Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:27, 5 April 2012

Philosophy: Aesthetics / Ethics Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Aesthetics Ethics

Comedy Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Article history

See talk:Humor research#Article history. Laudak (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Opposing views

"Evolutionary psychologist, Geoffrey Miller contends that, from an evolutionary perspective, humor would have had no survival value to early humans living in the savannas of Africa."

Most primate researchers would disagree, I think. Unless he's using an extremely intellectual definition of "humor", it is in general a more survival-oriented reaction to social frustrations than anger. It would take a a really unusual definition of humor to assert believably that bonobos and chimpanzees, for example, DON'T have senses of humor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.160.105.110 (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Defence mechanism

So what about humor as defence mechanism? --Dennis714 (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Got a source? — HelloAnnyong 23:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As it stated in defence mechanism article: Humour: Overt expression of ideas and feelings (especially those that are unpleasant to focus on or too terrible to talk about) that gives pleasure to others. Humor, which explores the absurdity inherent in any event, enables someone to "call a spade a spade", while "wit" is a form of displacement (see above under Level 3). Wit refers to the serious or distressing in a humorous way, rather than disarming it; the thoughts remain distressing, but they are "skirted round" by witticism. --Dennis714 (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This can be added:

Humor as defense mechanism

According to George Eman Vaillant's (1977) categorization, humor is level IV defense mechanism: overt expression of ideas and feelings (especially those that are unpleasant to focus on or too terrible to talk about) that gives pleasure to others. Humor, which explores the absurdity inherent in any event, enables someone to "call a spade a spade", while "wit" is a form of displacement (level 3). Wit refers to the serious or distressing in a humorous way, rather than disarming it; the thoughts remain distressing, but they are "skirted round" by witticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis714 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

ok im not going to start the argument over whether american or british spelling is correct, but shouldn't the spelling in this article be brought into line with its parent article Humour? seems a bit silly to constantly change spelling —Preceding unsigned comment added by -ross616- (talk • contribs) 15:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the article should been moved so it is the same as the article on Humour, which could be considered its parent article. Bozzio (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:ENGVAR before moving articles. Also note that there is no requirement for an article to have the same spelling as a "parent article". Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge Laughter in literature into this article?

• Merge - The Laughter in literature article has good information that I would not have know about if not for the merge tag at the top of this article. All of the content there fits here, and would not make this article too long. PPdd (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• I tend to agree.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• At first glance, this may appear to make sense, however, they are really separate topics, and I think should be kept as separate articles. Some editors of the literature article may mistakenly add material which really belongs here. This is an error of the editors or contributors however. As topics, they are separate. Although theories of humor may be referred to in the article on literature, this does not make them the same topic. Literature is its own field, and the workings of humor in literature needs its own article. Including analysis of literature here would cause the article to become bloated. This article is just for the theories of humor, not theories on the analysis of literature.Deluno (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Most of the material seems to be theories of laughter. If there is anything else it could be moved to the main Humor article. If really large material regarding analyses of humor in literature as a separate subject should appear in the future then a separate article could be recreated. Even if the articles are not merged the theories should be moved here.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge with the general Laughter article. Looking closer I think the material should not be merged with this article but with the general Laughter article. The material is short enough to be a section in the short Laughter article. Also it is more about the history of specific persons thoughts about Laughter than about current theories about humor which is the focus of this article.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Own academic research

I have a plan to introduce my academic research and original theory of humor into this article, under a new heading of two equal signs. Can someone tell me if a self-published pdf file, from a blog, can be posted as the primary text presenting the new theory? cdg1072 4:15, 1 March 2012

In my opinion, no, that is not an appropriate source.--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I also read that doctoral dissertations might be accepted as sources, since they are vetted,but not MA theses and papers. I

have written two, rather than one, MA thesis on the theory of humor. Does this make a difference, or is it the judgment of the discussion

group that I must remove the entry?Cdg1072 (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Cdg1072 (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC) cdg1072

Dear Gautier, As you are reading my last question, I want to let you know that the cited paper has been on submission to the journal

Human Studies (Sociology)since 12/11. If my entry cannot now be sustained in the wikipedia article, I'd like to ask if it is possible to

delay removal until we hear back from Human Studies, which could be in a few weeks. That may also clarify how the paper is being received. I

have one MA with focus in humor theory/studies from UChicago, and another MA in philosophy, humor theory thesis, with coursework not yet complete. I understand if these are not deciding factors. Best, CDGCdg1072 (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

