It seems there is some science behind all jokes. Understanding why
jokes are funny isn’t amusing in itself, just as the process of understanding
why ice cream tastes good doesn’t produce pleasurable gustatory sensations.
"The big problem with theories of humor is not that they are somber; it is that they are often implausible
or myopic" writes Tim Lewens.
Surveys typically list three broad varieties of humor theory:
superiority theories, release theories and incongruity-resolution theories. Superiority
theories say that humor illustrates the inferiority in some respect of the joke’s
butt, provoking laughter as a sort of small triumph in the superior witness.
This works well in some cases, but struggles to account for “butt-less” humor
such as puns, or the kinder forms of imitation. Release theories have a
Freudian pedigree: humor provides a sort of relief from a build-up of nervous
tension. Again, it is not clear that one can plausibly think of simple puns as
having such therapeutic functions. Incongruity-resolution theories are
more popular: they assert that humorous situations involve the presentation of
an incongruity that is subsequently resolved. We find things funny when
our expectations are overturned
Hurley, Dennett and Adams go some way to explain the importance of comic timing, and other aspects of delivery, to the quality of a joke. A talented performer can lead the audience down the wrong conceptual route via gesture, tone of voice and so forth. An incompetent raconteur instead gives the punchline away in delivery, and thereby ruins any chance for an expectation to be overturned later on, by discouraging the faulty expectation in the first place.
There are a lot of theories 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, of course, what are
the necessary and sufficient conditions for a thing to be funny?
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.
Police were called to a day
care, where a three-year-old was resisting a rest.
#2: The Incongruity and
Incongruity-Resolution Theories
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 make sense 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.
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. I 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 BenignViolation 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.
"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, WhiteHouse 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. 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 on us regardless of how tense we are.
"A conclusion is the place
where you got tired of thinking." — Steven Wright
No comments:
Post a Comment