What's in the News?
What I would like you to do is to start applying what we are learning in class to real world matters. Some might ask, "What good is learning psychology if we can't apply it to real world matters?" So that is what we are going to do with this divergence assignment.
What I would like you to do is to either go to NPR (http://www.npr.org/ ), the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/ ) or any news site listed at the bottom of this page (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ listed in their news sources) and read, watch, or listen to something that is interesting to you and relates to what we have been learning in the class.
Please respond the blog by BRIEFLY telling us what the piece you chose was and why you picked it (what made it interesting for you)? What did you expect to see? What did you find most interesting about the piece?
Next discuss IN DETAIL how it relates to the class using terms, terminology, and concepts that we have learned so far in class.
Include the URL in your post.
Make a list of key terms and concepts you used in your post.
Let me know if you have any questions,
--Dr. M
While browsing npr.com and the huffingtonpost.com, I came across this article that was in the New York Times. I was surprised at first when I read the title, because it was about Family Guy, but also Sarah Palin, who was the 2008 vice presidential nominee who always seems to keep stirring up drama. The article is about Chris, a character in the show who starts dating Ellen, a character who has Down syndrome. The person doing the voice for Ellen is actually a 39 year old actress named Andrea Friedman, who has Down syndrome also. Sarah Palin found this episode to be offensive because she has a son who has Down syndrome and also because they portrayed Ellen’s mother to be her. She said that the episode was the work of “cold-hearted people.” Andrea responded to Palin by claiming she did not have a “sense of humor.” She also responded by saying the line in the episode where Palin is announced as the mother is sarcastic. The article then goes on to an interview between Andrea and Artsbeat about the controversy.
When I was done reading this article, I asked myself the same question that was repeated several times in chapter 7, “What makes a sense of humor?” I personally think that Palin lacks the qualitative meaning for having a sense of humor because she didn’t find the episode funny at all; but others found it hysterical. Qualitative meaning is described as someone who has a sense of humor will laugh at the same things others do. Being that Andrea does have Down’s, I found it really interesting that she was able to understand the concept of sarcasm. In chapter 8, the book mentions that in order to understand and appreciate sarcasm, you have to develop the ability when you’re a child to recognize the intended meaning and to ignore the surface meaning. I am not saying that people with Down’s are not intelligent; I just know from personal experience that they sometimes have a hard time grasping certain things. Andrea’s humor can be represented by affiliative humor, which is when a person has the tendency to say funny things, or tell jokes in order to amuse others. Obviously she enjoys making others laugh or she would have not put herself in such a situation where she would be criticized for playing that part.
In relation to the scene where Chris has Ellen over for dinner, the schema theory of humor be used to describe why we would think it is humorous. Generally, Family Guy is almost always surprising. The show sets you up to think something will happen, but twists it by using a punch line that doesn’t fit the schema that you initially thought. For example, when Chris had Ellen over, you didn’t expect her to say that her mom was Sarah Palin, therefore making the scene humorous. The line didn’t fit the schema of an ordinary dinner conversation, so after comparing the two situations you then find humor in it.
Since having a sense of humor is as desirable trait, it might explain why some people may see Pain in a negative way. According to the reversal theory, a telic state of mind would explain why Palin is so serious and doesn’t find this type of humor funny. It’s almost like Andrea completely disregarded the self-deprecation that would go along with playing a character with Down syndrome. That was the first concept that came to my mind once I discovered that she was a character on the show with Down’s. Andrea claims later in the article that she wasn’t making fun of Sarah Palin’s son Trig; the show was making fun of Sarah Palin. It’s as though Palin took it too seriously, and in my opinion just wanted some fame.
Terms used: Qualitative meaning, sarcasm, affiliative humor, Schema theory, reversal theory, telic, self-deprecation
URL: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/family-guy-voice-actor-says-palin-does-not-have-a-sense-of-humor/?scp=2&sq=sense%20of%20humor&st=cse
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11615164
The title of this article was “Randy Quaid and Wife Request Asylum in Canada.” While many think of an asylum as a mental institution, it can also be an very safe place for criminals to be held. What happened in this article is that actor Randy Quaid and his wife Evi were arrested in Canada on vandalism charges from the US, as well as not showing up for an immigration hearing last month. Randy is a little known actor who was in movies such as National Lampoon’s Vacation and Independence Day. They are requesting to be put in an asylum to be kept safe because they believe that people are trying to kill them. They were friends with actors like Heath Ledger who have died recently, and claim it is a conspiracy of some sort, and they are next.
The Quaids are very serious about this, at least apparently, so the humorous factors are of an aggressive nature, according to the Superiority theory because in this case I am finding humor in what they think is a serious situation. I am a huge Heath Ledger fan, and know that he died of an overdose on prescription medication. The Quaids may have been friends with him, but if they seriously think that there are people trying to kill them, I think they’re a bit crazy and I think that this idea is funny. This demonstrates a classic example of the Superiority theory, which said that all humor is aggressive and that it comes at the expense of others to some degree.