New section on Mimetic Theory

As you can see from the discussion just above, an editor has added a new section to the main article, titled "Mimetic Theory". That section is based on a single reference, a paper from the editor himself. I have a feeling that this is not an appropriate citation, so the section in question should not be included in the article, but I'd like to read the views of other editors.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a huge problem to me. Isn't this a clear violation of Misplaced Pages rules? The author of the paper (... of the University of Chicago) has contributed a new section to the article as user Cdg1072, based on nothing but his own work. To make things worse, he's attacking other theories in the article, and it seems clear to me from the article and talk page edits that he's using two IPs resgistered to the University of Chicago (147.126.46.147 and 147.126.46.145) as socks to bolster support for his section and further attack the sections he does not like. Another editor has suggested protecting the page until this is worked out. Meters (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like pure promo of an (unpublished) article of the editor. I have been looking at internet to find more information about the writer. 1 article on scholar (pré 2010) and 58 hits on Google Search,. It fails to convince me of his importance. I can't judge about the importance of the magazine, as I can't find it in the mess of completely unrelated stuff. As a clearly unimportant sociologist/philosopher, we can't allow him to promote his articles and ideas on Misplaced Pages. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

What is a Theory of Humor?

The idea "theory of humor" is not well organized in this article. Editors should consider that "benign violation" and other ideas of mixed emotions are accidental to humor, and that they clearly don't make a strong claim to a "theory of what humor is." Of course, this may not be reason to label the section "Benign Violation" as "disputed."

But if all theories pertaining to humor belong in this article, should there be a section for theories that merely describe something accidental about humor, rather than define the essence of it? For example, the topic of humor's moral impact is not unimportant. It may have applications in sociology, psychology and statistical analysis. "Benign violation" exists in things that are not humorous (mixed emotions, moral controversy). As the article already notes, there is a consensus that the classic theories of "incongruity, superiority, and relief," have all been shown to be accidental or fail to account for many features.

If an editor wants to claim that a section is unclear, this ought to be proposed in the talk page first. Then if there is at least some agreement that the section is difficult to understand, it can be so labeled. But, if a section gives solid counterexamples by means of basic logic, as does the Mimetic Theory, it is probably not unclear. If a theory claims necessary and sufficient conditions, then it claims to be a "holy grail theory," that is, it does not merely describe some property of humor which is present in other things. "Tension and release," for example, is in humor, but it is also in other things. The benign violation theory claims necessary and sufficient conditions. Many qualified scholars find this to be a very weak claim with many counterexamples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.46.145 (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The Ontic-Epistemic Theory Refuted

Humor is concerned in a very general sense with delusions. The Ontic-Epistemic Theory instead focuses on the desire for "social reality." The OET is proposing that one important desideratum, shattered in humor, is simply to see the world as meaningful rather than a collection of atoms without such meaning. But although this is a desideratum, it is a specific one motivated by intellectual traits. Desire in a general sense is broader and more palpable than the concern for the meaning of life and the world.

An unexpected disclosure of sexual desire often gives an impression of undesirability and non-sophistication. Therefore, in such a case, it is a "delusion of sophistication" which is shattered. The possibility of delusion is a basic fact about everyone who loves, or a basic feature of sexual desire. Since there are many similar examples besides that of love, together they all indicate that humor is to be explained in terms of desire in general. Although our perceptions of meaning and social identity may count as humorous deception, such nuanced beliefs are a specific rather than a general case.

It is difficult to miss the ubiquity of simple falsehood, lying, and foolery in humor. If a person is merely fooled or lied to, for example, this concept is sufficiently humorous to point toward a general concept of humor. A "theory of humor" must mean a general theory that encompasses every form of the phenomenon. The idea of "pleasant delusion" or "shattered pleasant delusion" fits that requirement. As a claim to a general understanding of the nature of humor, the Ontic-Epistemic Theory is not plausible. Ultimately, it might be deleted.Cdg1072 (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the Computer Theory of Humor frivolous?

The Computer Theory of Humor is similar to the claim that humor is like something paradoxical or untrue, being fed to a computer. And as though the input damaged the machine, the claim is that such damage resembles laughter. Is the explanation pseudoscience? This question is raised respectfully and inviting the opinion of others.

"A realization of this algorithm in neural networks justifies naturally Spencer’s hypothesis on the mechanism of laughter: deletion of a false version corresponds to zeroing of some part of the neural network and excessive energy of neurons is thrown out to the motor cortex, arousing muscular contractions." Cdg1072 (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Pattern Recognition Theory is too Vague

"Pattern recognition" is too vague to make a noteworthy case for the meaning of humor. There may be specific patterns mentioned in the full version of the theory. But to group them together as merely "patterns" skirts the demand for some substantive idea that unites them. The "humor theory" article ought to feature the history of humor theory, but within reason and plausible examples. There is justification to delete the Pattern Recognition article. Cdg1072 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Start-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• Start-Class Aesthetics articles
• Mid-importance Aesthetics articles
• Aesthetics task force articles
• Start-Class ethics articles
• Mid-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles
• Start-Class Comedy articles
• High-importance Comedy articles
• WikiProject Comedy articles
• Unassessed psychology articles
• Unknown-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles