ger@trsvax (09/20/85)
>> BUT does your theory explain why this is "funny" ? i.e why does this >> result in laughter, and the emotion we experience as 'humour' ? >> My own opinion is that it's purely the manipulation of STRUCTURE that >> we find amusing. All jokes alter some sort of structure (social, >> lingustic, sexual) in a clever way. Since a fundamental part of our >> cognitive system is recognition and manipulation of structures ... >> ... that produce the experience of mirth. > Nobody seems to explain WHY structure flipping or context flipping or > philospical point comprehension would result in laughter and the pleasant > feeling that humor provides. For some time now I have been developing a personal theory of laughter that would help me to understand all aspects of humor. First, as a basis, it appears that each of us has developed our own "standard context" world view which makes us feel comfortable (non-stressed) and, in our own opinions, maximizes our personal "life-survival" potential. We hold our standard contexts (dearly sometimes) to be `right' as opposed to `wrong' and most of us feel a need to indoctrinate others into our own contexts so as to develop a sort of general agreement about the `rightness' of them. It is also common for us to accept a context from others that we feel might increase our own chances of success (survival) in life -- vis a vis the way that some people try to dress and act `like' famous personages such as Michael Jackson, John Wayne, Dennis Ritchie, or whomever they feel to be a worthy success image. In any case, LAUGHTER IS REJECTION. This simple definition means that what we `perceive' as `humor' are those things which we consider to be outside of our own standard contexts and, by laughter, we are (mentally) rejecting their inclusion into our own arenas. The actual physical body mechanism of laughter is a stress releasing mechanism which allows us to "unstress" what we have just seen (most of the stress is probably at the subconscious level, hidden from conscious inspection. This is due to the nature of the "sub-conscious mind" itself. i.e. observant, gullible and believing.) I would say that this physiological action is akin to one which is now well known, that of the "shot of adrenaline" during "fight or flight" (potential non-survive) situa- tions. Have you ever wondered why you see some people laughing/smiling under very high stress conditions such as death or disaster? Obviously, the laugh- ter itself is a stress reduction mechanism. They are certainly not finding anything funny or humorous about their current environments. It "feels good" to reduce mental and physical stress in one's self, so we all laugh. When I was younger, I would wonder why laughter felt so good but yet the stereotype of the institutionalized mentally unbalanced patient was often one who was constantly in uncontrollable laughter. The actual description of the laughter as "uncontrollable" is certainly very interesting also. Within the above definition, the `mental' patients are unable to cope with life itself and are rejecting the entire physical environment in which they find themsel- ves. This continuous act of (mental and physical) stress relief is all that they can now accomplish within their own (aberrated) standard contexts. Isn't laughter funny? I would be very interested in hearing any current medical research on stress relief which supports or denies this theory. Informally, it has explained to my satisfaction, every aspect of humor/laughter that I have applied it to so far. From an example above, the `funny' aspect of W.C. Fields' remark is the personal rejection of his attempted switch of our own context (from a `generally-agreed context' of YMCA clubs) into his own `privately-held' con- text. Our humor would also be a subconscious rejection of the "clubbing of children" (certainly a "problem" [non-survival] action, in so far as it is viewed by the subconscious mind). Someone, with a different personal context, might find no humor in Fields' remark. This difference could have come in the form of having personally observed a child (or a baby seal) clubbed. These personal contexts are formed at the conscious level and are subjected to a continuous review for survival potential. Once included (clubbing) in the conscious context set, the subconscious no longer has to deal with it and the subconscious can go back to its other `background' tasks of regulating body temperature, heart rate, etc. Laughter is the defense/rejection of collapsing a person's conscious standard context set, and the physical stress relief medium of the subconscious. I have also found that I can now better understand why people "make fun" of other people. The humor is an ill-disguised (in my context) attempt to get the person being made fun of to be rejected by the group as he is considered to be dangerous to the survival context of the fun-makers -- or -- the attempt is to "lower" the butt of the humor, so that the perpetrators feel "higher" than that. I have noticed that Carson's Tonight show on TV uses this form of humor to a marked degree. It allows an audience of low self-confidence to perceive itself as "higher" (on a conscious level) than the one being made fun of. i.e. the one being "put-down". The laughter is the subconscious stress relief valve of accepting a destructive (non-survival) slur into one's personal unconscious context set. My personal regard for comedians is directly proportional to the amount of conscious context shifts they use, rather than their use of the more insidious "put-downs" of other people. Laughter as a rejection of pain, hostility, grief, stupidity, or whatever is really not as funny as I first thought (moved to conscious context from subconscious context). Comment? Or do you just laugh in the general direction of this hypothesis? ...!ihnp4!sys1!sysvis!george :-) "Never let 'em see you sweat."