Another theory that this article could relate to is the Incongruity theory. What is incongruous for me is that this couple did not show up for a court hearing concerning their immigration into the United States. This hearing was a result of them being charged with illegal occupation of a house in the U.S. they failed to attend this hearing, then vandalized, and were later found and said they were running from someone trying to kill them. What is incongruous is that they put themselves on the same level as a huge star like Heath Ledger, and in reading this article I had never heard of Randy Quaid. So again the two different ideas are there being a killer who wants to kill huge stars, but also this actor who is a relatively minor star, and his wife.
Of course going along with the incongruity theory is the idea of two incongruous schemas. They would be that this random couple fits a schema of being two illegal immigrants, who were arrested for vandalizing after being caught living illegally in the country. The other schema would be that of the idea that there is someone who is on a mission to kill famous Hollywood actors. So when you think of that, and know that Heath Ledger is one of the victims you would think, George Clooney, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Nicole Kidman, famous names that everyone has heard of. However, when you add the names Randy and Evi Quaid to this list, it doesn’t quite seem to fit.
Terms Used: Incongruity theory, Superiority Theory, schema’s, aggressive humor
The article, “Hortefeux’s genital slip of the tongue is a web hit,” is about France’s interior minister discussing the types of data police keep for tracking criminals. During the joint radio and television interview, Hortefeux meant to say fingerprints but instead said genital prints. Fingerprints in French is, empreintes digitales whereas genital prints translated in French is empreintes genitales. Last week Hortefeux was referring to another slip of the tongue mistake done by France’s former justice minister, Rachida Dati. Dati reportedly said fellatio instead of inflation. However, Hortefeux poked fun at Dati’s mistake calling it more revealing than that of cabinet colleague’s mistake. The article suggests that Hortefeux is now getting a taste of his own medicine.
The title alone is one of the reasons I chose this article. It immediately caught my attention and interest. I expected to read about a funny slip of the tongue mistake and the reactions of people who were listening. The most interesting part of this article for me to read about was the fact that a week prior to Hortefeux’s slip of the tongue experience, he was poking fun at another French minister’s slip of the tongue ordeal.
This article demonstrates the incongruity we see in humor. Slip of the tongue situations are almost always surprising and unexpected. For example, those who tuned in to hear Horeteux's interview were most likely expecting to hear a professional and serious discussion about criminal records. However, when he mixed up his words and the listeners heard "genital prints," this was incongruent to what they expected to hear. In this particular case, the word mix up is very humorous and incongruent to what we would expect to hear from a French minister. Also, this article supports the social element we see in humor. Hortefeux’s mistake was first heard only by those who were listening to the interview but is now a web hit and thousands of people have viewed and laughed at his slip of the tongue error. Also, Hortefeux used humor to reinforce his own social status when he referred to Dati’s slip of the tongue experience. For example, Hortefeux was making fun of Dati's slip up in order to help cover up and reinforce the social status for his fellow collegue Luc Chatel as well as promoting his own social status. Little did he know he would be experiencing his own slip of the tongue experience soon.
Terms: incongruity theory, social element of humor, social status aspect of humor
URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11565448
This week, I didn’t really chose a news article, rather, I chose a song from Huffington Post. According to the synopsis, the song writer wrote this song based on “roughly” 19 of his favorite facts. All of the facts are interesting and I actually don’t mind the song. Anyway, this song isn’t super funny to me, but it reminded me of the section of our book on how humor affects memory.
According to our book humor affects memory (in this case recollection of facts) in four ways:
1. The positive emotion coupled with humor also has positive effects on memory,
2. humor draws attention towards the stimuli,
3. humorous material is more likely rehearsed than nonhumorous material,
4. and humor affects retrieval strategies.
Like we discussed in class after watching the drunk man give a history lesson, unique teaching methods such as this video or other types of humor may be more effective at achieving long-term retention. Because of this, videos like this are very effective at getting their point across. Thinking back to elementary school and even high school, I remember the songs I used to sing to learn the days of the weeks and capitals of the countries in Spain. Although these songs weren’t humorous, it definitely works in the same way that humor works to enhance memory.
The book also suggests that humor serves as a mnemonic device, which in turn, helps the information achieve a spot in one’s long-term memory.
Back to the original video, this video helped enhance my memory of the facts very much in the four ways described above:
1. I really like music and music elicits a positive affect, which in turn, positively affects my memory,
2. The song is definitely unique and drew my attention towards the facts so much so that I have listened to the song several times,
3. I actually rehearsed some of these facts already by telling my roommates,
4. and although I haven’t let enough time pass yet where I let the information escape my brain and need to retrieve it, I have no doubt that I will be able to retrieve some of these facts, especially the ones that interest me!
