Thanks, Mike and Paul (Paul responded back channel as he had already squandered his posts yesterday :) ) Mike, I have read many of the things you mentioned and I'm familiar with Darwin's take on it, as well as the changes through the centuries *vis a vis *the various philosophers. I have not found anything specifically behaviorist that addresses my question, except for the link that Paul sent me, which I enjoyed very much (thanks again, Paul). I find it interesting that, given the amount of time we spend engaging in things that make us laugh, invoke a feeling of mirth, or both, there isn't more from a behaviorist perspective. I don't believe that behaviorists are grim by nature (I consider myself a behaviorist, and I don't think I'm grim), but I haven't found much literature that addresses humor and its associated constructs from a behaviorist perspective. It just seems like something's missing, and I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something of which I should be aware. I'm definitely not as well-read as some TIPSters, so I turn to you all for ideas. Thanks, Carol
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Mike Palij <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > 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=177920.a45340211ac7929163a0216244443341&n=T&l=tips&o=32792 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to > leave-32792-177920.a45340211ac7929163a0216244443...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > > > > -- Carol DeVolder, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology St. Ambrose University 518 West Locust Street Davenport, Iowa 52803 563-333-6482 --- 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=32799 or send a blank email to leave-32799-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