bs@faron.UUCP (Robert D. Silverman) (09/23/85)
> > >> BUT does your theory explain why this is "funny" ? i.e why does this > >> result in laughter, and the emotion we experience as 'humour' ? > >> My own opinion is that it's purely the manipulation of STRUCTURE that > >> we find amusing. All jokes alter some sort of structure (social, > >> lingustic, sexual) in a clever way. Since a fundamental part of our > >> cognitive system is recognition and manipulation of structures ... > >> ... that produce the experience of mirth. > > > Nobody seems to explain WHY structure flipping or context flipping or > > philospical point comprehension would result in laughter and the pleasant > > feeling that humor provides. > > For some time now I have been developing a personal theory of laughter that > would help me to understand all aspects of humor. First, as a basis, it > appears that each of us has developed our own "standard context" world view > which makes us feel comfortable (non-stressed) and, in our own opinions, > maximizes our personal "life-survival" potential. We hold our standard > contexts (dearly sometimes) to be `right' as opposed to `wrong' and most of > us feel a need to indoctrinate others into our own contexts so as to develop > a sort of general agreement about the `rightness' of them. It is also common > for us to accept a context from others that we feel might increase our own > chances of success (survival) in life -- vis a vis the way that some people > try to dress and act `like' famous personages such as Michael Jackson, John > Wayne, Dennis Ritchie, or whomever they feel to be a worthy success image. > > In any case, LAUGHTER IS REJECTION. This simple definition means that what > we `perceive' as `humor' are those things which we consider to be outside of > our own standard contexts and, by laughter, we are (mentally) rejecting their > inclusion into our own arenas. The actual physical body mechanism of laughter > is a stress releasing mechanism which allows us to "unstress" what we have > just seen (most of the stress is probably at the subconscious level, hidden > from conscious inspection. This is due to the nature of the "sub-conscious > mind" itself. i.e. observant, gullible and believing.) I would say that > this physiological action is akin to one which is now well known, that of the > "shot of adrenaline" during "fight or flight" (potential non-survive) situa- > tions. Have you ever wondered why you see some people laughing/smiling under > very high stress conditions such as death or disaster? Obviously, the laugh- > ter itself is a stress reduction mechanism. They are certainly not finding > anything funny or humorous about their current environments. It "feels good" > to reduce mental and physical stress in one's self, so we all laugh. > > When I was younger, I would wonder why laughter felt so good but yet the > stereotype of the institutionalized mentally unbalanced patient was often one > who was constantly in uncontrollable laughter. The actual description of the > laughter as "uncontrollable" is certainly very interesting also. Within the > above definition, the `mental' patients are unable to cope with life itself > and are rejecting the entire physical environment in which they find themsel- > ves. This continuous act of (mental and physical) stress relief is all that > they can now accomplish within their own (aberrated) standard contexts. > Isn't laughter funny? > > I would be very interested in hearing any current medical research on stress > relief which supports or denies this theory. Informally, it has explained > to my satisfaction, every aspect of humor/laughter that I have applied it to > so far. From an example above, the `funny' aspect of W.C. Fields' remark is > the personal rejection of his attempted switch of our own context (from a > `generally-agreed context' of YMCA clubs) into his own `privately-held' con- > text. Our humor would also be a subconscious rejection of the "clubbing of > children" (certainly a "problem" [non-survival] action, in so far as it is > viewed by the subconscious mind). Someone, with a different personal context, > might find no humor in Fields' remark. This difference could have come in the > form of having personally observed a child (or a baby seal) clubbed. These > personal contexts are formed at the conscious level and are subjected to a > continuous review for survival potential. Once included (clubbing) in the > conscious context set, the subconscious no longer has to deal with it and the > subconscious can go back to its other `background' tasks of regulating body > temperature, heart rate, etc. Laughter is the defense/rejection of collapsing > a person's conscious standard context set, and the physical stress relief > medium of the subconscious. > > I have also found that I can now better understand why people "make fun" of > other people. The humor is an ill-disguised (in my context) attempt to get the > person being made fun of to be rejected by the group as he is considered to be > dangerous to the survival context of the fun-makers -- or -- the attempt is > to "lower" the butt of the humor, so that the perpetrators feel "higher" than > that. I have noticed that Carson's Tonight show on TV uses this form of humor > to a marked degree. It allows an audience of low self-confidence to perceive > itself as "higher" (on a conscious level) than the one being made fun of. i.e. > the one being "put-down". The laughter is the subconscious stress relief valve > of accepting a destructive (non-survival) slur into one's personal unconscious > context set. My personal regard for comedians is directly proportional to the > amount of conscious context shifts they use, rather than their use of the more > insidious "put-downs" of other people. Laughter as a rejection of pain, > hostility, grief, stupidity, or whatever is really not as funny as I first > thought (moved to conscious context from subconscious context). > > Comment? Or do you just laugh in the general direction of this hypothesis? > > ...!ihnp4!sys1!sysvis!george :-) "Never let 'em see you sweat." Can we keep this sophistry out of net.math??? Bob Silverman (they call me Mr.9)