I realize this song isn’t really “news,” but it reminded me of terms and concepts that we discussed in class! On a side note, here are a couple of my favorite facts from this video: you see your nose at all time but your brain chooses to ignore it, the blue whale is more closely related to a cow than a cow is to a horse, each ejaculation has more sperm than there are people in the United States (really?!), the size of a blue whales hear is the size of a VW Bug, and 54 million people alive right now will be dead in 12 months.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/22/a-song-a-day_n_772704.html
Terms used: humor and memory, retrieval, long-term memory
I found this article on huffingtonpost.com about snuggie sutra, and yes sutra is like the kama sutra books and so forth. Lex Friedman and Megan Morrison invented a series of different sexual positions that can be performed by couples all while wearing those big, blue oversized blankets. (ha who would have ever thought). They just released the snuggie sutra book and they blog about all the positions that are possible to do, but you got to remember to stretch so they say. This snuggie sutra allows couples to become intimate again and for those who are uncomfortable with their bodies to stay covered. "There are only four prerequisites to practicing Snuggie Sutra. First, you obviously need a Snuggie. Then, minimal dignity is required. Third, you'll need access to lots of laundry detergent, and lastly, you must have a willing partner,"
I chose this article, because I found it hilarious that anyone would do this or come up with this idea…snuggies really? In addition I just find it interesting that there can be multiple positions with a snuggie. I definitely did not expect to see pictures or anything about sexual positions which made it even funnier. I find it interesting that two women came up with this idea and obviously put a lot of effort into it. They even use the example of using pleasure while the wife reads a book and the husband is working on a computer.
In relation to the text, this article relates to schemas because we already have a schema for a snuggie since they have been out for some time now and were advertised like crazy in the beginning and even a snuggie for your dog. But now that they are changing snuggies for the use of intimacy, one has to change their schema. Furthermore, a person’s self-concept has a lot to do with people not feeling comfortable with their own bodies; therefore the snuggie can keep you covered and less self-conscious. In addition, this article also related to humor and intimate relationships because studies show that dating and married couples have a satisfying relationship which is also correlated with humor, and I for one would laugh my head off if my significant other said lets do the snuggie sutra haha. Overall, this article was probably one of the funniest I’ve read in a while.
Read it for yourself! Guarantee you’ll get a chuckle out of it! Plus what’s your intake, do you think it will be successful or just a joke?
Key Terms: schemas, self-concept/conscious, humor and intimate relationships
http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/snuggie-sutra-incorporates-snuggie-into-sex/19676140
http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2010/10/25/130808102/five-celebrities-who-should-trade-lives-with-their-namesakes-for-tv
The article I found this week was a short one about how CBS has a new idea for a reality TV show called “Same Name” where celebrities would switch places with a person who just happens to share their name. The writer of this article thought that this could be one of the best shows ever created and decided to do her own version of it. Since some of these names are pretty common they also threw in that the non-celebrity’s middle initial must be ‘M’. It gave the examples of Jennifer Lopez, the singer, switching with Jennifer M. Lopez, a woman who sells pet beds, or Jessica Simpson switching for a day with Jessica M. Simpson, a scientist who has a published article titled “Running reduces stress and enhances cell genesis in aged mice”.
This article goes along well with the incongruity theory. This theory is based on the fact that when things are incongruous, bizarre, surprising, or just different than what we expect, we find them humorous. We are used to seeing these individuals glamorized on TV but this would switch them with people of a different lifestyle. Applying a different schema to these celebrities and applying the role of a celebrity to normal people is humorous because it puts them into different, opposite, roles. Apter had a concept called cognitive synergy that I think also describes the concept of this show. Cognitive synergy is when two incompatible or contradictory interpretations of the same object or event (or in this case name) are active in the mind at the same time. We begin by interpreting one idea (a person having the identity of a celebrity) and then move to a second interpretation (the celebrity doing non-glamorous jobs). This is kind of similar to a show called the Simple Life that was on awhile back where Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie were on a farm or something and had to do chores. With that show, the Superiority Theory might also be applicable because many people have a negative opinion of those two people so seeing them have to do gross jobs might be humorous.
I thought it was kind of ironic that the person they found that would switch with John Goodman, John M. Goodman, was a plumber. I think John Goodman would make the perfect plumber (in a movie or real life) so this wasn’t really incongruous with my own thoughts. If the plumbers name was Robert M Pattinson I think it would have been more incongruous and therefore more humorous. I thought it was also ironic that when you clicked on the link that explained the show (that is supposed to be on CBS) that it popped up with an article from an ABC news source. CBS and ABC are television rivals and so you would think that ABC wouldn’t want to promote any ideas for a show on CBS.
This article reminded me of the movie “Office Space”, which I think is really humorous. In this movie there is a character named Michael Bolton, who hates his name because he shares it with a “no talent ass clown” but refuses to just go by Mike because he shouldn’t have to change his name because he’s not the one that sucks. Because this movie quickly came to mind while reading this article, I might have sort of primed myself for finding this humorous because I thought about a humorous movie, or could have attributed the mirth I was feeling for the article when actually it might have just been because I was remembering the movie.
This article made me decide to see who I would switch lives with. Google came up with a bunch of obituaries, a 49 year old woman from Boone, IA, another person who made a testimony on a hearing aid website about how awesome hearing aids are, and an Anna Schroeder who starred in a movie called “Downtown 81”, which based on the synopsis I read makes absolutely zero sense, so I guess everyone is lucky I won’t be on this show because it would be pretty boring.
Terms: Incongruity theory, irony, priming, schemas, cognitive synergy, superiority theory
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130568321
The article that I found on the NPR website was titled, “In Spain, The Siesta Get a Wake-Up Call.” The article was about how people in Spain are ignoring the custom of an afternoon nap because of hectic lifestyles and the demands of a modern life. So a siesta competition was held in a shopping mall where contestants took a nap. They received points for how fast they fall asleep, snoring, sleep position, and what they wore.
