You should by now have your text book (http://www.psychologicalscience.com/humor/book.html). If you don't please let me know (otto.maclin@uni.edu). After reading chapter 2 please respond to the following questions:
Of the two theories presented in the chapter, which did you like the most? Why? Which did you like the least? Why? What are three things you read about in the chapter that you think will be the most useful for you in understanding the psychology of humor? Why?
I liked the superiority theory better than the psychoanalytic theory for a number of reasons (though I dislike both theories). First, it's slightly more versatile and has a more realistic and believable explanation for the underlying mechanisms which produce humor.
In superiority theory humor is created whenever a person recognizes or senses that they are superior to another person, or to an earlier version of themselves. Gruner (and this is a completely terrible idea) suggested that laughter originally developed as a way to release the excess tension left over after a battle ends.
This relates back to chapter one's description of humour originally relating to liquids in our body which can be out of proportion to one another. When the 'aggressive' liquid gets to be to much it is released in the form of laughter. In this way aggression (superiority/disparagement) is the source of all humor.
Support for the theory was somewhat inconsistent. The main theme running throughout both these theories is that aggression and sexuality are common topics in humor. One important hypothesis of superiority theory is that there should be an almost direct positive relationship between the level of aggression inherent in the joke and the perceived funniness of that joke. Research suggests more of a curvalinear relationship however. it increases this way for a while, but at some point the aggression is seen as 'too much' and it is no longer perceived as funny. Some studies found that aggressive people do find aggressive humor more funny, but not humor in general.
The psychoanalytic theory was my least favorite, as it always is whenever it's available. The main difficulty with psychoanalysis (and the text suggests this is a problem for most theories of humor, including Gruner's theory) is that it is not falsifiable. Another problem are the bizarre almost anthropomorphic qualities Freud associates to the underlying mechanisms of our behaviors.
Psychoanalytic theories main description of humor is that it is away to trick our Super-ego's into allowing us to (for a moment) gratify sexual and aggressive urges of the Id that we would otherwise be far to ashamed to enjoy. In support of this view I think of the "Dirty Johnny" or the "child-in-the-shower-with-his/her-parent-asking-questions-about-body-parts" jokes we often tell as children and young adolescents. In many of these jokes it's almost too easy to see that you're really just giving yourself an excuse to talk about incredibly inappropriate, awkward, and border-line illegal things.
A lot of psychoanalysis fits more with people who have sexual dysfunctions, or are experiencing hormonal imbalances than it does with the normal population. One study they used involved only high school males. Not surprisingly the participants found incredibly descriptive sexual content in cartoons where there were non.
Freud's Id, Ego, Super-ego descriptions developed out of the continental/eastern philosophical traditions of the body being filled with 'spirits' (or 'humours') that can be in or out of balance causing all the medical problems and personality differences we notice in each other. Depending on how far you run with these analogies they can become quite silly and this is another reason I dislike his theories, even if they highlight important aspects of human experience like those of sex and aggression.
The first thing that will be quite useful throughout the course is the prevalence of aggressive and sexual content in humor. This fact can't be denied, though it can obviously be overstated (see Gruner....). Another is the general format for studying what humor is and how it is to be studied. This chapter provided a huge lit. review of various ways that questions have been asked to find out 'what is humor?'
The last thing is again a more 'foundational' idea of whats to come. In the last pages the text explains that most of these theories have been replaced by 'cognitive incongruity' theories. It will be helpful in understanding the cognitive theories to have an understanding of the development of theories of humor in general. The theories discussed in this chapter, though plagued with 'philosophy of science' type problems, such as falsifiability, begin to demonstrate how we can go about studying the phenomena of humor.
After reading both theories I quickly realized that I didn't really like either of them. Of the two theories though, the superiority theory is the one I would choose. The superiority theory states that we laugh at other people from a place of malice. In a sense it's rising above and being superior.
I liked this theory better than the psychoanalytic theory because I could slightly buy into the idea of "playful aggression" in terms of humor. Of course some humor may contain "real" aggression but most of the time, I believe it is more often than not, meant to be playful. This idea of "playful aggression" vs. "real" aggression was developed by Gruner who is the big name behind the superiority theory. He has many explanations as to why this theory is the best theory but there are also many limitations to the theory. For me, this theory was slightly easier to grasp and understand because the terms were not quite as confusing. Gruner believes that it originated after a hard fought battle and the emotional and physical energy that was built up needed to be released and was done so with laughter. I had a hard time buying into this idea that this was how laughter originated.
I disliked the psychoanalytic theory because I had a harder time buying into the idea that the purpose of laughter was to release excess nervous energy. Freud also believed that the reason we joke as much as we do was because it allowed us to release our sexual and aggression impulses. The psychoanalytic theory also had limitations because of the categories that Freud created which included wit, humor and comic. The textbook also pointed out that this theory does not take into consideration interpersonal context and social functions that take place within each person which to me is a huge limitation.
One overall theme from this chapter that will help me in my understanding of the psychology of humor includes the overall idea that humor includes aggressive and sexual content. It can't be denied that these themes appear to be everywhere when it comes to humor and laughter. There are many comedians who base their entire acts on aggressive and sexual content and they are very successful at doing so. Another theme that will help me with my understanding includes the various theories of humor. As with every other topic in psychology there are theories that can support or limit the topic. The psychology of humor is no different. There are many theories that we will learn about and some will be slightly more convincing than others will be. There may not be one theory that completely stands out as the "winning" idea of humor but through understanding each theory we can inch closer to understanding humor.
Out of the two theories in this chapter, I agree more with the superiority theory. There are many reasons as to why I like this theory more than the psychoanalytic theory, but mostly because there is more evidence supporting this theory. Though I know this is supposed to be about your opinion, it is kind of hard to agree with the theory that is rejected by most researchers. The psychoanalytic theory has been abandoned by most researchers since the 1980’s, especially the psychoanalytic theory of humor.
I found it interesting when the book used the Gestapo as an example of this theory, for I believe that most people do find other people’s pain enjoyable and humorous; whether they will admit to it or not. When this theory is used in a less extreme example, such as teasing someone or trying to “top” your friend or colleague, it is more believable. I think these examples will help me understand the psychology of humor more than the psychoanalytic theory.
Another thing I will remember from this chapter is the self deprecating section explaining why we find it humorous to poke fun at ourselves. I do believe that we all have different mood states, roles, and conflicting personality characteristics and humor keeps us in balance, basically keeping our bodies in “check.” People with out a sense of humor are rigid, which would be why having a sense of humor is healthy for us.
