Theory "Z"
The class met yesterday and examined the different perspectives and theories that we have covered so far. Each group got together and came up with their own theories: 1) Swarm Theory, 2) Equilibrium Theory, 3) Playdoh Theory, 4) Some sort of anti Freud Theory, and 5) PSSC Theory.
I would like the spokesperson for each group to post a brief overview of their theory so we can document what we have come up with so far.
Let me know if you have any questions about how to procede.
I am from the PSSC group...our theory is basically a mix from the four theories and goes as such:
In order to really experience humor, you must cognitively process the information (cognitive concept). However, without people, animals, etc., humor really would not exist (social concept). We also agreed that humor, in some cases, stems from aggressive feelings, thoughts, and tendencies (psychoanalytic theory) and that humor is also used as a defense mechanism in several contexts and situations (superiority theory).
Just to give a further explanation, it is obvious that there are cognitive processes in humor. If you don't understand a joke, it will not be funny. If a joke has adult concepts, a child may not understand it. If someone has some sort of brain damage, their sense of humor can be effected. Saying that we could not have humor without others is saying that humor is a social act and a way of communicating. It would not exist without social interaction. Humor can be used to express aggressive or sexual feelings in a socially acceptable way. Also, we all use humor as a defense mechanism. We say "just kidding" when we really weren't or we laugh when we feel threatened.
We felt all of the theories had something to offer and are important aspects of explaining humor.
Our group’s theory was called the Equilibrium theory.
We think that humor is a primarily cognitive perception that occurs primarily in a social context used to cope (like a defense mechanism from the Psychoanalytic theory), or bring balance to social interactions (for example making others who might feel uncomfortable more at ease).
Our group's theory was the Swarm Theory.
We believe that more of a social process rather than a cognitive one. We used a flock of birds as an example to describe how the social part of our theory works. We decided that there must be some sort of elicited response for one of the birds to make a decision (such as to fly in a particular direction) and without much cognitive thought and driven primarily by social forces, the other birds in the flock will follow.
We mostly agreed that based on the superiority theory, one individual will dominate a given behavior on another person, and that person will in turn dominate that behavior upon another until some or all are connected.
Although not largely central to our theory, we believe cognitive processes play some sort of role, we just were not sure how exactly and agreed that some people have past experiences that drive their humor in certain ways, and just because something is funny to one person does not mean it will be funny to another. We also agreed that while to some extent, agression is an important component of humor, it is not present in all forms of humor.
Our crazy group theory was entitled PSSC "PISSY" Theory.
Our theory utilizes pieces from all the different theories discussed in class. We presume that in order for us to process humor, one must utilize cognitive processing in the brain to determine if something is in fact funny or humorous. An example of this would be when someone is telling a joke, you have to be able to follow the plot of the story, identify the setup, and grasping the punch line. 'none of this could be possible if the brain did not process such information. There is also a need for the social aspect because most of the time you need another person or other people to laugh at things. Basically you need something that is another source of humor which takes away from oneself utilized in the cognitive theories. A lot of times we express our aggression through the psychoanalytic theories in which give us a socially acceptable way to express frustration. Along with that superiority theories employ some of the same characteristics of psychoanalytic theory by defense mechanisms being put up to also protect yourself in a socially awkward situation.
In refer to the swarm theory, when I think about the superiority theory within this analogy, I think about the aggressive jokes that people tend to follow or join in with. Like when the author referenced the story about teasing an overweight girl in elementary school, or how there are many demeaning jokes against members of out-groups based on “either sex, various national or ethnic groups, or people of low intelligence” are popular and wide-spread within our society. People flock(or laugh) together in this jokes, forming a in-group.
Furthermore, if you want to expand the theory’s analogy in a cognitive way, you can think about a bird and its choice to fly away or not when presented with a stimulus. The decision to fly might be just instinctual, however it could be other elements like past experience or arousal level the bird is experiencing at the moment influences the bird’s choice to fly away. To me this is similar to humans. We might laugh because it might be a basic reaction, however there could be other components as our arousal level (telic and paratelic state) or past experience to which we can compare and contrast the humor of the given stimulus
My group’s theory was the Swarm Theory, and this theory is mostly based on social aspects, as Talee03 stated earlier. In going into this theory we included the following theories: Psychoanalytic, superiority, social, and cognitive. There are aspects from each of these theories in ours.
The superiority theory is the most basic. As has been stated by the others who have discussed this theory we used a flock of birds as an analogy for our theory. In a flock, or a flying V there is always one dominant person. Their dominance is not permanent, because the superior person can change. We learned after we formed this theory that one of the Intrapersonal functions of Humor is status and hierarchy maintenance. This is how we feel superiority fits in. We acknowledged that although it is not always the case superiority theory can be used mostly as a defense mechanism and in an aggressive manor.
Cognitively every person has to know where they stand within the flock, this is another thing humor can be used for. We emphasized idea that past experiences and arousal level are involved in one’s opinion of how funny something is. I really like the way that it was put by kmarie, when she said that a bird has a choice to fly, and it may be instinctual and it may be based on past experiences, and how she related that to humans and humor, and it may be instinctual and it may be based on past experiences or level of arousal.
We connected the psychoanalytic theory to the cognitive theory because the ‘joke work’ discussed in the psychoanalytical are cognitive processes. The superego is distracted by the ego which is trying to process the funniness of the joke. Meanwhile the id is expressing the impulses through the humor.
The social aspect of our theory was most emphasized. Humor is innately social or pseudo- social. We decided this because typically humor is a method of communication, a way to share a feeling of mirth. Also, forms of humor are inherently social statements, stories, jokes, etc. If a person is reading or listening and they are by themselves, but they laugh at what is being said by the book or TV, it creates a pseudo-social environment.