This wasn’t the first time that I heard about this news story; I was watching Late Night with Jimmy Fallon last night, and he mentioned it in his monologue and I laughed when he talked about it. So when I saw the story on the website, I immediately clicked on it since I already knew that I thought it was funny. When I first looked at the article, the first thing that I saw was the picture, and I started laughing. There’s people lying there on these bright blue sofas while somebody watches them. And what I really thought was funny was the person on the far left with a pillow over their head! I also thought the picture was funny because the platform, or whatever it is they’re on, looks kind of like a track, with the lines and everything.
I think the reason that this article is funny is because of it’s incongruity. First, because what this contest was suppose to be to take a stand to try and revive an important tradition, and there are people taking action, but they’re taking action by sleeping, which is out of the ordinary. Another reason I thought it was incongruous was because we see bizarre contests going on all the time, but a sleeping contest in the middle of a public, and loud, area is new, to me anyway. The last reason I thought of about incongruity was that these people are being judged and watched while they’re sleeping! And one aspect of the judging is whether or not they snore while they’re sleeping, which you can’t really control (at least I don’t think you can). I just thought it was odd to have a contest and be judged over something that’s kind of out of your control.
Terms: Incongruity
This isn’t exactly news but I found it on Huffington Post so I figured it would work. I chose a video of a person going around a college campus and asking students questions like, “Who is the vice president?” and “How many senators are there?” It’s funny because, as Americans, these are simple things that we should know but as the video shows, many students couldn’t even name the vice president. I picked this video because I found it amusing and I can relate to it.
I find this video ironic because, as college students, our IQs are in the top 13 percent. We are supposed to be educated and knowledgeable. Also, as future leaders of America and active voters, we should be informed citizens. These points also show the incongruity of the video. This video shows that the topic of government is not our strong point. I think the humor I found in this video also comes from a memory aspect. There are instances where a student looks as if the name is on the tip of their tongue but they just cannot recall it, maybe because of the pressure. There are also instances where students try to save face by using humor. One student, when providing an incorrect answer, smiles and says, “Oh I knew that. No, I knew that! Shut up, I knew that.”
The humor in this video is highly social. The students know they are being recorded and don’t want to get the answers wrong. When they do, they give that kind of defeated laugh. It’s like an energy or tension release. There are also some diminishing aspects. The video showcases the students’ lack of knowledge on the subject being discussed which others can laugh at. The student’s aren’t taking this too seriously, though, which provides a more paratelic state in the viewer. I think seeing someone in this position, being asked a “common knowledge” question in public view, is only funny when you can tell the mood of the other person is not too serious or frustrated. The editors of this video probably provided this view on purpose with the intention of gaining more viewers with the entertainment aspect.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_askamerica/20101025/pl_yblog_askamerica/who-is-the-vice-president-ask-america-stumps-voters
Terms: Ironic, incongruity, humor, memory, save face, social, tension release, diminishing, paratelic
I chose an article from cnn.com with the headline of "'Blackout in a can' blamed for student party illness". Instantly, I knew what this article was about.
It's undoubtable that many of us in class probably visit the bar at least once a week. Before we go, we'll usually have a few beers or a few shots. Simple. However, recently there has been an explosion on the drinking scene of a malted energy beverage called "4 Loko". I'm sure at least half of us have tried them. They taste terrible, smell terrible, and are heavily fruit flavored to mask the alcohol. Cnn says consuming just one can of 4 Loko is like drinking a six pack of beer. It's potent stuff. The article talks about six students basically getting piss drunk and having to go to the hospital for medical reason. They weren't just drinking 4 Lokos, but other liquors as well.
I heard about this new drink early on, before it was first stocked on shelves. It doesn't really strike me as funny that people are so heavily abusing this drink, because the caffiene doesn't make them realize how intoxicated they really are, but what's funny is the conversation I had with a Coors Lite vendor at my job. I work at HyVee, and the alocohol vendors are right by the backroom of the department I work in. I was chatting with a Coors Lite vendor, he was relatively young (late 20's) and he said to me, "Yo man, check this out", tossed me a 4 Loko, and I asked him what is was. He responded, "This is the new sh*t that's gonna f*ck all the college kids up." Naturally curious, we had a humurous conversation about the drink and how fast it would get somebody drunk. That weekend, I saw them everywhere, everybody was clammering about them and then like a runaway freight train, it hit them upside the head. The vendor was right.
After remember the conversation I had with the vendor about the drink, it was funny to see the article on Cnn only a few weeks after I talked to him. Once I saw the drink on the streets, I made sure to stay away from it, remember the conversation I had with the man. I think it's really a testament to how humor can play a role in memory. The humorous conversation I had with the vendor served to enhance my attention, I stored the information in my memory with a positive emotion. I rehearsed the memory through humor when I informed my friends about this new, crazy drink. The fact that the idea was imprinted in my memory from a comical conversation with a stranger helped me not end up like these young kids in the hospital.
Sorry, here's the link
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/25/washington.students.overdose/index.html?hpt=Sbin
I chose on article from the Huffington Post entitled "Charlie Sheen hospitalized after being found naked, drunk in New York Hotel". The article states that Charlie Sheen had an allergic reaction to a medication and became violent in his hotel room by throwing furniture. Sheen was with a woman who was unidentified and stated they had been out drinking and he became violent when they got back to the hotel. I chose this because I'm a fan of Charlie Sheen on Two and a Half Men and it kind of sounded like something his character on the show would do which I found funny.
