Luis Ronneberg Well from a scientific point instead of a general human point. They must have everything labeled to be able to converse. The problem is that the Government teaches the layman of the subject that everything is fact. When they should teach the possibility of thus far attached to everything. Society is confused by scientific language. so they view it as an immovable description of itself.
***** The system is flawed. I agree. We have built it to fail though. The reason we built it to fail, is because we understand the importance of fluidity needed in language. So it can grow and evolve. It does however leave us with situations like these. They could be efficiently eradicated. But people are too busy defining themselves in opposition to things lol. This particular situation could so easily be avoided if in science, it was made clear that "fact talk" is just short hand talk between two individuals, who have already prescribed to a way of thinking. It doesn't mean what they are saying to one another is factual in perpetuity. It's just for now so they don't have to send a thesaurus with every conversation. I think I saw something about the cerebellum myself. I think it popped up as a notification. I'm sure that we know nothing at all of the brain. Just the same situation again. People professing we finished a hundred unit dot to dot, because we found the seven intersection dots lol.
The deeper metaphysical question is, are these just labels or is there an underlying natural kind, humor, (ruclips.net/video/dXgnn8u5Hho/видео.html) which we are studying?
Here For A While Your statements remind me of the time some mathematicians wrote 'Principia Mathematica' as a way of standardizing and labeling everything in math. Not long after it was published, Godel used the book as a reference and created a proof that not only was the book in complete but that one could never create a complete set of rules. Using only theorems and conclusions and rules which where found in this 'ultimate reference book of maths' he proved no such book could exist
Another hypothesis I heard is that humor has to do with in-groups and out-groups. This is supported by the fact that different culture has different sense of humor. Meme is an example of this. Some memes are "funny" because people are "in on the joke". The hypothesis also explains fat jokes and laugh tracks.
That's an interesting theory. While I am not sure it would explain all humor, it does seem to address certain types of humor that some of these theories would have difficult explaining. And furthermore it introduces the question of why humor varies so greatly across cultures.
I've been reading some pop-psychology on this recently. Benign-violation theory attempts to explain laughter whether in response to humor, tickling, or a laughter epidemic by positing that laughter is a response to a non-threatening violation of norms. Sadly nothing that can yet be weaponized a la Monty Python's "Funniest joke in the world."
Interesting explanation. It sounds similar to, and as strong as many offered here. To steal from louisng114, how would such a theory explain things like "Inside Jokes" which are merely funny because they are known by one group and not another? They seem in line with the norms of the group. one the other end, nervous laughter at actually dangerous situations seems to perhaps be a violation of norms, but can be a response to a threatening situation.
relief (aka angst and some other transcendentalities) like people passing out after laughing too hard incongruity between the form and content or a fluidification of counsciousness, and that's why peole dealing only with pseudoconcepts (the typical cake blast, catch phrases, gags, scoff,etc) are so hard to deal with sarcasm or irony and other non neurotic expresions of humor. The ability to deal with abstraction and or concepts(the ontological ability) it's a very human characteristic and no laugh by itself
I would say incongruence is the most likely determinant of humor, but I think there is an interesting connection that may exist between this idea and the relief theory. In certain situations, humor may be derived from simply seeking relief, rather than finding it. This may explain why dark humor is funny. When someone tells a joke like those in South Park, they are generally funny because some aspect of the situations from the show are so absurd that you laugh at the discomfort. Let's go for the joke about how they always kill Kenny. It continuously got funnier because the reactions of the kids got more mundane. It became more and more absurd that death was treated so flippantly, and to deal with that absurdity, we laugh. That's my guess, anyway.
I think you're confused here. To be in pain oneself is self-directed humor for us, whereas to see others in pain is other directed or else it is vicarious. Thus, relief can be considered a goal for us in either perspective. But that fact is immaterial -- useless -- from both a prescriptive and a descriptive view. It doesn't help us create humor. And it also doesn't help us much to understand humor, except insofar as it leads us to the true essence of humor which is self-deception. Consider, for example, a social outcast or someone making an awkward mistake when that person is ourselves. From our own suffering point of view, humor is a state of seeking relief, but that's merely because we happen to be the ones that can be found ridiculous. On the other hand, someone perceiving our mistake or awkwardness also suffers, and in two ways. Not only can we annoy them, but they can also feel our pain.
