should be placed in a separate section about theories of how to write humor and what external factors affect the appreciation of humor.Cdg1072 (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

discredit can mean refute

I want to settle something about this page. Several years ago, in 2012 to be exact, one of the editors told me that I used the word "discredit" incorrectly by using it as a synonym for "refute." I notice also that the conversation has been deleted (or I don't see it), even though that's against the rules. Now here is wiktionary's definition of "discredit."

discredit (third-person singular simple present discredits, present participle discrediting, simple past and past participle discredited) (transitive) To harm the good reputation of a person; to cause an idea or piece of evidence to seem false or unreliable. The candidate tried to discredit his opponent. The evidence would tend to discredit such a theory.

It clearly has both meanings of harming personal reputation and disproving a theory.Cdg1072 (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Five years ago? You can't even find it yourself? WP:DROPTHESTICK. Meters (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the thread is still on your own talk page, eight years later and more then three years after you asked about it. Meters (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

What about irony?

The word "irony" does not appear anywhere in this article, yet it is a fundamental form of humor not explained by any of the theories listed. Somebody should probably look into that. 68.189.139.242 (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You are mistaken to claim that the theories in the article don't claim to account for irony. As seen in the work of Marta Dynel and several others, irony is a kind of incongruity resolution humor. That's the standard view of the humor in irony, I'm not saying that it's correct. It's wrong--all the theories in this article are either trivial or false, as I've proved. But Dynel, Elliott Oring, and similar authors, represent the known standard for discussing irony in the context of theory of humor. For someone to introduce something new here would be considered original research.Cdg1072 (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus about theories of humor

The article states that "there is no consensus" that privileges any one of the three most-often encountered theories, superiority, relief, and incongruity-resolution. This is clearly not the case. I don't think that we face a dilemma between neutrality and authority, as though the authority of one central scholar, such as John Morreall, was at odds with a diverse majority that breaks down into those sympathetic towards incongruity, superiority and relief theories. It can be shown that the actual state of affairs is simpler than that.

This article states in the very beginning that "incongruity and superiority theories, for instance, seem to create complementary mechanisms that describe humor." That statement, first of all, is unattributed to anyone and synthesized as fact. It is stated as an opinion or original research. That could perhaps be fixed, by placing a scholar's name in the sentence.

But worse than being stated as a fact, it is off base as a description of an authoritative opinion in this field. It is a statement that perhaps an editor or admin decided would reflect what they thought was a neutral view, since it combines more than one theory--which is understandable. As it turns out, the claim just before that, that various examples of humor can be explained by more than one theory, also does not reflect an actual theoretical view shared by many scholars. It is like saying that, just because many theories of humor exist, then they are all valid. It's sort of a tautology, and does not clarify for the reader what authoritative view might exist, as to what theory might be considered dominant, even according to a consensus. The only real basis for suggesting a synthesis of incongruity, relief and superiority, is that a few scholars today might favor one of the latter two, superiority or relief, as a universal theory. But such individuals if they exist, are very rare, and also if they held that opinion, it would not be one which combined theories together, but favored one of the three over the other two. In fact, a scholarly majority nominally favors some sort of incongruity theory above everything else. The dominant theory is incongruity-resolution theory, however misguided it is. This article ought to reflect that opinion, rather than attempting to be creative about it. The latter approach tends to fall into the appearance of original research.

If you're still not convinced, note that as indicated by the phrase "for instance," the claim about incongruity and superiority creating complementary mechanisms, only reflects the minor view of one individual theorist. And yet it is placed there at the beginning of this article, not as a minority opinion, but as the basic view of humor. This statement being in such a position is inappropriate and biased, at odds with an actual authoritative view. As John Morreall and Jerrold Levinson both state in some of their books, superiority and relief are extraneous ideas that pertain to humor, and are not central, and in their view, only incongruity has such essential status. That John Morreall and other incongruity theorists are actually wrong--as they are deeply misguided--is irrelevant. The point is that this article does not have to face a dilemma between neutrality and authority. A neutral, authoritative view does exist. There is an authority in someone like John Morreall, whose view reflects a consensus of many other theorists, possibly the majority.Cdg1072 (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes there are problems. Do you have a concrete change for us to discuss? And please keep it neutral. Your conflict of interest is showing through again with your opinions such as The dominant theory is incongruity-resolution theory, however misguided it is and That John Morreall and other incongruity theorists are actually wrong--as they are deeply misguided. Meters (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that the post you're responding to refers plainly to concrete changes, whether we agree to make any or not.Cdg1072 (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, do you have a concrete changes for us to discuss? I don't see concrete proposals at all. Precisely what do you want to removed from the article, and what do you want to add to the article? Please use a "Change X to Y" type format so that we can discuss your proposals. Meters (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

1. Let me not argue with you about whether the post we're talking about suggests concrete changes. Obviously it names such changes. I think that what you mean, is I should state them more in isolation, that's fine.