I think this article fits well into the incongruity theory. This is because the article states that Sheen suffered from an allergic reaction but when I think of the schema that Sheen falls into in my head it doesn't fit. I think of alcoholic and drug user. The article doesn't really fit into the schema I have of Sheen. The other part that doesn't seem to fit is that another article is about how Sheen's ex wife Denise Richards met the prostitute that Sheen was with. To me this sounds like Sheen got drunk with a prostitute and got angry/violent which he has a history of.
The other part that is so funny is that this fits exactly within the schema of Sheen's character, Charlie Harper, on Two and a Half Men. Harper is a drunk and a womanizer who often gets trashed and hires prostitutes. Maybe he is just trying to get more into character.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/26/charlie-sheen-hospitalize_n_774058.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/26/baby-worshipper-cute-creepy_n_774380.html
The title to this video clip is worship baby- cute or creepy? After watching the clip I can see both sides of the argument. My first thought was that’s cute because I’m a softy for kids and work with them on a daily basis. Although I can see how some people might think this clip is creepy for whatever reasons I’ll stick to thinking it’s cute. She is probably at the age where she is starting to see people around her doing this and decided to copy their actions. She probably doesn’t understand exactly what she’s doing either. I think this is funny and cute because it is a social aspect. This child happens to be doing something adults may do during a church service. It is also funny because it isn’t normal for a child her age to be doing those actions. Either way a person thinks of this clip, cute or creepy is based on the incongruity theory. The incongruity theory states that the perception of incongruity is the crucial determinant of whether or not something is humorous: things that are funny are incongruous, surprising, peculiar, unusual, or different from what we normally expect. This is something that people don’t usually see everyday therefore it can be either cute or creepy.
This blog or opinion is aggressively communication through sarcasm. To summarize the article, recently NPR, which is known for its neutrality, has been in the news for encouraging employees to remain neutral in their actions even outside of their article and other NPR work. For one of their employee, Juan Williams this advice became real when he was fired for stating opinions on Fox news. Even within his title, you can tell Michael Moore is inciting his usual sarcasm. Micheal Moore is known for his perception on the world. I think that it is interesting to consider his communication style about important issues. He uses teasing and sarcasm, to put down capitalism, the Iraqi war, and actions of George W. Bush just to name a few. He believes that these things or evils should be outside our societal norms.
Aggressive teasing is suggested by the book to be both an effective way to communication that actions or things are outside what you see as norms or acceptable, and humor has recently become a arguably an necessary element for a public speaker. However, others find his humor or communication style to be obnoxious and ludicrous. This is what chapter 9 deal with, what is a sense of humor. In this article, like all his work, Michael Moore creates humor using wit, puns, irony. However it is aggressive humor, not light humor or necessarily “mirthful” and the book suggests that this sarcasm is on the borderline of “having a sense of humor”.
Moore uses wit, as the book defines “a way of showing off one’s cleverness by creating intellectual surprise”. I think that it is clear, that Moore puts down others using wit( teasing putdown using “aristocracy and elitism” or his intelligent). In this article he makes fun of Juan Williams pointing out his stupid mistake misquoting when trying to back up his belief. In his witty and sacrasm way, Moore is telling Williams to stop talking because he is making no sense. Moore points out the irony in Williams statement. First all of Williams is a reporter, so he should be reporting the truth however his is misquoting and using it to back up his opinions. Secondly, this opinions, Moore suggests, are contradictory to past statements by Williams. Moore also uses a puns or better defined as wordplay. “So Juan, I'm asking you to join me on a crusade -- whoops! scratch that, let's call it a "mission"”. Crusade is “politically incorrect” so he is changing it to mission. Lastly there is incongruity within this letter. It seems to be on the surface a letter of peace and understanding but that is definitely not its underlying intent. You have to understand both the “nice” and the aggressive elements to “get it”.
I think it is interesting to think about this kind of humor. Maybe because of its agressive wit, it makes people annoyed or they just don’t understand it, but in any case it as unarguably been an effective communication tool for the evils that Moore sees work within our American society.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/juan-williams-is-right-po_b_772766.html
Keyterms: sarcasm, pun, wit, teasing, mirth, aggressive humor, incongruity
I chose a video/article featured on the Huffington post website. The article, ‘We’re Done’: College Republicans Propose Breaking up with Obama features a video made by the College Republican National Committee that features students in a sense breaking up with the president. Obama has been trying to reach out to college age voters but this video demonstrates that he may not have what it takes to gain back their votes.
When I first seen the title to this article I noticed the incongruity present. We don’t usually think of college students breaking up with the president. The video does a god job of using wordplay. The video uses language/comments that are typically in our schema of a conversation describing a relationship that started out well but is now breaking up. If you were to listen to this video without knowing the context may just think it’s a commercial about a breakup from a personal relationship rather then it being directed at the president. The video incorporates a lot of wit, sarcasm and satire. For example the video uses slogans from Obama’s campaign, “He had me at hope and change,” is stated in the first few seconds and the video ends with “You can keep the change, we’re done!” They then move into expressing negative traits regarding Obama such as, “He lied to us, started to spend all my money, and told me what to do all the time.”