The play theory doesn't seem to explain why other animals generally don't laugh while playing. Ayn Rand held that humor is the denial of the metaphysical importance of something. In other words, the belief that something is true (in some aspect) but that it doesn't have any significant impact on life as a whole: aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/humor.html
In their explanation, animals do kinds of "protolaughter" like a dog wagging its tail. And Rand's theory seems well in line with some of these other theories. We laugh because we are relieved that something is less metaphysically important than previously thought, because we find an incongruity between the fact of the matter and our metaphysical expectations, because we are looking down on something that was perceived to be more important than it is.
I really like the superiority theory because it may be a argument to why dark humor isn't necessarily bad, we just might feel superior to the tragedy of life and the horrors of history. It would be a sign of transcendence, that despite all de terrors that we deal and have dealt, we can still laugh at them, that no matter how much pain you have caused us, we will make something great from you, it's just a matter of time.
Couldn’t humor be the recognition of absurdity? This might help explain why hearing the same joke over and over again, it stops being as funny, as well as how funny images, or jokes without a set up, could be funny. It would also explain why someone could think puns are funny.
Superiority humor, or humor in which you laugh at someone inferior to you, only works if the people you laugh at deserve to be in the situation they find themselves. For example Beavis and Butt-Head are funny because you are smarter than they are, true, but they also, in many ways, deserve the misery they experience (they live in a just world, where the majority of the misery they experience is of their own doing). It would not be funny to laugh at a person who is inferior, such as someone suffering from mental retardation, because they did nothing to bring about their station in life. As long as the inferiority is just, or if the inferior person has other negative qualities that make his or her inferiority more just on the whole, this type of humor can be considered, well, humorous.
I have had a theory for a long time that it's between incongruence and relief. I believe every emotion is due to incongruence between expectations and reality. But it's only when we experience something that's challenging our expectations (a possible threat), and then actually see it as benign, when we are relieved from the potential threat and laugh. Of course. Imagine the other alternative, if the challenge *was* a threat. We'd scream, shout, or yell... we are primed to be vocal upon times where we are challenged. And it doesn't take much to see that laughter is just another variation of being vocal in response to this stressor.
+Mark Fredrick Graves, Jr. The relief theory of laughter is common, but the general theory for all emotions is very interesting. I can see how happiness might be getting something better than you expected to, sadness might be getting something worse, but I'm unclear how soemthing like disgust would fit this picture, sure we are disgusted by things which don't fit, but I don't think anything so complicated is going on when I smell vomit and feel disgusted. And somethign like anger or jealously seems to be more about an incongruity between what the world is like and our desires, not our expectations. I am angry that I don't ahve as much money as someone else, not because I expected to ahve more money than them, but because I want more money than them. Cool idea though!
Consider updating this to include Zizek and how whites and blacks can and do bond socially after earning the right of friendship, to call one other by their FORBIDDEN thou shalt not utter the word racial in-group preference names.
I think humor occurs when nature of a thing is shown to be more simple/primitive than it seems. It is comparable to music in this sense. First there is the tension: where something of a relatively complex/serious nature is observed. Then comes the relief: that complex/serious thing is revealed to be much more simple/primitive/juvenile. For example, a professor is lecturing a class then turns to a student and starts to fart intensely while looking dead in the eye of the student. Lectures are often boring and professors are serious then the professor becomes an ordinary stupid farting man who doesnt even consider doing it secretly because he is not even concerned about the morality of loudly farting in public. This gap between the serious and simple worldviews and the rapid change of them generates humor. When the two worldviews are more logically connected and more close to eachother in terms of seriousness/complexity joke becomes simpler. When the two worldviews are logically more unconnected it becomes much more complex/absurd. Secret to the perfect joke is dialing the perfect amount of complexity. If the joke is too simple it will be boring and the complexity dosage will be so low that the recipient wont feel a thing. Contrarywise, if the joke is too complex people will find it too absurd and only a few select people will laugh but generally the high dose of complexity will disturb the recipient. By making a joke not too simple or absurd, perfect joke is achieved. But as like caffeine, one can build a tolerance to a certain level of complexity by being gradually exposed to more absurd comedy. Thus a good old joke will generally seem more cheesy to a newer generation because they have build up more tolerance for absurdity compared to older generations. Maybe this is the reason why it is said that the future humor will be random. @carneades.org
My major is philosophy. When I was an undergraduate I became a humor writer to supplement my living expenses and buy college books. I raised illogical ways of thinking for my humors. In my opinion, humor is very useful to overcome boredom, however, humor needs to respect ethics. Humor must avoid topics that are classified as human rights violations, sexual harassment or racial discrimination.