2. Second, I drop the idea of changing the article's claim that "there is no consensus" that privileges any one of the three most often seen theories, of incongruity, relief and superiority. It is reasonable to hold that there is no such consensus. A real consensus that privileged incongruity as much as someone like John Morreal does, would be much more overwhelming. So the article is neutral in saying that, and fine as it is.

3. I change what I proposed about the passage, "incongruity and superiority theories, for instance, seem to create complementary mechanisms that describe humor." This is rightly attributed to Jeroen Vandaele, so it has no O.R. problem. However, at least in my view, there are two better ways to mention Vandaele: The article should either, A. put Vandaele in a citation only, not a sentence that describes his view specifically, because his view of the interaction of the two theories he selects, is not very notable in the field at all (for example, John Morreall would completely deny that superiority contributes to incongruity in the way that Vandaele claims). Or, B. if you insist on a whole sentence on Vandaele, then that sentence should at least mention his name, "Jeroen Vandaele thinks that, claims that, theorizes that..." Wikipedia, for example, made me do this in every instance in the article that was accepted on Metabasis Paradox. The sentence itself should attribute the view to Vandaele, not synthesize it as fact.Cdg1072 (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I just edited that sentence in the article, so that Vandaele is understood as one possible way that examples of humor have been said to be explained by more than one theory. And now his name is in the sentence, so that his theory is not synthesized as fact.Cdg1072 (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You have a conflict of interest in this article. You should not make edits directly. Please propose your changes on this talk page so that other editors may discuss them. That does not mean explain yourself on the talk page and then make the edits before they are discussed. Meters (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

If I had known that, then I would just point out that the article can't state Jeroen Vandaele's theory as a fact, it has to attribute it to him.Cdg1072 (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't undo or object to your change. I simply pointed out that you should not be making edits to this article without first getting consensus for them on the article's talk page. You should be well-aware of the restrictions for editing an article in which you have a conflict of interest. This is not the firs time you have been pointed to WP:COI. Meters (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I have recently thought about the "consensus" issue again, and am saying today that I think there's good evidence that the consensus is, in fact, that the incongruity theory is the dominant theory, and that the superiority and relief theories don't even have close to the status of incongruity, in the majority scholarly opinion. So what I'm stating here is, first the evidence I found, and then I'll concisely describe the actual changes that I propose. First, one thing I noticed is that some of the citations here used as evidence that "many examples of humor can be explained by more than one theory," don't support that opinion at all. For example, the article attributes that view to Arthur Asa Berger, and yet Berger in his Editorial, "Why We Laugh and What Makes Us Laugh: The Enigma of Humor," states that "the most widely accepted theory of humor is the 'incongruity' theory." So Berger can't be used as a citation to support a different view from that. Second, the article also cites Thomas Veatch on the "multiple theory" claim, yet Veatch is very adamant in his claim that Benign Violation, which he helped devise, is the "dominant theory of humor today." He has written that before, on his linkedin page, and it's probably stated in his article, "A Theory of Humor," which makes a bold claim that his theory of "affective ambiguity," which has been popularized as Benign Violation) is sufficient to explain all humor without the slightest help from any other theory--except that it is regarded as similar to incongruity. Third, Wikipedia states that "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity." I'm not trying to play the expert on that, and lecture Wikipedia admins--surely you know better than I. And finally, John Morreall in his Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on humor, states that the incongruity theory is today "the dominant theory of humor in philosophy and psychology," by which he means, pretty much for all fields that participate in this topic. Morreall is not stating what is considered to be his opinion of what the consensus is. He not only describes the consensus as one that favors incongruity alone, with no major competitors, but he also states in other writings of his that the relief theory and superiority theory are not, properly speaking, theories of humor at all, but describe extraneous processes that closely accompany the experience of humor.