I also agree with Charles Gruner, who emphasizes that humor is a form of play and that we get triumphant feelings after feeling a sense of victory, such as telling a funny joke or a pun.
Out of the two theories, I disliked the psychoanalytic theory. There are many reasons as to why I don’t agree with the psychoanalytic theory, but my personal opinion is that I don’t think there should be an underlying sexual conscious in everything we do. When using the psychoanalytic theory with humor, it is easy to use sexual undertones to come across as humorous, but that shouldn’t be the only explanation for the reason why humor is so enjoyable.
I agree with mrpaige, when states that the psychoanalytic theory is more for people who have sexual dysfunctions, rather than trying to use the psychoanalytic theory for explaining why we laugh and have a sense of humor.
I am sure that both theories contribute to the explanation why we have a sense of humor, why we laugh, and why we find other people’s sense of humor enjoyable. After reading this chapter, I have a better understanding of the psychology of humor and the reasons behind it.
Between the psychoanalytic theory & the superiority theory, I feel that I understand the superiority theory of humor the most.
The main reason I agree with Gruner's theory is the difference of 'play' that the superiority theory supports vs. the psychoanalytic theory. As said in the book superiority theory is, "The type of play he has in mind is a game, competition, or contest, where there are winners and losers..enjoyment of humor is akin to the jubilant, triumphant feelings one has after suddenly winning a very close game after a long struggle." Whereas the psychoanalytic theory idea describes play as "aggressive play." This aggressive play supposedly allows us to, "experience for a moment the illicit pleasures derived from releasing some of our primitives sexual & aggressive impulses."
Throughout the chapter aggression was used in both theories. However, the 'playful aggression' that the superiority theory supports is more understandable to me than the 'real aggression' we see in Freud's theory. I feel that almost all humor is a form of playful aggression. Many of us have experienced being poked fun of at or joked around about someone else's misfortune which describes playful aggression. However, the 'real aggression' does not seem to apply to all cases of humor. This aggression implies that humor enables us to 'attack' or release our sexual or aggressive impulses.
Overall, the main reason I would pick the superiority theory is because it is easier for me to understand and relate to. Whereas, the psychoanalytic theory I found myself trying to understand how or why Freud's ideas explain humor. I found myself having a hard time relating Freud's ideas to understand my own sense of humor whereas the superiority theory seemed to make more sense with my humor and the humor I enjoy.
After reading this chapter I feel that the first idea I read that will help me understand humor is that there are many theories of humor. There is not a single 'right' theory. "Each theory accounts for some aspects or types of humor, but fails to give a complete picture." This part of the reading will help me understand that putting different aspects of humor theories together will help us understand the idea of humor.
The next part of the reading that will help my understanding is realizing the differences between the types of aggression some theories use vs. others. Aggression plays a major role is humor theories but the 'real' vs. 'playful' aggression was interesting to learn about and helped me relate more to the superiority theory.
The last idea from this chapter that has helped me with understanding humor more came from Gruner. "laughter originated in the 'roar of trimuph.' Within this section of reading it described that laughter helps our bodies dispel of any excess tension from emotional or physical stress we might have (roar of triumph after winning a battle). Laughter helps our bodies to 'restore.'
This chapter had a lot of information to help me gain a better understanding of how & why humor works. It is interesting to read about the different theories and gain more knowledge of what causes us to find and practice humor throughout our daily lives.
I have to be honest and say that I don’t particularly like either of the theories. I don’t like the psychoanalytic theory because I find most of the explanations hard to believe. Also, the support of the theory from research was limited. The psychoanalytic theory describes jokes or wit which must be clever and which express sexual and/or aggressive feelings that have been repressed. The explanation for this is that the clever aspect of a joke distracts the superego which allows the sexual impulses of the id to be expressed. I don’t buy this in the least. It is true that many jokes are sexual or aggressive but I do not believe it is because we need to express repressed sexual/aggressive energy. When describing innocent jokes, psychoanalytic theory says that we get enjoyment from such jokes because they allow us to regress back to childish thinking momentarily. I think we can find something innocent funny without thinking like a child. Many studies were done concerning the repression of aggression and sexuality and how funny they find certain jokes. Overall, the results showed little consistent support for people who repress their sexuality and aggression as finding jokes with such tones funnier than others.
I don’t like the superiority theory because it describes humor as a type of aggression. Gruner calls humor playful aggression. Basically Gruner says that you have to win, dominate, or have the upper hand in a situation to experience humor. He uses an example I don’t like at all. He says after a fight the winner dispels their extra tension through laughter and the loser dispels theirs through crying or weeping. In fights I’ve seem, people usually don’t laugh manically after a fight even if they won. Gruner also says that all jokes among friends are a battle of wits. The explanations of innocent humor that Gruner provides are seriously reaching. Furthermore, the research done on superiority theory has all been done using cartoons. In my opinion, the pain and hostility cannot be seen in any serious light. On the other hand, shows like America’s Funniest Videos show real people being hurt. Although many of these videos are funny, some might cross the line because of someone’s pain in the video. No research was done in this area or at least none that was included in the text.
One thing that I read in this chapter that I feel may be helpful in understanding humor is the idea of humor as a defense mechanism. People use humor every day in an attempt to avoid awkwardness or other feelings that the individual may be uncomfortable expressing. I never thought about it before, but this could be a way of reducing stress and retaining a sense of control in adverse situations.
Another useful topic is this chapter is the abundant presence of aggression and sexual themes in humor. I don’t believe that all humor has aggressive/sexual undertones but it will be interesting to learn how other theories explain this type of humor. At this point I have read about two theories’ explanations of the topic and now can compare those to the ones presented in later chapters of the text.
I feel that my disbelief in the theories presented in this chapter will be useful when I’m reading about other theories. The explanations that I don’t buy provide me with questions. I will be looking for answers while learning about other theories and I think knowing what you believe or not is a big part of learning when dealing with theories.
To be completely honest, I wasn’t extremely impressed with either of the theories in this chapter, but if I had to pick one that I liked more than the other, I would have to go with the psychoanalytic theory. I don’t completely agree with the fact that all humor comes from sexual and aggressive repression, but I think some humor may come from that once and a while. In the text it says that we enjoy jokes because we can release sexual and aggressive impulses—I don’t know if I completely agree with that, but the text also says that we don’t feel guilty about this because the superego is temporarily distracted—that is something that makes sense to me. There are a lot of jokes and stand-up comedian routines that I hear that can be sexual, aggressive, racist, and a lot of other uncomfortable things that we find funny. They don’t seem like subjects that should be very funny, but because they’re told in a humorous context, it’s okay to laugh at. Maybe because, like the text says, “our superego (conscience) is temporarily distracted by the clever cognitive trick included in the joke, and we are often not even consciously aware of the degree to which the joke contains such aggressive and sexual themes”(p 33-34). That concept is one that I agree with. The other part of this theory that I liked and agreed with was that Freud said humor is used as a defense mechanism. I don’t think that is necessarily true for all individuals, but I think it’s definitely true for some. I also think that it’s used for coping with stress and/or stressful situations. I also agree with the fact that he said humor is a gift that only few people possess. Of course we can all relate to accidental and spontaneous humor, but I think there are those who have an extraordinary gift like writers and comedians.