Everything from it looking down on people to laughter leading to a lack of control, to humor leading us to not take action on important issues. Or, if you are more cynical, philosophers just had a lot of people make fun of them when they were young and so they don't like it.
When you're jealous you tend to use humour to bully. Why? Is bulling sense of humour. Better than showing points🕵🏻♂️☯️🌏sense of humour?😆✌️Hearing things twice mate helps some people. Why?
To describe humor itself is to intend to say what it is, not what causes it. The question of what it is, is not a prescriptive question. You're presuming to say what humor is, in itself, by saying what it "arises from." The method doesn't fit the purpose at all. It's like saying that we learn what smoke IS, simply by the fact that it's caused by fire. That kind of causal relation, in the case of humor, just tells us how to make humor -- which is also needless, by the way. So it's useless on both counts. In the first place, it says nothing about humor's essence. But it also has no practical value. If it has neither of those uses, then what is the use? So your "incongruity, superiority and relief" presentation is worthless.
For example, this video that is apparently “defining” humor is not very humorous. It’s dry bland and boring with sentences too long that no one would want to watch till the end unless they were really bored. A good presenter could define humor in less than 30 seconds
+Haverniol Inizshibmack The point is not to give a quick witty definition of humor because there is no agreed upon definition, but rather to provide all of the various positions on humor that exist and intersperse some jokes that only a philosophy nerd would appreciate in between. If you think you can do better, feel free to make your own video.
I understand, I just felt it was ironic to have an video thats supposed to help you understand humor when the video mostly isn't. I think the best way to teach something is by showing, but then again what do i know. It is true though, that I should make a video if I think I could do better, which tbh I think I could by not making it complicated, but seeing that I don't have a following, there would not be much purpose for creating a single video, even if it was really good, because it wouldn't have a crowd to get it around. Not to sound cocky but even if I made my own video, if it got 6 views I'd still think it's better than this, but I dont suppose thats the problem. It seems like we both have different definitions of what a "good" video defining humor looks like, so why don't we just leave it at that
Humour: 00:00
Superiority Theory: 01:44
Relief Theory: 03:45
Incongruity Theory: 06:03
Play Theory: 08:14
Thanks tons!!!
I can’t believe this channel Is so underground, you should have 10 million subscribers. Please keep making content!
That was exactly the overview I needed. Thank you for saving me much time. Excellent narrative and lovely design, too.
I'm not sure if you hear this often but your illustrations are very good.
Thanks!
It's funny how humans must have everything labeled.
Luis Ronneberg Well from a scientific point instead of a general human point. They must have everything labeled to be able to converse.
The problem is that the Government teaches the layman of the subject that everything is fact. When they should teach the possibility of thus far attached to everything.
Society is confused by scientific language. so they view it as an immovable description of itself.
***** The system is flawed. I agree. We have built it to fail though.
The reason we built it to fail, is because we understand the importance of fluidity needed in language. So it can grow and evolve.
It does however leave us with situations like these. They could be efficiently eradicated. But people are too busy defining themselves in opposition to things lol.
This particular situation could so easily be avoided if in science, it was made clear that "fact talk" is just short hand talk between two individuals, who have already prescribed to a way of thinking.
It doesn't mean what they are saying to one another is factual in perpetuity. It's just for now so they don't have to send a thesaurus with every conversation.
I think I saw something about the cerebellum myself. I think it popped up as a notification.
I'm sure that we know nothing at all of the brain.
Just the same situation again. People professing we finished a hundred unit dot to dot, because we found the seven intersection dots lol.
The deeper metaphysical question is, are these just labels or is there an underlying natural kind, humor, (ruclips.net/video/dXgnn8u5Hho/видео.html) which we are studying?