These are, then, my specific changes, to be either accepted or rejected.

Option I: Step 1. Keep the consensus as it is, and the claim that there is no consensus as to a single dominant theory of humor, and keep the statement, that many or most theorists claim that many examples of humor can be explained by more than one theory--which I am confident that very few theorists claim to be the case. Step 2. Remove the footnote linking A.A. Berger to this statement. Step 3. Remove the footnote linking Thomas Veatch to this statement.

Option II: Revise the lead, so that it no longer asserts that there is not a "consensus" identifying a single theory of humor as dominant, or as dominant by a wide margin. Change the lead so that it reflects the view that the incongruity theory is generally considered much more important and effective, and more universal than any other theory.Cdg1072 (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It's all only a suggestion, but of course I favor Option II here, as I personally find no evidence that any theory is as dominant as the incongruity theory, in scholarly opinion.Cdg1072 (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

If admins want to keep the lead of the article as it is, another example to add to Vandaele, is that Terry Eagleton in his recent Yale Press book, Humour, suggests "splicing" the incongruity theory with the relief theory.Cdg1072 (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

A way to clarify this sentence

Not unrelated to the above issues, but a more neutral point is that (I think) this sentence can be made much clearer: As written: "Proponents of each one originally claimed their theory to be capable of explaining all cases of humor."

Revision: "Proponents of each one originally claimed their theory to be the only one explaining all cases of humor." (Or "the only one capable of explaining").

The revised version of the sentence seems to be the actual intended meaning of the passage (and clarifies why it had been so puzzling). If it just says, "capable of explaining" then the claim of dominance and uniqueness formerly attributed to each theory, is lost or obscured.Cdg1072 (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC) I intend to make this small (yet significant) edit if there is no objection.Cdg1072 (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

As someone with a conflict of interest in this article, you should not make the edit yourself. Wait for consensus for your proposal.

I object to your claim about the "intended meaning" of the passage. Where is this made obvious? You are attempting to change a statement that leaves open the possibility that various theories are not mutually exclusive, for one that says that they are. Maybe that's so, but where is this in the article? Meters (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand me although my proposal was clear. I mean that the revision proposed clarifies what the sentence is saying about the previous view of humor theories -- not the current view. That 's why it says "originally." See what I mean? You object that the sentence ought to remain as it is. But consider how your view works out: If the sentence means what you suggest, then it would mean that the theories used to claim to be merely comprehensive, but now it is agreed that they cover their own area of focus and share explanation of some examples of humor. But although that does makes sense, it creates slight obscurity by implying a strong contrast but not showing it fully. To understand what I mean, it has to be noted that what's meant by an "area of focus" here, isn't a portion of types of examples of humor, omitting others to be covered by another theory. Rather "area of focus" here means aspects applying to all types of humor. And the sentence we're talking about implies this transition: a shift from (1) theories that claimed to offer the only comprehensive explanation, to (2) shared explanation. The way the sentence is written, that intended contrast is not properly expressed. I see the correct meaning of what it is saying. It's only a question of inserting one word -- seems justified, and harmless. To be fair, it does make basic sense as already written, my clarification just makes it easier to understand.Cdg1072 (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, as I just now added, my proposed revision makes the sentence more consistent, although it already basically makes sense as written. It's actually implying that the theories of humor talked about all originally claimed to have the only comprehensive analysis of humor. It is perhaps not necessary to make this explicit in the sentence -- but it is already implicit, and leaving it out makes it harder to read. Cdg1072 (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Read what I wrote. I object to your claim about the "intended meaning" of the passage. Where is this made obvious? You are attempting to change a statement that leaves open the possibility that various theories are not mutually exclusive, for one that says that they are. Maybe that's so, but where is this in the article? I'm not saying that sentence must remain as is. I am asking you to justify your claim that it should be changed as a misstatement. I don't see this in the article. Meters (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It's evident from the content of the article, because it can be inferred from what is said about the incongruity, superiority and relief theories. I guess you understand my meaning. Maybe the evidence I'm pointing to in the article is insufficient, but I'll give you two reasons:

Reason #1: Consider what the article says about the superiority theory: "The general idea is that a person laughs about misfortunes of others (so called schadenfreude), because these misfortunes assert the person's superiority on the background of shortcomings of others." This apparently refers to what the superiority theory originally meant, before it was thought to combine with incongruity, as Vandaele proposed in 2002. It seems odd if we take the original superiority theory to indicate just an aspect, one angle on humor. It meant that the feeling of superiority uniquely defined humorous laughter, without need for another theory. It meant that sudden glory is what humorous laughter is, in essence. The same thing can be said about the relief theory. Whoever originally believed the theory, believed that it was the only necessary theory. And it was (and for some still is) the meaning of the incongruity theory, that it exclusively explains all humor, without need for a competing theory. If that wasn't the view, then why would Vandaele have changed it by suggesting that incongruity combines with superiority?