According to the reversal theory humor involves seeing a person, object, action, or situation less important, worthy, valuable then what first appeared and without diminishment incongruity is not funny. I think this video does a good job at displaying the reversal theory. A video demeaning Obama may not have been as funny when Obama first entered the white house (for those who voted for him), but as his term lengthens and people are experiencing the effects of his decisions he is now being viewed by some as less worthy therefore its now more enjoyable to degrade him.
Terms: incongruity, schema, wit, sarcasm, satire, reversal theory
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/26/crncs-break-up-ad_n_773746.html
The news article I chose was from NPR regarding the recent death of Paul the octopus. I chose this piece because the headline caught my eye and I had no idea this octopus was famous for his "skills" of predicting the World Cup. I didn't know what to expect upon reading this because the title was so strange, I just assumed some link between this creature and sporting events.
I didn't find the death of the octopus humorous, it was the way the article was written more than anything. Starting out with how Paul was 2 1/2 years old and "died of natural causes in his tank", it seemed like an obituary of an actual person because this creature was well-known. I associated this with the schema of an obituary/funeral notice for a human, and because this is incongruous (it is an animal, not a human) it made me laugh. The article also goes on to talk about Paul's "life events" by stating he was "of English roots, hatched at the Weymouth Sea Center" and that he was appointed an ambassador to England's bid to host the World Cup. After having predicted seven of Germany's World Cup games correctly, he retired and was currently involved in "making children laugh". I associated this with a schema of a famous human who has made many contributions, and for a moment forgot I was reading about an octopus. Once again, this incongruity made me laugh because the human-like qualities that were attributed to an animal resulted in a schema that is out of sync with the norm. Humor as cognitive play is also at work here because I was engaged in a nonserious state of mind as I read about the competing schemas; I didn't think about the actual death of the octopus as serious, rather when I read about Paul, I realized his accomplishments may be more highly regarded by his "fans" than accomplishments of some actual human beings, and this struck me as humorous as well. I realized the author of this article might have used a light-hearted humorous approach focusing more on the positive, and this creative approach also relates to a positive state of emotion with regards to humor.
Overall, I found this article interesting because of the animal/human focus and the World Cup predictions, which I did not know about.
Terminology used: Incongruity, schemas, humor as play, positive emotion
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130829015&ps=cprs
I chose a video found on the Huffington Post site, titled Cute/Ridiculous Animal Thing of the Day: Cats Play Patty-Cake. One owner caught his two cats playing a hilarious cat-version of Patty-Cake (Or Catty-Cake, naturally) on camera. Not only is it ridiculous and cute, but there are subtly hilarious moments within the game, such as, 0:20 when they realize they are being filmed and 0:35 when they become aware of having an audience but continue playing. I found this video’s title quite grabbing; picturing two cats actually playing a childish game of Patty-Cake and then viewing the video provided me exactly the light humor I expected.
In reference to the psychology of humor, this video serves well in representing the Incongruity theory (basis of all humor) by observing animals that are performing what we recognize as human actions (patty-cake). The incongruity occurs because the common schema for patty-cake is two little girls on the playground, while a common schema for cats playing together is them just batting their paws at each other, but these cats are incredibly synchronized as if they truly understand the game of patty-cake. Another thing that can be viewed as funny is the use of the phrase, “Catty-Cake”, because the text refers to this as Spontaneous Conversational Humor. Conversational humor can be classified into three types, 1) anecdotes, 2) irony, and 3) wordplay. The alteration/creation of the game patty-cake to the game catty-cake is wordplay. Wordplay is defined as creating puns, witty responses, or wisecracks that play on the meaning of words.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/25/cuteridiculous-animal-thi_11_n_773675.html
Terminology- Incongruity, Schema/s, Spontaneous Conversational Humor, Wordplay
Web Divergence #9
For my article, I chose an article that was titled, “Many killed in Iraq suicide blast.” I expected to read the article and find some sort of explanation as to why the suicide bomber decided to bomb a café, but was puzzled to see that there was no reason found for the bomb. The article explained that there was a suicide bomb let off in a café that ended up killing 25 people and injured dozens more. The article went on to say that security officials started shooting in the air to keep people from going near the café. It was stated that this was one of the first attacks in over a month and before this, bombs were a lot more frequent. What I found most interesting about the piece was the fact that someone let off a suicide bomb that killed not only him, but many others as well and no one has any comment as to why the bomb was let off. So, in my opinion I think that it is pretty funny that a suicide bomber killed all of these people and no one even knows the cause for this man to die and kill so many other people in the process. It just seems a little odd that so many people kill themselves to make a statement and after they are dead, no one even knows what the statement was.