The theory that I liked least of the two was the Superiority/Disparagement theory. I just don’t really agree with the fact that humor is always a competition where we are all trying to beat each other in conversations. I think it’s probably true in some situations, maybe even more than we are aware of, but I don’t think that is the only thing that humor is based on. How can you explain accidental or spontaneous humor with this theory? You can definitely use this theory to explain such humor as put-down humor, but I don’t think it’s true for all humor. I especially didn’t like the evolutionary view of this theory, simply because it doesn’t make any sense to me. Gruner claims that when emotional and physical energy is built up during a fight, the winner rids the energy with laughter. But I think that winning can be expressed in other ways besides laughter. I just don’t agree with the fact that all humor is based on aggression. I know that some humor is based on aggression, and it’s probably more aggression-based than I realize, I just don’t think ALL of it is. I can’t see how it could be. One example that I can think of is at my church back home, we always had a section in our bulletins every week with a “Holy Humor” section and it was just a short joke that had something to do with the Bible, or church. I can’t imagine that very many of those were ever or ever will be aggressive in any way. Maybe they would be if you REALLY took some time to analyze them, but they were always just light-hearted, clean jokes.
There are some aspects of this theory that I agree with though. One is that a moderate amount of pain or hostility or aggression is funnier than too little or too much of it. Especially when it comes to watching someone get hurt. I also I agree with what Zillmann and Cantor hypothesized on page 52 in the text: “humor appreciation varies inversely with the favorableness of the disposition toward the agent or entity being disparaged, and varies directly with the favorableness of the disposition toward the agent or entity disparaging it.” I also agree that just because someone finds a joke funny or amusing doesn’t necessarily mean that they agree with the disparaging remarks, it might just be the situation.
One thing I found interesting and useful is something that Rosenwald said of the psychoanalytic theory—in order for someone to enjoy a joke doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with a person’s unconscious feelings towards the general theme of the joke, but whether the person is able to relax inhibitions and defenses. I thought that was very interesting.
Another part of this chapter I find interesting and useful is on page 38, it says that Freud hypothesized that people that have repressed sexual drives would be more likely to enjoy sexual humor. But Ruch and Hehl found that people that had more positive attitudes about the subject or were more sexually active, found all types of humor enjoyable.
One last thing I found useful was on page 49 where McDougal described humor as “emotional anesthesia” to avoid being too emotionally involved or having too much sympathy for others. I think that can be applied to a lot of situations and it’s something that I see a lot of people do.
Of the two theories, I liked Freud's psychoanalytic theory the most. Although, Freud's theory doesn't hold much weight today, in terms of explaining human behavior, in all the psych classes I've taken I've always found his theory to be one of the most interesting to learn about. One reason I like this theory is because he believes that laughter is the release of pent up nervous energy. This is an interesting idea because laughing causes the release of endorphins making you happier and more relaxed which in turn could make you less nervous. Freud also thinks that most jokes have sexual or aggressive undertones. Thus, he thinks that people enjoy jokes so much because they can release these sexual and aggressive impulses without negative reactions from society. Which leads me to my other point of humor and jokes being a way for people to communicate information and attitudes in a socially acceptable way. I totally agree that humor is used in this way, even in society today. It gives you a way to say things without being taken seriously. I know I've said mean things to people in a joking manner, but have added "oh I'm just joking" at the end, but I'm really not. I remember someone saying something to me that has always rang true. This person said, that there is truth in every joke. Although, researchers don't support Freud's theory and he definitely has some strange ideas about how the human mind works (id,ego, superego and repressing sexual desires) I find his thoughts and ideas really interesting.
I didn't like the superiority/disparagement theory as much as the other one. Although I do see aggression in a lot of humor and jokes, I don't think it can be used to explain every joke. One reason the book stated that this theory as become unpopular was because it views humor in a negative way, whereas people today like to believe the humor is positive and healthy. Personally, I agree that humor should be looked at in a more postive light. But I could also argue that there can be positive aspects, for an individual, to be aggressive in their humor towards other people or situations. One example of this is self-depricating humor. I find that people who can laugh at themselves are more humble. This might be a trait that others look for when accepting them as a friend.
One useful thing I read in this chapter was about humor being a defense mechanism. Understanding how people use humor to 'survive' everyday situations in life will help me understand cognitive processes people go through to keep a homeostasis of their mind and body.
People use humor not only to keep themselves at ease but to also blend well with society. One of things Freud's theory didn't take into context was the social element of humor. Humor helps you make friends out of strangers and helps you communicate ideas and emotions in a safe manner.
In addition to helping indivduals in everyday life, humor also can be a survival tactic when one is faced with dangerous or end of life situations. In the book, he talks about gallows humor, 'which can be a means of maintaining one's sanity in a hopeless situation', such as prisoners being led to their death. Humor can be used to gain a sense of freedom over people who are dominating you. By understanding all the different ways humor can be utilized by individuals I think it will lead to a greater understanding of the psychology of humor.
According to the chapter and the two theories involved, humor involves aggression in some form or another. Freud’s Psychoanalytic theory states the purpose of laughter was to release excess nervous energy due to our daily sexual and aggressive impulses. Gruner’s Superiority/Disparagement theory views humor as a “playful aggression” used as competition for an individual who may feel superior to others. I favor the Superiority theory on humor because it feels like the most socially acceptable reason for making fun of something or someone. This theory explains joking can happen when one individual feels superior to another so that person uses humor as a device of improving one’s self-efficacy or worth. I find this a much more acceptable reason for humor than saying it’s due to our primitive sexual impulses that we keep pent up because of our setting at the time. The problem with Freud’s theory is that it just seems a bit difficult to explain to the average person the reason why someone is laughing is because they are constantly suppressing built up nervous energy from sexual feelings, and humor is the perfect excuse to let them out...safely.