Reason #2: This as you can see is related to the above reason. The passage we're talking about, again is: "Proponents of each one originally claimed their theory to be capable of explaining all cases of humor.[2][3] However, they now acknowledge that although each theory generally covers its own area of focus, many instances of humor can be explained by more than one theory." The second sentence begins with "However," implying that something has changed about how these theories are being regarded. And it describes how nowadays some theorists (not all!) suggest that two or more of the three traditional main theories combine. But it wouldn't be a new idea, if it was already true that they could be combined. It would only be a new idea if the theories had previously been regarded as mutually exclusive. If not all theorists believe the new combinative approach, then they must be adhering to an older view of the three theories--one that took them to be mutually exclusive. Or so it seems to me. Here, I'll put it in a syllogism for you:

1. If the theories weren't originally considered mutually exclusive, then it should have already been believed that they could combine.

2. It wasn't originally thought that they could combine; it's a recent, new method, as described in this article's lead.

Therefore, they were originally considered mutually exclusive. Q.E.D.Cdg1072 (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

the edit made today should be uncontroversial

I have corrected the historical sequence in the incongruity section by placing Beattie just after Hutcheson where he appears in history, instead of between Kant and Schopenhauer where he had been placed. I also clarified in a concise way how Beattie's view was related to Hutcheson's. I moved the first mention of Kant down to the larger paragraph about Kant, and put citation-needed tags on Schopenhauer and Hegel.Cdg1072 (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: COMM 500 Theory and Literature of Communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vtrevizo18 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Chickadee101, Jaybreeze123.

— Assignment last updated by Chickadee101 (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Misattribution theory

Someone has recently moved misattribution theory from "Other theories" to place it with those often referred to as the three most prominent theories. This was a very strange thing to do (regardless of the poverty or logical error of all the theories listed). There is certainly no support anywhere for regarding misattribution theory as on a par in status with superiority, relief, and incongruity. It looks no better than vandalism.Cdg1072 (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The recently added first paragraph in "Incongruous juxtaposition theory"

The most recently added first paragraph in "Incongruous juxtaposition theory" is poorly written. It refers to "incongruity humor," a manner of description not used by any source.Cdg1072 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Essay-like

To the Wikipedian who added the Essay-like tag, it might be generally appreciated if you would be more specific about what areas you refer to. Do you mean the portion in the lead where editors have several years ago inserted description of a combinative view of the so-called three main theories? What I'm suggesting is not about the truth or falsehood of that combinative theory or of any opinion. I merely ask if that is one of the things you found to be biased--that is, you thought it was not a widely held view (which it is indeed not).

Suppose that area at the end of the article's lead strikes you as biased or unusual, and you would prefer a more well-rounded, and partly authority-based, description of how the relief and superiority theories are actually regarded today. Consider (1) asserting that they are treated by the media as instructional theories, while (2) John Morreall and other academics regard those two theories as irrelevant to what humor itself is, and claim those theories say something extraneous about humor.

Or, are you referring to the area shortly after that in the section on the superiority theory, that was recently edited with rather less than polished writing? That new edition does sound a bit too much like a college philosophy paper --which it could be taken from. I believe you need to be more specific about why you put on the "Essay-like" marking. It is hard to know what you mean.Cdg1072 (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The spelling in the newspaper joke

This article has the text of a joke written thus: "What is black and white and red all over?" But the crux of the joke is that the listener parses the word "read" as being its homophone "red"—the word having been read the while. So a better spelling is necessary, as the spelling "red" does not signify the word in context. I don't know of a solution, yet this inaccuracy cannot stand. Would it be acceptable to write the word as "re[a]d" here? I shall apply that change. —catsmoke ^talk 05:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)