Here For A While Your statements remind me of the time some mathematicians wrote 'Principia Mathematica' as a way of standardizing and labeling everything in math. Not long after it was published, Godel used the book as a reference and created a proof that not only was the book in complete but that one could never create a complete set of rules. Using only theorems and conclusions and rules which where found in this 'ultimate reference book of maths' he proved no such book could exist
humor is making someone laugh! end of story .-
now u like it better? ;)
Laughter occurs at moments when we broaden our consciousness and see things a different way. It is our primary defense against ideological possession.
That Descartes joke was hysterical.
I'm glad I found your channel, thanks for sharing!
Greetings from Mexico
Thanks for sharing this video, without any prior knowledge on humour, research in the field is a lot more complex than one might think
Another hypothesis I heard is that humor has to do with in-groups and out-groups. This is supported by the fact that different culture has different sense of humor. Meme is an example of this. Some memes are "funny" because people are "in on the joke". The hypothesis also explains fat jokes and laugh tracks.
That's an interesting theory. While I am not sure it would explain all humor, it does seem to address certain types of humor that some of these theories would have difficult explaining. And furthermore it introduces the question of why humor varies so greatly across cultures.
Started thinking about this randomly exactly 2 years after this video was made...
Why do golfers wear two pairs of pants?
In case they get a hole in one!
"Hahaha!"
Haha. Great.
Good one dud 😂
How often does protection get quiet? (1)When the threat gets smaller
I've been reading some pop-psychology on this recently. Benign-violation theory attempts to explain laughter whether in response to humor, tickling, or a laughter epidemic by positing that laughter is a response to a non-threatening violation of norms. Sadly nothing that can yet be weaponized a la Monty Python's "Funniest joke in the world."
Interesting explanation. It sounds similar to, and as strong as many offered here. To steal from louisng114, how would such a theory explain things like "Inside Jokes" which are merely funny because they are known by one group and not another? They seem in line with the norms of the group. one the other end, nervous laughter at actually dangerous situations seems to perhaps be a violation of norms, but can be a response to a threatening situation.
So Kenny didn't die in this episode?
I mean, Kenny turned into Descartes, and Descartes said "I think not" and disappeared. So the answer is: Kenny killed himself.
Carneades.org 😮
Carneades.org After all, suicide is the "only really serious philosophical problem."
Haha, exactly.
relief (aka angst and some other transcendentalities) like people passing out after laughing too hard
incongruity between the form and content or a fluidification of counsciousness, and that's why peole dealing only with pseudoconcepts (the typical cake blast, catch phrases, gags, scoff,etc) are so hard to deal with sarcasm or irony and other non neurotic expresions of humor. The ability to deal with abstraction and or concepts(the ontological ability) it's a very human characteristic and no laugh by itself
Why the big words?
just like 100 day of modal logic, I am all for 200 days of humor,,,,thanks!
Haha, maybe one day. :)
I would say incongruence is the most likely determinant of humor, but I think there is an interesting connection that may exist between this idea and the relief theory. In certain situations, humor may be derived from simply seeking relief, rather than finding it. This may explain why dark humor is funny. When someone tells a joke like those in South Park, they are generally funny because some aspect of the situations from the show are so absurd that you laugh at the discomfort. Let's go for the joke about how they always kill Kenny. It continuously got funnier because the reactions of the kids got more mundane. It became more and more absurd that death was treated so flippantly, and to deal with that absurdity, we laugh.
That's my guess, anyway.
I think you're confused here. To be in pain oneself is self-directed humor for us, whereas to see others in pain is other directed or else it is vicarious. Thus, relief can be considered a goal for us in either perspective. But that fact is immaterial -- useless -- from both a prescriptive and a descriptive view. It doesn't help us create humor. And it also doesn't help us much to understand humor, except insofar as it leads us to the true essence of humor which is self-deception.
Consider, for example, a social outcast or someone making an awkward mistake when that person is ourselves. From our own suffering point of view, humor is a state of seeking relief, but that's merely because we happen to be the ones that can be found ridiculous. On the other hand, someone perceiving our mistake or awkwardness also suffers, and in two ways. Not only can we annoy them, but they can also feel our pain.
What about the fake laugh theory?
The play theory doesn't seem to explain why other animals generally don't laugh while playing.