I favor the positive perspective on the superiority theory because it emphasizes the value of humor to our self-esteem, feelings of worth, and personal well-being. Rather than focusing on the hostile, sarcastic, and cynical aspects of humor, these ideas highlight the positive feelings of well-being and efficacy, and the sense of freedom from threat experienced when one is able to make fun of other people or situations that would normally be viewed as unacceptable or threatening. I like the view that humor provides a sense of freedom from of our daily constraints of life that we are all expected to follow, at least in public.
One thing that I will remember from this chapter is the role of humor as a defense mechanism or coping style depending on which theory (Freud or Gruner). The text explains one concept of humor in the psychoanalytic theory is a defense mechanism that enables us to protect ourselves from painful emotions associated with adverse circumstances. While the superiority theory’s concept is humor as a coping mechanism to refuse being overcome by the people and situations, large and small, which threaten our well-being. Seems like two different ways of explaining the same concept or at least its purpose, to protect our emotional well-being. Another bit of information I will remember is in reference to superiority theory. One would think there should be an almost direct positive relationship between the level of aggression inbuilt in the joke and the perceived funniness of that joke. In reality, research suggests more of a curvilinear relationship. It increases this way for a while, but at some point the aggression is seen as 'too much' and it is no longer perceived as funny. Simply, a joke can have too much or too little aggression; not the more hostile, the funnier. Lastly, I will remember in reference to humor that it enables us to avoid becoming too emotionally involved in the distress and problems of others. According to the text, specifically McDougall, humor is viewed as a sort of “emotional anesthesia” that lets us avoid feeling too much sympathy for others, which might otherwise overwhelm us. An example in the text would be the Gestapo in WWII. They were known to laugh mirthfully at the panicky behavior of Jews attempting to flee from them. Perhaps finding humor in suffering Jews was a way for Gestapo to not feel too much sympathy in a situation that one normally would feel sympathy in; for it would only get in the way of doing their job effectively.
Honestly, I don’t like either theory because I don’t think either of them do a good job at explaining humor as a whole.
Although I find most of Freud’s ideas interesting, I don’t necessarily buy into them because the majority of his ideas cannot be supported by research. For example, how are we to know for sure if there really is such thing as an “id?” How are we certain that inglorious decisions or behaviors we emit as adults can be traced back to troubled times in our childhood?
The other problem I have with Freud’s psychoanalytic theory is pointed out in the text’s evaluation of the theory as a whole: “that it does not consider the interpersonal context and social functions of humor, focusing instead on dynamics taking place within the individual.” I mainly disagree with this theory because often times, I don’t typically laugh or indulge in humorous movies, T.V. shows, or behaviors alone but frequently do when I am with others. I am the type of person who will make a fool out of myself (if I’m around people I know and am comfortable with) just to make people laugh and to laugh at myself, but when I am alone, I am very mellow and quiet.
I can kind of see where Freud is coming from when he stated that humor can be used to relieve nervous energy as well as release aggressive and sexual impulses, but I don’t think that any of these explanations cover the concept of humor as a whole.
I also dislike the superiority theory because again, it cannot really be tested. Putting the fact that the superiority theory cannot be tested aside, I can understand Gruner’s concept of “playful aggression.” There are a lot of times when I use humor to down-play something that I really do mean in order to not sound truly aggressive or hostile. To me though, Gruner’s theory was mainly focused around aggression which cannot explain the majority of humor that I find in my life. On a day to day basis, I engage in conversational or accidental humor that does not typically have roots in aggressive feelings or attitudes.
All that being said, I think that there are things that I slightly agree with in both theories; however, I believe that both do a poor job at applying their concepts to all forms and situations where humor occurs.
Reading this chapter made me realize that humor is a complex phenomena that is difficult to explain in a single theory. As of right now, I do not feel as though I really understand why humor occurs because neither of the two theories explained it well enough. Because of this, I am interested in seeing what the other theories have to say (hopefully they tie things up better than these two did!).
Also, after reading this chapter and other people’s posts, I feel more “normal” in a sense that I downplay aggression by using humor. I think more information about this particular topic would be interesting and applicable to my life!
The thing I liked most about the chapter was on page 43 where it talked about Eliot Oring’s idea that humor is used as a replacement of sentimental feelings which we may feel uncomfortable with. I often times do this because I’m not really a mushy person and feel weird being “sentimental,” but never really thought about it in this way before!
From the two theories presented in this chapter I would have to favor the psychoanyalytic theory. You ask why well because Freud is just a weirdo whom I find somewhat interesting, mainly because of how his cognitive thinking skills work. Although I did not agree with everything that Freud had to say I do like the fact that Freud though humor has several different types of defense mechanisms, which I find to be true, for example, it is very easily to be overwhelmed when faced with a difficult situation and if you or another person makes a joke that everyone finds humorous, it lightens up the mood and the unplesant emotion starts to go away. In the text is mentions that the defense mechanism enables the individual to avoid unpleasant emotions while still maintaining a realistic view of the situation. This is true in it self, because no matter the situation, when humor is involved to lighten the unpleasantness, in the back of your mind you might still be thinking about what just happened or how did I get myself in this sort of situation and I'm sure glad I'm almost out of it... In addition to Freud's theory though I don't agree completely, I do like the fact that he mentions in his second category (humor) that humor coccure in stressful or aversive situations in which persons would normally experience negative emotions such as fear, sadness, or anger, but the perception of amusing or elements of the situation provide the individual to alter and enable the perceptions to avoid experiencing negative affect. I like this due to the fact that one can laugh at their own weaknesses, embarrassments or mistakes and so forth to help them cope with their stressful or aversive situation. My boyfriend is a good example of this because whenever he faces a situation in which he can't control no longer he uses humor to laugh it off therefore avoiding negative affect.
Furthermore, I obviously did not like the superiority/disparagement theory because like many others said above, humor is not always used in a competitive way. Also I don't believe that humor is always based on what he calls "play aggression." I for one don't know people who have the use humor as a competition unless your a comedian maybe trying to roll in the dough and larger audiences. Gruner emphasizes that we use humor as a game, competition, or contest, where thare are winners and losers...since when is telling jokes and being humorous have anything to do with a game? Moreover, I don't like the fact that he believers all sexual, sexiest and scatological humor is based on aggression, because it is truly untrue. I think Gruner is very biased in his reasonings. People make jokes all the time that are sexist, but its usually not far fetched or extremely harsh to show signs of aggression towards others...its like a blond joke, most blondes don't take offense unless its a cruel joke aimed right at them, but if its another "a blond walks into a bar" that has nothing to do with aggression. Well hopefully I made my point somewhat clear.