This article can be related to terms we are discussing in class because finding humor in 25 people dying may be viewed as a “sick” sense of humor. Wolfenstein (1954) was mentioned in the text for noting that much of children’s humor relates to potentially painful, anxiety arousing, or guilt-inducing topics such as death, violence, destruction, punishment, illness, bodily functions, sexuality, and stupidity. It was suggested in our textbook that by joking and laughing about issues that normally arouse feelings of anxiety and tension, children are able to feel less threatened and gain a sense of mastery. By gaining a sense of mastery, a child is able to have control over his or her emotional and interpersonal feelings and control how he or she expresses those feelings. Having an overly aggressive sense of humor that finds death jokes as funny may be a reflection on a child’s upbringing and family life as well. As stated in the text, some children may develop a strong sense of humor due to having a dysfunctional family environment in which humor is used as a way to cope with negative emotions. These types of children may be more likely to have aggressive sense of humors that result in bullying of other children. This idea is supported by the Stress and Coping Hypothesis. The Stress and Coping Hypothesis suggests that a sense of humor may develop in children as a way of coping with distress, conflict, and anxiety in an uncongenial family environment. In this sense, humor is used as a way to release hostile feelings or get attention and gain acceptance from neglectful parents. In this sense, a child may purposely find articles relating to devastating actions, such as this one, as funny in order to get a reaction or a rise out of other people. Humor may also be a way to socially communicate a person’s feeling of tension or anxiety by behaving in negative ways. A negative family environment may also play a role in how a child develops his or her cognitive schema of humor. A person’s schema is shaped by the individual’s personal life experiences and acts as a framework for how a person interprets his or her world. If a child develops his or her schema from negative life experiences then it may result in that child enjoying a more dark and aggressive type of humor. If this is the case, then a child with that type of schema would find this article to be humorous for reasons other than I pointed out for myself. Instead, the humor seen from this article may be about how all of those people were stupid for not getting out of the café fast enough or getting away from the café when the bomb went off.
Terms: Sense of mastery, interpersonal feelings, socially communicate, Stress and Coping Hypothesis, cognitive schema, schema, aggressive/aggression
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11656643
Since I'm a little behind I was actually able to do this project on John Stewart and Stephen Colbert's Rally to Restore Sanity taking place today in Washington, DC.
In August conservative talk show host Glenn Beck hosted a rally called "Restoring Honor" that Colbert and Stewart are basically making fun. The idea is that Beck was promoting racism, bigotry, and ignorance whereas Colbert/Stewart are promoting calmness, rationality, moderation, and anti-violence.
The big issue I'd like to talk about is how Stewart and Colbert are using humor. I'm going to relate what we've been learning in class to the signs people have at the rally, the purpose of the rally, and also to the lives of Colbert and Stewart themselves.
First, the signs people have at the rally's are great examples of humorous incongruity, which itself makes a political message. This has both power and importance. One sign read "This is a good sign" another "Be nice", yet another "Somewhat irritated about extreme rage." These are all humorous because they are not what we expect to see on a sign. Recognition of incongruity by definition forces us to remember or become aware of our expectations. These signs become politically powerful when we recognize that our expectations are really not very good. If "Be nice" is incongruous, what must we have expected? Something about violence, hatred, or anger.
This brings us to the purpose of the rally. Stewart and Colbert obviously believe strongly that most of what is depicted in the media is illogical, ignorant, and polarized whereas most Americans are actually more 'middle of the road' rational thinkers. Chapters 7 and 8 have dealt with how the areas of personality and developmental psychology relate to humor. One interesting finding discussed in chapter 7 was that people who tended to enjoy 'jokes that are most commonly told in social contexts (i.e., incongruity resolution jokes) tend to be individuals with conservative values' (p205). Liberals than tend to like more 'bizarre and fanciful nonsense humor.' What type of humor is the "Sanity Rally"? It's geared towards democrats, liberals, and independents. It seems to me that Colbert's character is an incredibly over-the-top (bizarre and fanciful?) portrayal of different Fox News correspondants like O'Reilly and Beck. Perhaps the more intense use of satire and irony by Stewart more closely relates to that found in cartoons (political cartoons that is), literature, and film which the text relates to this type of humor.
Last I'd like to talk about what our text has to say about the personalities of Colbert and Stewart based on the type of humor they perform. What kind of a 'sense of humor' do Colbert and Stewart have? One answer to this deals with their ability to make people laugh. One important trait thought to be linked with an ability to make people laugh is a type of social skill called 'self-monitoring.' This relates to an awareness of yourself and your behaviors as well as how other people respond to your various behaviors.
In chapter 8 we learned that in children humor appreciation was linked with pro-social behaviors including maturity and intelligence whereas 'making others laugh' (humor production) was linked with anti-social behaviors including aggressiveness. Similarly appreciation of common jokes was linked with conservative values whereas bizarre humor was linked with liberal values. Finally professional comedians tend to be more depressed, intelligent, angry, and shy.
With Colbert and Stewart I think we see how different degrees of each of these characteristics makes them who they are. Being highly intelligent (which both Colbert and Stewart are) allows them to sift through media and news and recognize incongruities, recognize the absurdity of every day life. Both were 'class clowns' in grade school and claim in interviews that comedy is the first thing they go to when thinking about something. Both Colbert and Stewart studied philosophy at college and certainly are high in the social skill of 'self-monitoring' both of which account, I think, for the the finding that often comics are depressed or self-loathing. It's difficult to turn a critical eye inward and not battle with self-doubt, depression, and anxiety from time to time. However, if you are able to handle this it seems your humorous skills are served well.