Ayn Rand held that humor is the denial of the metaphysical importance of something. In other words, the belief that something is true (in some aspect) but that it doesn't have any significant impact on life as a whole: aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/humor.html
In their explanation, animals do kinds of "protolaughter" like a dog wagging its tail. And Rand's theory seems well in line with some of these other theories. We laugh because we are relieved that something is less metaphysically important than previously thought, because we find an incongruity between the fact of the matter and our metaphysical expectations, because we are looking down on something that was perceived to be more important than it is.
I really like the superiority theory because it may be a argument to why dark humor isn't necessarily bad, we just might feel superior to the tragedy of life and the horrors of history. It would be a sign of transcendence, that despite all de terrors that we deal and have dealt, we can still laugh at them, that no matter how much pain you have caused us, we will make something great from you, it's just a matter of time.
But can't superiority humor also be sadistic and cruel?
Couldn’t humor be the recognition of absurdity? This might help explain why hearing the same joke over and over again, it stops being as funny, as well as how funny images, or jokes without a set up, could be funny. It would also explain why someone could think puns are funny.
What is freedom of speech with freedom of action?
You did a good job on this subject mate. A lot of people want a quick one. What does it mean.😂You only heard one bit
Humor is the juxtaposition of opposites? Can't remember who said this.
Maybe Schopenhauer?
So for protection, who's following which police officer
Did you guys hear the one about a honeycomb, a jackass and a brothel?
Daenerys Stormborn no
Superiority humor, or humor in which you laugh at someone inferior to you, only works if the people you laugh at deserve to be in the situation they find themselves. For example Beavis and Butt-Head are funny because you are smarter than they are, true, but they also, in many ways, deserve the misery they experience (they live in a just world, where the majority of the misery they experience is of their own doing). It would not be funny to laugh at a person who is inferior, such as someone suffering from mental retardation, because they did nothing to bring about their station in life. As long as the inferiority is just, or if the inferior person has other negative qualities that make his or her inferiority more just on the whole, this type of humor can be considered, well, humorous.
Indeed, but some people laugh at mentally disabled people. What do you make of those?
@@DrJones20 that they're shitty people
I have had a theory for a long time that it's between incongruence and relief. I believe every emotion is due to incongruence between expectations and reality. But it's only when we experience something that's challenging our expectations (a possible threat), and then actually see it as benign, when we are relieved from the potential threat and laugh. Of course. Imagine the other alternative, if the challenge *was* a threat. We'd scream, shout, or yell... we are primed to be vocal upon times where we are challenged. And it doesn't take much to see that laughter is just another variation of being vocal in response to this stressor.
+Mark Fredrick Graves, Jr. The relief theory of laughter is common, but the general theory for all emotions is very interesting. I can see how happiness might be getting something better than you expected to, sadness might be getting something worse, but I'm unclear how soemthing like disgust would fit this picture, sure we are disgusted by things which don't fit, but I don't think anything so complicated is going on when I smell vomit and feel disgusted. And somethign like anger or jealously seems to be more about an incongruity between what the world is like and our desires, not our expectations. I am angry that I don't ahve as much money as someone else, not because I expected to ahve more money than them, but because I want more money than them. Cool idea though!
I have a question whether HUMOR/HUMOUR deals with jokes
🕵🏻♂️The bullsh** people say. Why do people bullsh** a lot more today?
Consider updating this to include Zizek and how whites and blacks can and do bond socially after earning the right of friendship, to call one other by their FORBIDDEN thou shalt not utter the word racial in-group preference names.
I would love to do something on Zizek's work, but it would probably be in a stand alone video or a whole series to do it justice.