Overall, in this chapter there were a few things that I think will help me understand the psychology of humor a little better. For one, the idea of defense mechanism I found to be very true. I do believe that humor is the highest of defense mechanism because os allows us to stay in touch with the reality of the situation opposed why being able to avoid unpleasant emotions associated with the negative situation. Second, I know that there are several theories out there and not one theory in particular whether is be Freud's or Gruner's theory is completely true, especially in this sense because both theories have a lot of flaws I believe, so maybe combining a few theories together can make account for what humor is comprised of. Last but not least, I think humor is a great coping mechanism when dealing with stress. Humor is like a wheel, it can be used to A) cope with life stressors B) make others laugh C) release sexual aggression (apparantly) D) play aggression E)Defense Mechanism and so on and so forth.
I like elements of both Freud’s Psychoanalytic theory of Laughter and the Supremacy Theory. However there are elements I disagree. I have also found Freud’s theory interesting so I will point to his as my favorite. How many times a day do we laugh or use what Freud calls “Humor” as a relief to the stress of an uncomfortable or unfortunate situation. I know that when I get frustrated sometimes I cannot help by giggle at myself for getting emotional. I remember when I was little, my brother would too uncontrollably laugh when he was frustrated with my parents or believed they were overacting. Although this was usually not helpful in this situation, Freud pointed out that being able to laugh in the face of frustration or stress is a good trait. Wit and jokes are described as a way to enjoy and express “aggressive and sexual impulses arising from the id”. First, this makes sense to me as sexual humor is highlighted in every dumb humor movie that comes out. Movies, like Austen Powers, Knocked out, Wedding Crashers are starchy popular within our society and push very limit possible in sexual jokes. Furthermore, which release of aggressive impulses can be in the form of the nonverbal “comic” or “wit”. Freud’s comic and wit can be seen when we find comedy in physical slipups or hear a joke about someone which whom we feel tension or aggression. Like my brother, it could just be a release of aggression or frustration when laughing at someone overreacting.
In the superiority theory, the book explains instances find humor, when we feel superior. I see this in stand up comics, both men and women point out sexist jokes. I believe they are so funny because most of us of familiar with sexist stereotypes, and aware of the tension around them. Most of us would never want to offend someone else for a cheap laugh. However, when comics point out or make fun of those stereotypes, all of us can get a laugh which releases tension about the taboo. It makes me think of jokes I used to hear on the school yard. There would be sexist jokes which I can remember not getting most of the time, but pretending to. It’s interesting to think why these jokes were even worth passing on to us without understanding the significant, the stereotypes and underlying tension within them. Could it be that it is as releasing the tension that lay in the simple ideals central at this stage, ideas and values like “boys are better than girls”?
What I explored the most in this chapter, and what I believe psychology should also consider to some degree is “the unconscious”. There is a reason we find many sexist and racist jokes so funny. I don’t believe it is because we are all racist and sexist; we just are familiar with the stereotypes. I find comedy in people awkwardly struggling to avoid being offensive in their speech, and to have that tension pointed out is funny. Also what I thought was interesting to think about is teasing. It is a stress relieve for me to make fun of a sibling or family member for something they do which might be bugging me. Similarly, I think teasing is a large way in which we show affection. Similar on a small- scale to what the book calls “roasts”, a lot of the time our family time will tease about “personalities, behaviors and achievements” of another. These are underlying ways of showing affection towards eachother.
The theory I liked more was the Superiority theory. Although both theories failed to account for all types of humor, I thought that the Superiority theory does a better job at trying to explain more aspects of humor. I do believe that a lot of different things that we find humorous are due in part because someone is the ‘butt’ of the joke, whether the joke is light-hearted or more aggressive. I think that this type of humor exists because people can obviously relate to other people, but can appreciate that it is not them in their positioned, and laugh at this. This theory also incorporated when we laugh at ourselves as us being superior to ourselves at an earlier time, or even just in a different mood than our current one. Even when jokes are not focusing on another individual, other forms of humor, like puns, may be used to compete with others and make themselves appear superior to their opponent in this case, just like how athletes in a sporting event try to make themselves superior to others by scoring more points, or running faster. I think that jokes directed at another individual are the easiest type of jokes to make because I think that as a society we are very critical of other individuals and are familiar with stereotypes. I think that the majority of jokes that an average person makes every day are aimed at other people in a playful manner, as opposed to other jokes. Although these are aimed at someone, that does not necessarily mean that they are malicious. People often tease each other that they are very close to, and usually both people understand that it is in a playful nature.
Similar to how theories of psychology in general usually fail to encompass everything, there are also exceptions to the superiority theory of humor. I think that the research aiming to prove this theory is very weak, and also some of the theories justifications for how types of humor exhibit aggression. For example, not everyone who uses puns or repeats jokes are doing it to appear superior to someone else. I also don’t think that when people laugh at themselves that they are laughing at a different part of themselves, they may just use it as a way to cope with their own stress, which brings me to what I think is a very important aspect of humor.
A concept that both theories brought up which I think is really important is the use of humor as a defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms are a big part of Freud’s psychoanalytic theory and I liked how the Superiority theory also incorporated this concept. The Superiority theory explains that when people use humor as a defense mechanism, they are using it as a way to cope with the stress we deal with on a daily basis and is a way to not allow this stress (or other people) to overcome us.
I think that understanding all theories of the psychology of humor is important to our overall comprehension of humor. To better understand any of the topics discussed in psychology, it is beneficial to know how different schools of thought might explain a behavior, and then apply which one would be the most relevant. This is also true when understanding the psychology of humor. Knowing about the Psychoanalytic, Superiority, and other theories will help us have a better knowledge of this subject.
One last thing that I think is useful for my understanding of the psychology of humor goes along a lot with some of the things that chapter one taught me is there is a huge body of research out there about the psychology of humor to help explain these theories and more ideas behind them. A lot can be learned from the findings of these studies and I think that they are very interesting.
Like most of my classmates, so far, I did not really like either theory that much, because both theories had large holes in the line of thought. I wouldn’t say that I disliked one less, but I liked points from each theory. Over all, I had less problems with Freud’s theory, which was mostly about what Freud is typically about, id, superego, and ego. I can buy into more of his theory than the Superiority theory.