This video was actually about how the GOP and the democrats cant get anything accomplished in Washington because neither won’t compromise with each other. Also Stewart uses a lot of incongruity throughout this video to appear as funny. This article is kind of difficult to relate back to the development of humor but there are some key aspects that can be intertwined to make sense out of the article.
Humor and cognitive development section points out that McGhee’s forth stage Multiple meaning stage is when a child at the age of seven, are able to process more sophisticated forms of humor also appreciate more incongruity form of humor. A child may not be able to understand all that was being said throughout this video but he may be aware that the congress is at odds with one another which may actually cause him to process the problems along with the in-congruent aspects.
Also the role of incongruity resolution ties in with this as well . During the developmental process of a child, it becomes essential for that resolution aspect to be available so they may get the pun or joke. It’s almost like shaping in behavior modification due to the fact that it’s starting there and it would branch off in various levels of deeper cognitive processing. In McGill’s stages of cognitive development, the operational stage is when a child display a greater increase in his mental capabilities which allows him/her too appreciates humor. With McGhee’s research, you see the children are actually experiencing a higher positive sense of mirth when the optimal levels are being challenged. This ties in to the video because it may have been a challenge for the child to understand parts of the video, they still could grasp much pleasure out of it.
When I was in elementary Bob Dole and President Clinton were running against each other and we had to vote in our class for who we wanted to be president. We actually had debates in class which caused you to down grade the other opponent. To make a long story short we were pretty much all laughing at one another because each side kept creating comebacks. This shows that even young people can actually process and utilize these tools at a young age and become a mastery of humor as it relates to cognition. Throughout or debate we used a great deal of irony and sarcastic comments towards the opposing side. Now in order to understand irony and sarcasm an individual must develop the skill to decipher the linguistics and a variety of social inferences. By the child being aware of what the ironic and surface statements mean, they are able to put a literal and implied meaning in their context. This can be tested by using a group of 7 year old kids that are studied again at 14 and see if the older they got the better understanding they had with regards to irony and sarcasm.
Throughout this chapter they were sincerely focused on a lot of the cognitive aspects of child development. this is playing right in to the PSSC theory because by it putting an emphasis on the cognitive aspects of child development shows that it sets the foundation to what humor is.
Terms: incongruity,cognitve, processing, mental mastery, mirth,developmental process, resolution, irony, sarcasm, operational stage,
As we age our ability to produce and appreciate humor changes, although not always increasing. The book mentions a study that found 5th graders were better able to understand humorous cartoons than 3rd and 4th graders, but did not enjoy the cartoons nearly as much as the younger children who did not understand the humor in them. McGhee's cognitive mastery model holds that once children master cognitive skills they begin to manipulate and experiment with them in the form of jokes. This may be true but it would also appear that children do not appreciate humor that does not force their brain to resolve incongruity in a way that requires at least some effort. Researchers developed an inverted U hypothesis that holds if humorous content is too hard to understand for an individual then they will not find it funny but if it is too simple and easily understood then the individual will still not find it funny.
As children age and reach the high school years of life their brains are undergoing trial and error learning, assimilating and accommodating constantly. A trait that many people must outgrow is aggression. In the past many people were outright physically violent but these days childhood aggression is not as forward or easy to spot. Children now use humor as an aggressive tool more than anything. Bullying has become a "national crisis" and gets a lot of media attention. One girl was suspended and took her case to the supreme court for creating a website which was considered an act of bullying. The teen girl created a web page stating a fellow female student in her school had STDs and invited other students to comment. Pictures were doctored with red dots on the face of the girl being harassed and posted. The supreme court ruled in favor of the school and refused to reinstate the female student. We see here an excellent example of several adolescents using humor aggressively. This is not something we see adults do on a regular basis just like we dont see adults fist fighting like we see little kids do on the play ground. As humans age they typically outgrow many of the aggressive urges that seem to dominate much of the undeveloped brain. These students created an in-group by choosing a single target to represent the out-group. To be a part of the in-group you didnt have to have any certain qualities about yourself you just had to condemn the out-group like everyone else. It seems like the students were using humor as a short cut for social status, by defining what was undesirable it was easy to avoid that. They could have defined traits the in-group had to possess but it would have been harder to match those traits and become the one of the in-group. Instead children; who probably did not even know the girl they were harassing, took the opportunity to let someone else be the "bad" so they themselves could be "good." Humans are naturally drawn to forming groups, it is how we survived the millions of years before we mastered nature, and in young people you can still plainly see the effects.
Another quality of humor development is that it seems that throughout childhood and adolescence humor seems to be restricted to the forms defined by the culture and the experimentation of the brain. For example young teens seem to most appreciate verbal humor based on wit or wordplay, and prior to 10 years old much of the humor we see children engaging in is slapstick style. We dont see creation of original humor concepts until late in adolescence. Much of the humor that we appreciate as adults draws on life experience or abstract ridiculous incongruous stimuli. When we witness something really funny half the time we cannot even really determine why it is so funny. Our brains begin to be able to draw parallels between concepts that are not related at all, and can appreciate hints and innuendos that have no meaning to a child mind. So in a way our humor adapts just like every other brain process we have and it incorporates particular experiences or views and self perceptions that we have created over the years of life.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=138767582