Carol--consider contacting the Skinner foundation via his daughter, Julie Vargas at [email protected]. Folks who knew Skinner have told me that he had a wonderful sense of humor so bet he would have had an opinion.
Certainly ones life experiences and reference systems play an important role, which could explain why ones culture and the time era so influence perception of humor. For example, many of students think "Family Guy" is a riot whereas I think it's plain stupid. Whatever, love your question. Joan > 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=49240.d374d0c18780e492c3d2e63f91752d0d&n=T&l=tips&o=32799 > or send a blank email to > leave-32799-49240.d374d0c18780e492c3d2e63f91752...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- 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=32818 or send a blank email to leave-32818-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