Although Freud’s theory is at least consistent with most of what I have learned about Freud thus far, I feel it is a bit out dated, and I’m not sure how much truth it has behind it. I like the idea of the id superego and ego, and I can see how repressed sexual desires could have their place, but I do not think that these things rule all things human psychology related, and I’m not willing to put money on it simply because I like the idea. It does bring some good points, such as humor coming from a situation that is typically aversive, and using it as a way to avoid these effects. This is obvious to me, because it happens all the time. There are also many jokes that work with this theory, and could be a release of libidinal impulses from the id. The problems I had with this theory are first that I feel this it is trying to cover a lot of ground, with not very many ideas. I don’t think that humor can simply be split into three categories (humor, wit, and comic). Of course there is also the fact that this theory produced limited and inconsistent evidence.
Gruners theory was something new for me to learn. I think it was a neat idea that riddles and puns originated form a “duel of wits.” Whether or not this is true, it makes sense that this is where those kinds of smart remarks come from. While I can see how many many forms of humor are derived from aggressive beginnings (laughing at others, racist jokes, jokes against genders, and the list continues…) However, not every joke ever told, or every single form of humor is aggressive. The fact that he counts himself the only judge as to what is not aggressive humor is completely ridiculous to me. Of course this cannot be empirically tested if it is one man’s opinion. This hugely discredits this theory for me. I do not agree with the idea that most humor is aggressive, but I feel that he making himself the only judge is a huge sign that this theory cannot be relied on. As scientists we experiment and collect data to support our claims and definitively learn more about human behaviors, if we cannot empirically collect data, we cannot learn.
I think this chapter did more to prove to me that humor can be largely based on aggression. This is something I had not considered before, mostly because I wasn’t analyzing the humor in my life. Looking at my friends though, we tend to be a sarcastic group, often laughing at each other’s mistakes. Always in a good natured way, but none-the-less it could be perceived as aggressive on some level. Although I do not yet buy that humor is all aggressive based, I can agree that a large part of it is.
There are parts of both theories that I think could have truth behind them. In the psychoanalytic theory I feel it could be the id releasing libidinal impulses. Although Freud’s theories may not be totally accepted anymore, I can see where he is coming from with this idea. Sexual jokes are extraordinarily prominent, innuendos happen many times a day, etc. So I can absolutely see where sex can be the ‘drive’ behind many jokes.
A couple of related points that did not necessarily themselves help me understand the psychology of humor more, but looking at them in the future, I feel, will help me, are both the evolutionary standpoint and the animal stand point. I think that watching animals (mostly monkeys and apes have been sited so far) is a really good way to learn more and compare to humans. It is also one I would have never thought of but perhaps could be simpler than trying to analyze humans. As far as evolutionarily, this is really intriguing to me. In the future of this class I would really like to look more into this, laughter has after all been around for centuries, and I think it would be really interesting to learn if there is an evolutionary standpoint of why it is still around. If it stretches farther than ‘because it makes people happy’ and serves a deeper more meaningful role in our lives.
Amongst the two theories presented in this chapter, I will have to jump on board with Frued's theory of laughter.
In Frued's point of view, society does not allow us to freely express the natural, inherent sexual and aggressive desires of the id. Thus, we have to mask our outward expressions with "jokes".
That's where the ego comes in. The super-ego chimes in and says "hey, we can't express these feelings or else somebody will be offended and think ill of us" and then the id drops it's two cents in saying "hell yeah we can, it would be hilarious." Thus, ego the moderator, comes up with the brilliant idea of joking. If somebody is offended, we can play it off as if we weren't serious. But, if they laugh, we can indulge our id and take full credit for our genius.
Often do we see aggression and sexual elements in stand up comedy, or mainstream cinema. Maybe in Frued's view, we enjoy aggressive or sexual movies because it is fulfilling the principles of the id while maintaining the strict rigidity of our moral compass of the super-ego all while in the anonymity of a dark auditorium. I can't say that I'm all on-board with Frued's thinking here, as modern theories have pointed out flaws in some of his ideas, but this theory is interesting and pretty much falsifiable as a lot of people posting before me have said.
I also can see the idea of Gruner's theory, and think it's point of 'playful aggression' is valid. Often times, among my circle of friends, we use this form of playful aggression. Nobodies feelings are left hurt and most of the time ego's go unbruised.
I think both of these theories are a good attempt at describing the complex sequences of events that produce laughter. A prominent idea I took away from this chapter was humor as a mechanism. It can be used as a defense mechanism, a stress reliever, a way to break the ice and so on and so forth. It has oodles of uses and these two theories try to aid in the explanation of why it is so pervasive in human culture.
I agreed with different aspects of both theories presented in this chapter but of the two theories in this chapter I liked the superiority theory the best. Although I didn’t agree with everything that encompasses this theory I found it more relevant to present day humor than what the psychoanalytic theory suggested. I liked the superiority theory more because it was easier for me to relate to and understand.
Of the two theories I didn’t enjoy the psychoanalytic theory. Freud’s theory produced more inconsistent and contradicting results compared to the superiority theory. Freud believed laughter was a way to release our sexual and aggressive impulses and that people with repressed sexual or aggressive drives would find hostile or aggressive jokes the funniest. When research was conducted results were not conclusive in supporting this theory. It was more often found that people who expressed hostility found hostile jokes more enjoyable then those considered to have repressed drives. The whole notion that humor and laughter is based on repressed drives just didn’t seem plausible to me, and after reading the contradicting evidence I began to question how strong this theory was. I kind of looked at it as if I didn’t enjoy being expressive about sexual or aggressive behaviors then why would I be more apt to laugh at a joke that contained something that would otherwise make me feel uncomfortable? In one study conducted, that was expressed in the book, it was found that humorous responses contained more aggression and sexual themes which supports the psychoanalytic theory but I think this also could relate the superiority theory.
According to the superiority theory humor is based upon aggression. The book presented some evidence that supports this suggestion, such as in ancient writings nomad groups laughed at starving people, the fact that children tease one another and that today some of the most enjoyable jokes are in the form of making fun of others, groups, and people of low intelligence. The book mentions some empirical research that supports the idea that humor arises from seeing someone suffer. It was found that moderate amounts of hostility and pain are considered to be most funny. I agree with this, I think that if there is too much, or not enough hostility or pain involved it wouldn’t be as enjoyable as a moderate amount. In today’s society we see a lot of humor being derived from people using aggression some things may involve too much hostility and instead of humor being expressed I would feel sympathy or disgust. Another aspect of this theory that I can relate to/agreed with is the idea we get pleasure out of the humiliation of someone we don’t like. I would rather see a co-worker who has a bad attitude slip on a wet floor then say a good friend of mine.
