On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:39:53 -0600 (CST), Joan Warmbold wrote:
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.
A point I tried to make in an earlier post which seem to have
have overlooked/ignored is that defining humor from a behaviorist
perspective focuses is on "behavior". Clearly, some
humor is "physical humor" (the silent films of Charlie Chaplin,
Buster Keaton, Harold Loyd, and so on clearly give examples
of this) while some humor is based on language (e.g., jokes,
puns, etc.) and situations (e.g., sketches). When we get to
aspects of humor that involve interpretation of words or situations,
purely behavioral (or radical behaviorist) accounts *should be silent*
because these positions do not work in these areas. I can imagine
Tolman speculating about humor as a scientific subject but I cannot
imagine Skinner doing so in any meaningful way (this does not mean
he might not have re-framed humor into behaviorist terms but this,
like his account of language, would probably not work very well).
This does not mean that Skinner was a Scrooge or humorless, rather,
because Skinner did not believe in the study of cognitive and
neuroscience
processes, he would not be interested these components of humor.
By implication, students of Skinner and believers in radical behaviorism
would hold similar views.
Freudian interpretations (no matter how much one disagrees with them
and I do tend to disagree with them) it should be noted that in the
arts,
Freud is a major influence while Skinner is a minor influence (the onely
instance I can think of Skinnerian influence is in "Young Frankenstein"
when Dr. Frankenstein gives the Monster a reinforcer for doing a dance
routine correctly).provide a better framework for thinking about
certain aspects of humor. Consider: why is the following funny:
Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.
And updated version of this statement that focuses on alleged intrusive
nature of male-oriented sex is and the weapon-like nature of male sex
organs::
Sometime a penis is only a penis.
The humor in these statements involves (a) a certain set of concepts,
(b) an understanding of certain theories about people and events,
and (c) some knowledge of Freudian theory. How would a
behavioral account explain why these statements are funny.
Finally, I know that the word "humor" was originally left vague which,
in my opinion, is generally a bad idea -- better to be more specific
about
what aspects of humor one is concerned with given the wide variety
of events that can be considered "humorous" from slapstick to satire.
A behavioral account might be relevant to certain situations but are
unlikely in others (e.g., how would a behaviorist explain satire?).
-Mike Palij
New York University
[email protected]
Carol DeVolder wrote:
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. ;-)
---
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=32829
or send a blank email to
leave-32829-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
