On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:40:38 -0800, Carol DeVolder wrote: >What sources should I look at to find a behaviorist view of laughter, >mirth, and humor? I realize I'm being vague--that's on purpose. :)
A few points to consider: (1) If you have not examined the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on humor, I suggest that you do since it gives an interesting overview of the philosophical/religious opinions concerning the nature of humor and whether engaging in humor should be considered socially acceptable. See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/humor/ The early negative view of humor is captured in Umberto Eco's book and movie "The Name of the Rose" where a book by Aristotle on humor plays a significant, if deadly, role. For the book, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_the_rose For the movie, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Name_of_the_Rose_%28film%29 In recent centuries, alternative philosophical interpretations of humor have developed though these may not be directly relevant to psychological theories of humor. (2) I think that there are two opposing perspectives on humor within the behaviorist tradition and perspective: (a) Darwin's work on the expression of emotion in animals and humans suggest that all species experience a core of similar emotions, which serves as a justification for the psychological studies of animals as surrogates for humans and (b) the tendency against anthropomorphizing, that is, interpreting the behavior and internal states of animals/other species (including AI creations like "Her") in terms of personal human experiences. One source on this is the Wikipedia entry on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism But, I believe that behaviorists have developed a more specific and sophisticated view of this position, one such view I think is expressed here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23006496 The fundamental question is whether behavior in animals that appear "similar" to human behavior is best described in "human terms" or in more neutral terms. For example, "smiling" or "laughing" in human may be interpreted as the internal experience of humor but does "baring one's teeth in a nonthreatening manner" and "making vocalization of certain types" equivalent counterparts in animals? If one believe this to be true, then one can study animals to determine what laws of behavior apply to the behaviors that constitute the experience of "humor". If one does not believe in this position, especially if one thinks that language plays a critical role in the experience of humor, then studying animal behavior will tell us little if anything about the experience of humor. If one only limits consideration of humor to humans, I suspect that one can reduce the "joke situation" or "comedic situation" (i.e., humor that is primarily physical; consider slapstick humor in silent films) to a simple set of relations: Stimulus(joke/comedy) -> Response(Laugh/etc) -> Stimulus(Positive/Negative/Null). Given the above, we laugh at a joke, especially ones we have experienced before or ones similar to jokes we have been reinforced for before. We may fail to respond because we were punished for our response (e.g., laughing to racist/sexist/etc jokes) or received no reinforcement for a response (stimuli might be required to indicate that a response should be made like an "applause" or "laugh track" to indicate that laughter/etc should be emitted; TV studio audience have an "applause" sign go as a reminder that they need to clap). This does leave unanswered why certain classes of jokes (e.g., fart jokes) are considered HILARIOUS by some people but disgusting by others; I guess peoples reactions to bodily sounds and functions play a role but that's too Freudian for me. ;-) -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=32792 or send a blank email to leave-32792-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