One thing that I read in this chapter that I think will be most helpful in understanding psychology is that humor enables us to avoid becoming too emotionally involved in the distress and problems of others. I really enjoyed the view McDougall had concerning humor and laughter, that it is a way to separate ourselves from emotional pain. I try to use humor in my life as a way to avoid emotional pain that I might otherwise experience if I took things too serious. The suggestion that the superiority theory can be applied as a theoretical basis for humor as a coping mechanism is also something that I think will help me understand psychology of humor more. This to me represents that different ideas from different theories are capable of having common ground in explaining an occurrence. Lastly something that I read from this chapter is that the view of humor as aggression is not as popular today but it is for the most part agreed upon that humor can be used to express aggression.
I wasn't really impressed with either view presented in this chapter but I did find the psychoanalytic theory more interesting to read about. Since starting to study psychology I don't know if I can name a class where Freud's ideas didn't come up. Reading about his view of humor reminded me of everything else I have read about him. He is definitely consistent in his views. Freud believed that laughter was used to release nervous energy. In some cases I believe this is true. People in tough situations often find humor in it as a way to deal with the situation. For example, my husband seems to find it hilarious that we are constantly broke when I get extremely anxious. I know he doesn't actually find it funny but it's his way of dealing with the situation. Freud also believed that jokes are a way for people to express their aggressive or sexual selves. I don't think this is completely true, but over the past 10 years I would have to say that about 85% of the jokes I've heard have been making fun of others or sexual in nature. I don't buy into Freud's idea of the id, ego, and superego though so it's hard to actually believe any of Freud's theories.
The superiority/disparagement theory hit a wrong note with me. I like to think that most of what I find funny is not a form of aggression. I do believe there is a lot of aggressive humor out there but I just can't buy into the idea that all jokes show this. I believe that some of the laughter in "aggressive" situations is more of a nervous laughter. I see this in my residents at work. When a bully on campus is making fun of someone the other kids will laugh, but then express that they just want to fit in so they go along with the crowd.
There are a lot of small points that stuck out to me in this chapter. The first one being that there are at least 88 different theories of humor. In each of my classes we've learned about different theories of psychology and I've learned to never put too much stock in a specific one. I've learned that I have a more eclectic approach to psychology and it's good to know that there are so many theories to take information from. The second thing that I'll remember is that two of the early theories of psychology believed that humor was aggressive in nature. Although I don't believe that all humor is aggressive in nature it's interesting to me that so many psychologists have believed that it is. The third thing I'll take away is Freud's idea that "humor" is a defense mechanism that helps us deal with aversive situations. This is an idea I've always believed (although I'm not proud to admit that I agree with Freud on anything). I do believe that many people use humor to deal with emotions that they do not want to face.
I have developed a deep aversion to almost all of Freud's psychoanalytic theory. The chapter describe's Freud's Theory as focusing on excess nervous energy and it's release. Jokes give us pleasure because anxious energy builds up until the punchline when it is released. This seems to make some sense but when you try to dissect the theory it comes apart. What is energy as defined by Freud? Can we measure the "nervous energy" in any way? Sure a laugh is a sign of a deeper psychological process but Freud is just using cryptic language that we of course connect to because it so ambiguous. Everyone feels the anticipation before the punch line of a joke, that is how jokes are designed. And saying that we need jokes to release repressed aggression and sexual energy by fooling the overbearing censor in our head is getting a little illogical. There are many devices we use to release aggression and sexual energy. I'm sure anyone who has gone through puberty knows about screaming matches with parents, boyfriends, siblings, teachers as well as has an understanding of the place of masturbation in society. If we needed jokes to release aggression why would so much overt aggression be present. I agree that many times humor does take the form of an aggressive attack on someone, even if usually small and forgivable in the light of a joke. But even polite respectful people express aggression everyday in other ways than jokes. And if we sought laughter to release energy what explains those fits of laughter, you know the ones that seem to just get worse the more you keep laughing? It seems that if anything this vague description Freud created called "nervous energy" increases during these spells.
Anyway it's pretty obvious I am not a fan of Freud's intuitively semantic theories. It is my belief that most of Freud's theories can be divided into two categories: fancifully worded common sense, and fancifully worded b.s. I believe that they hold little scientific value outside of the following inspiration to investigate these claims, and eventually disprove most of them, but in the process learn a great deal about real mechanisms of the subconscious.
In 1959 The Mirth Response test was used to try to provide evidence that experimental groups with anxiety disorders or schizophrenia found cartoons, coded by researchers as containing aggressive or sexual themes, more humorous than a group of controls did. The results showed that there was no real difference between the experimental and control groups and that most subjects preferred a moderate amount of "disturbing" themes to their humor and disliked too much or too little of these themes. Although there are many criticisms that could be made of the study it was an attempt to measure humor with a tangible psychological tool.
The superiority theory also has also earned criticism but in my opinion it is the better of the two because it is simple. If the idea of humor is at it's root a form of aggression at least we can grasp that with a firm understanding of what it means. Freud creates terms that make sense only to him and that have no real foundation in observable reality. It's easier to operationally define aggression than "a release of nervous energy," to paraphrase. A man named Gruner can tie this theory into evolutionary psychology, of which I am a fan. His theory is that humans have gained their incredible advances in consciousness and cognitive development because of our existence as a social species. And as a social species we have a need to establish dominance over those we can in our social group, we naturally seek a chain of command so to speak so we develop social tools to determine who is ranked above who. Humor is one of these tools, according to the superiority theory. This theory has another advantage over most of psychoanalytic theory, it is LOGICAL. It makes sense, and just because something is logical does not make it correct, but in my book its a strong part of what does constitute a correct answer.
In conclusion, I really think Freud's only worth was as a celebrity endorsement for psychology. He made bold claims with little to no evidence. Hey some people are allowed to do that, Philosophers, priests, politicians, but when you claim to be a scientist you need the only thing that science can operate on; tangible data.