I think humor occurs when nature of a thing is shown to be more simple/primitive than it seems. It is comparable to music in this sense. First there is the tension: where something of a relatively complex/serious nature is observed. Then comes the relief: that complex/serious thing is revealed to be much more simple/primitive/juvenile. For example, a professor is lecturing a class then turns to a student and starts to fart intensely while looking dead in the eye of the student. Lectures are often boring and professors are serious then the professor becomes an ordinary stupid farting man who doesnt even consider doing it secretly because he is not even concerned about the morality of loudly farting in public. This gap between the serious and simple worldviews and the rapid change of them generates humor. When the two worldviews are more logically connected and more close to eachother in terms of seriousness/complexity joke becomes simpler. When the two worldviews are logically more unconnected it becomes much more complex/absurd. Secret to the perfect joke is dialing the perfect amount of complexity. If the joke is too simple it will be boring and the complexity dosage will be so low that the recipient wont feel a thing. Contrarywise, if the joke is too complex people will find it too absurd and only a few select people will laugh but generally the high dose of complexity will disturb the recipient. By making a joke not too simple or absurd, perfect joke is achieved. But as like caffeine, one can build a tolerance to a certain level of complexity by being gradually exposed to more absurd comedy. Thus a good old joke will generally seem more cheesy to a newer generation because they have build up more tolerance for absurdity compared to older generations. Maybe this is the reason why it is said that the future humor will be random. @carneades.org
My major is philosophy. When I was an undergraduate I became a humor writer to supplement my living expenses and buy college books. I raised illogical ways of thinking for my humors. In my opinion, humor is very useful to overcome boredom, however, humor needs to respect ethics. Humor must avoid topics that are classified as human rights violations, sexual harassment or racial discrimination.
we laugh so we can 'runaway' from ugly truths. that is what I think about humor
Perhaps because humor downplays the importance of these big issues and gives us relief when there is nothing we can do about them.
Yes exactly! Stuff like this is depressing to think about lol
10:12 I laughed out loud there.
I'm glad. :)
Thank you very much >3< Your video has helped me a lot in my assignment @@
Thanks! Glad to help.
I am terribly curious now why humor would be considered unethical. But I am too lazy to google it :>
Everything from it looking down on people to laughter leading to a lack of control, to humor leading us to not take action on important issues. Or, if you are more cynical, philosophers just had a lot of people make fun of them when they were young and so they don't like it.
phew, I was concerned for a minute that there might be serious ones :>
thank u
No problem, thanks for watching!
Ancient people's believed humour was what humans were made of...
More to you...
Have some tumour...
When you're jealous you tend to use humour to bully. Why? Is bulling sense of humour. Better than showing points🕵🏻♂️☯️🌏sense of humour?😆✌️Hearing things twice mate helps some people. Why?
gene protein responsible for humour.
humor is about building trust
...something this video lacks
Fk I came here to see what people think of humour and all I see is alien languages ..(rick- english please)
Big Chungus
AMOGUS
@@Literallyryangosling777 lmao
As what is stalking these days with a world full of excuses
It wasn’t dat humorist
As I note at the end of the video, humor is like a frog, once you dissect it, it is dead.
To describe humor itself is to intend to say what it is, not what causes it. The question of what it is, is not a prescriptive question. You're presuming to say what humor is, in itself, by saying what it "arises from." The method doesn't fit the purpose at all. It's like saying that we learn what smoke IS, simply by the fact that it's caused by fire. That kind of causal relation, in the case of humor, just tells us how to make humor -- which is also needless, by the way. So it's useless on both counts. In the first place, it says nothing about humor's essence. But it also has no practical value. If it has neither of those uses, then what is the use?
So your "incongruity, superiority and relief" presentation is worthless.
this is really boring
Squint Beastwood I know it could really use some jokes.
Explain a joke and it's no longer funny. Explain jokes and they are all no longer funny.
this comment was humorous to me
It wasn't meant to be funny.
For example, this video that is apparently “defining” humor is not very humorous. It’s dry bland and boring with sentences too long that no one would want to watch till the end unless they were really bored.
A good presenter could define humor in less than 30 seconds
+Haverniol Inizshibmack The point is not to give a quick witty definition of humor because there is no agreed upon definition, but rather to provide all of the various positions on humor that exist and intersperse some jokes that only a philosophy nerd would appreciate in between. If you think you can do better, feel free to make your own video.
I understand, I just felt it was ironic to have an video thats supposed to help you understand humor when the video mostly isn't. I think the best way to teach something is by showing, but then again what do i know. It is true though, that I should make a video if I think I could do better, which tbh I think I could by not making it complicated, but seeing that I don't have a following, there would not be much purpose for creating a single video, even if it was really good, because it wouldn't have a crowd to get it around. Not to sound cocky but even if I made my own video, if it got 6 views I'd still think it's better than this, but I dont suppose thats the problem. It seems like we both have different definitions of what a "good" video defining humor looks like, so why don't we just leave it at that