>From a behavioral viewpoint verbal behavior IS behavior and obeys the same >basic laws. The -situations- in which it occurs are unique, leading to unique analyses (there are journals filled with these).
And it's an oversimplification to say that ".... Skinner did not believe in the study of cognitive and neuroscience processes...." He talking much about private events, and was interested in their study (remember, he started out with biological leanings). He considered them part of a different science that was interesting in its own right; he chose to let other people study them. He also did not think that at his time it was productive to look for the causes of specific behaviors (control and prediction, remember) in physiological processes. He did say that eventually the fields would converge and useful physiological explanations would become available. We're certainly closer to that than we were 50 years ago, although one might question whether applied cognitive science is currently as effective in dealing with real world problems (as opposed to existential angst) as behavior science is. Again, your examples of humor are very similar the my quote from Charles Catania about humor. Finally, have you actually read 'Verbal Behavior'? Any issues of the journal Analysis of Verbal Behavior? In what sense does Skinner's account of language not work very well? By what criteria? Are we back to Chomsky (he clearly did not read 'Verbal Behavior' before criticizing it; he just 'knew' it couldn't be right because he disagreed with it's basic assumption that language was an acquired behavior. Finally, as far as the arts are concerned, I'm not sure this is an important criterion for the validity of a science. Certainly psychodynamic psychology is far richer in metaphor (this reliance on metaphor might be a scientific weakness) than behavioral psychology, making it a better lode for the arts. On the other hand, the concept of the reinforcement of behavior (more generally, selection by consequences) may have become so embedded in our language that it's effects are not as obvious as Freudian slips (another example of humor through the incongruity of multiple determination). It seems to be the the liberal arts are the ONLY area where classic psychodynamics (as opposed to psychoceramics) are still common. On Jan 17, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Mike Palij wrote: > 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=13438.3b5166ef147b143fedd04b1c4a64900b&n=T&l=tips&o=32829 > or send a blank email to > leave-32829-13438.3b5166ef147b143fedd04b1c4a649...@fsulist.frostburg.edu Paul Brandon 10 Crown Hill Lane Mankato, MN 56001 [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=32839 or send a blank email to leave-32839-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