Out of the two theories in Chapter 2 I liked Freud’s Psychoanalytic Theory the best. Although I can’t say I agree with all the points he touches on (especially those pertaining to the repressed aggressive and sexual drives being the sole reason a person finds a certain cartoon or situation humorous). I do find it interesting he comes to such conclusions based on how he relates this to the Id Ego and Superego and the release of excess energies. I do agree with the second category he refers to as humor in that laughter can be a coping mechanism in times of stressful or aversive situations and the ability to see a lighter side of such events which can be crucial to relieve tension. I believe when appropriately used, humor can be used to make an unfavorable situation more bearable, and even though it shouldn’t be used all the time for these purposes, it may help a person to deal with what life throws their way. I wasn’t too impressed with the superiority view and Gruner’s take on it. I don’t believe aggression is present in every form of humor and that there must be a “winner” and a “loser” especially when telling jokes. I don’t think I agree with much of anything his theory states because there is a lot of room for debate. When discussing humor and the emotion of “mirth” it brings to individuals (especially feelings of happiness and the way it is uplifting) it seems strange to accompany aggression in every sense of humor, which he states must be present. Of course there are forms of aggression in humor (some focusing on targeting others so that a person may feel superior), however I don’t see how there can be positive forms of aggression in humor. Three things in this chapter I think will be useful in understanding the psychology of humor are the new means of research presented (for example, showing a mild cartoon as opposed to a more hostile one to two groups of people and recording reactions) and how this research can be used in other studies of humor, how humor is used in different situations and when is it socially acceptable to use different kinds of humor, and the topic of self-deprecatory and how we each have conflicting personality characteristics which may cause us to laugh at ourselves from our actions in one event, however to find that the same situation may not be humorous in a different context. I think this will be useful to me because all three topics look at humor on a deeper level and break things down where they can be studied; not just from a simple observation of humor, but with research to back up the findings.
Chapter 2 presented two theories relating to the psychology of humor, Psychoanalytic Theory developed by Sigmund Freud and Superiority/Disparagement Theory developed by Charles Gruner. Of the two presented theories, I found Freud’s Psychoanalytic Theory to be the most concrete and falsifiable. Both theories have their faults; however, I believe Freud’s theory is more widely accepted in today’s society. While Freud’s theory is based on sexual humor, Gruner’s is based on aggressive humor. Although humor is not entirely either sexual or aggressive, Freud’s theory incorporates more truth than Gruner’s theory.
Freud borrowed his idea for his theory from philosopher Herbert Spencer. Freud believed there are three different types or categories of laughter-related phenomena: one, wit or jokes; two, humor; and three, comic. According to Freud, each category serves as a kind of distraction to the superego, allowing unconscious aggressive sexual impulses arising from the id (which would normally be repressed) to be briefly expressed and enjoyed. The inhibitory energy that normally represses these libidinal impulses becomes briefly released as a result of the joke. In the end, this energy is released in the form of laughter. Freud termed the release of libidinal (sexual or aggressive) drive as the tendentious element of jokes, while the cognitive techniques involved in this joke-work are referred to as non-tendentious elements. Therefore, as noted in the text, the reason Freud believed we enjoy jokes so much is, they enable us to experience for a moment the illicit pleasure derived from releasing some of our primitive sexual and aggressive impulses. More so, Freud determined if a joke is to be effective, there are two important requirements: it must involve a clever use of joke-work, and it must allow for the expression of some repressed sexual or aggressive impulse. Lastly, Freud’s theory supports the idea that humor is the “highest defense mechanism,” since it enables the individual to avoid unpleasant emotions while still maintaining a realistic view of the situation.
As stated in the text, superiority, disparagement, aggression, and degradation theories believe humor is actually a form of aggression. Gruner based his theory on an evolutionary view in which the propensity for competiveness and aggressiveness is the main characteristic that enabled humans to survive and flourish. Garner believes that laughter serves as a psychological function that dispels the tension from a fight and signals victory over the enemy. Today, this aggressive type of humor is evident in slapstick comedy and practical jokes, and any jokes that poke fun at a particular group of people. According to Gruner, all jokes, no matter how innocent, contain a contest, winner, and loser. In contrast to the Freudian theory, Gruner argues that all sexual, sexist, and scatological humor is based on aggression.
I support Freud’s Psychoanalytic Theory over the Superiority/Disparagement Theory because Freud incorporates different elements of truth. Although many different empirical studies have found Freud’s theory to be false, there has been some supportive evidence found. Freud suggested that the joke-work involved in successful aggressive jokes distracts the listeners from the aggressive content at which they are laughing. Based on this idea, Gollob and Levine (1967) hypothesized that if people focus their attention on the fact that humor expresses aggressive impulses, their inhibitions will be mobilized, and they will then be relatively unable to enjoy the humor. As predicted, highly aggressive cartoons were given significantly lower ratings on the post-test than were low aggressive or nonsense cartoons. The results supported the Freudian theory. In contrast, our text states that Gruner’s theory has been found to be unfalsifiable and cannot be tested empirically. Gruner has defined aggression so broadly that his theory seems to account for all human activity and therefore fails to explain the uniqueness of humor. Gruner believes that the reason his theory is considered unfalsifiable is that all jokes incorporate aggression; however, the reason for this assumption is that Gruner believes himself to be the judge of finding an innocent joke.
Freud’s theory had a large impact on later developed theories because it was the first theory to acknowledge the health benefits of humor. It is common knowledge today that humor increases longevity and helps individuals deal with stressful situations. For this reason, I found the Freudian theory to be more interesting. While the superiority approach provides a basis for contemporary views of humor as a way of coping with stress in daily life, the Freudian theory supports a defense mechanism for humor, where humor enables us to protect ourselves from painful emotions associated with adverse circumstances. However, while aggressive forms of humor in coping make one feel better it can have negative effects when directed toward spouses, loved ones, or family members. For this reason, Freud’s theory provides a more realistic approach for how humor may provide a means for coping with stressful situations.
In conclusion, neither theory is completely true. By combining all humor into a single category of either sexual or aggressive, Freud and Gruner ignore all other types of humor. As stated by Martin, one limitation of Freud’s theory is that it does not consider the interpersonal context and social functions of humor. Freud’s theory primarily focuses on the dynamics taking place within the individual versus studying the social interactions that may result from the dynamics taking place between individuals. Similarly, Gruner’s theory focuses only on the negative aspects of humor without acknowledging the positive aspects.
Three things I read that I believe will help me in understanding the psychology of humor is the idea that humor is a social function, theories must be falsifiable, and although every theory provides some truth, it is never actually fully true. The idea that humor is a social function is important because it helps a person to conceptualize how different theories may not make sense if the theory does not explain how people interact with one another. For example, while Freud’s theory did not have a strong understanding of social functions, some contemporary theorists and researchers have reconceptualized Freud’s original ideas about intrapsychic functions of humor and applied them to an understanding of its social functions. In relation to Gruner’s theory, understanding the social function of humor makes it obvious that Gruner’s theory ignores the positive view of humor. Secondly, it is obvious that a theory cannot be supported if it is not possible to prove the theory untrue, or make modifications to the theory. This was also a reason why Gruner’s theory was not well supported. Understanding this concept helps one to know which theories may be accurate. Lastly, by understanding each theory may have some truth allows one to pick which aspects he or she may choose to support. If there were one theory that was entirely true, there would be no need for other theories. Furthermore, a theory that has no faults would fail to allow any growth in that subject.