Kharakov

I see a lot of comedy as being aimed at things that used to be painful.

When things that used to cause pain to people are brought up again, there is a sudden tension, then relief as the people realise that it no long causes them pain- ie: it is now funny. Good comedians can keep up the tension, at the same time give constant relief.

The same thing happens with a joke- people who "get" a joke and laugh have figure the joke out- they were on the spot to figure out the joke, if they didn't they were going to appear stupid. So the person is under tension to understand the joke, and gets relief when they do. If the joke is to easy, the person doesn't feel challenged enough to think its funny. If the joke is to hard, the person has to have it explained to them, and it is rarely as funny to the person then, unless they understand the joke by making a connection between the explanation and the joke (they don't understand the explanation immediately, but then are relieved when they see the connection).

Whats humor?? Tension and relief. Some other enjoyable experiences resemble it.

emphryio

Franc28, I think pitiful and absurd are pretty close to being the same thing.

Jonsey3333, to care that much about a pencil seems definitely absurd/pitiful.

Franc28, Things that are pitiful but not funny, are things that are already well known to be pitiful. For instance, anything that threatens your life. If, on the other hand, a man died in a society of immortals where such had never been heard of before, it would be hilarious.

Laurentius, it seems to me unlikely that there can be multiple equally valid and correct explanations for what makes a person laugh.
Unlikely but possible I guess.
Concerning your example, when someone falls, do you feel like eating them? And then laugh instead to hide your more "animalistic" feelings?
I doubt it. But if you do, then you're not really laughing. You're "lie-laughing" so to speak.
In general, I don't like the idea of watching animals in order to understand pyshcological human behaviour. Why not just observe yourself and those around you instead?

Kharakov, your definition only applies to one unique example which I personally have never experienced.

Thanks to others for replying.

In general, people have different senses of humour because people have different ideas of what should be assumed and understood to be right and wrong.
Virtually nobody assumes and considers it universally understood that car wrecks should never happen or tornadoes or etc. Therefore its not funny.
But on the other hand, for example, some extremely civilized intelligent person may think the idea of being rude is assumed and understood to always be wrong. And therefore they will be rude as a joke. (To be rude, is pitiful, an absurdity to them.) But most people who are less civilized do not think of rudeness as a universal wrong and actually occasionally use it in a serious manner. Therefore they do not understand the first person's attempt at humor. And simply think there is something wrong with the first person.

It seems that I personally have thought much more about what is humor than anybody I know of.
I think this is probably because in the past people would never get my humor and just end up being insulted or thinking I'm crazy.
Actually I learned long ago to quit attempting to be funny, (in the way that I personally thing is truly funny), and so most people probably think I'm just this very dour and humorless individual. Which sucks for me.

Oh well maybe some day I'll find ONE person who understands. But of course since I don't even attempt such humor anymore I guess I never actually will.

emphryio

Okay, sorry for the loooonnnng post. I haven't explained myself clearly.

Ok, All that is funny is wrong. But many things that are wrong aren't funny.
Why?
Because many things, such as a miscalculation in math, a car wreck, a tornado, are part of the more or less acceptable adversities that make up the game of life.
Certain other wrong things, are not accepted as just a part of life. Slipping on a banana peel. The word bill being a ducks mouth and a form of payment. And for the extremely civilized individual, (myself), the idea of ever being rude is an equal absurdity.
And so when these "wrongs" occur it is a bit of extra stress to pile on the already quite huge heap. You know? That heap of pain, death, surviving day to day, etc.

So, showing new ways that humanity is pitiful is funny. In my opinion, it would seem to be the complete definition of what is humor. As far as the physical process of laughing. I'm far from certain I'm right about that.

Francois Tremblay

I'm not sure it would be funny. Since we don't live in a society of immortals, it would be difficult to grasp such a joke anyway. Do you have a better example of something that is pitiful and funny, but not absurd ?

The problem is that, as I said, absurdity and pitifulness are related. So to really confirm one or the other hypothesis, we need to find ways to falsify them. Puns seem to me to be a good example that not all jokes have to be pitiful.

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>

Jamie_L

I don't know. I don't have a good explanation for humor, but the pitiful/wrong explanation seems to simplified to be accurate.

There are things that are wrong, not accepted as part of life, and not funny. People flying jumbo jets into buildings was definitely not an accepted part of everyday life in the US. Yet it was not particularly funny to US residents.

Further, the fact that infants and toddlers find great humor in the world seems to detract from this definition. Such young minds can't really formulate the notion of heaps of pain, death, surviving day to day, as you put it. This idea of an intellectual "snap" seems therefore lacking as an explanation.

I've read suggestions that humor is about unexpected things happening - a sort of disconnect between what might be expected to happen and what does. This sort of fits the "wrongness" theory, but I think you've taken the idea of "wrongness" too far. I don't think it's about being overwhelmed by all the stress in the world. It's just about simple surprise.

The reason some things that might fit this definition aren't funny is because they are also something else - sad, painful, scarry, etc.

To quote Mel Brooks: Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Commedy is when you fall down and break your leg.

Jamie

emphryio

I think the possiblity of any plane crashing is an accepted part of life and also the fact that it might run into something other than the ground as it crashes is also a stressful possiblity that has already occured to everybody. Therefore it already lies upon the huge existing pile of stress. Now if it managed to hit something that you really hadn't taken into account the possiblity of it so doing, then it would be funny.
Like the Stay Puff Marshmellow man, right in the stomach, maybe. "Offf!"

But I think your bringing up babies laughing is an interesting thing to think about. Of course aren't they usually laughing when an adult is making a stupid face at them? But how do they even know the stupid face is "wrong". How do they know anything is "wrong". Actually if they laugh more often than adults that would support my theory. (Because there is more that is unique to them). But it's not so simple. And I haven't observed babies all that much. Maybe I should hang out in malls and follow ladies around with their babies just staring at them.
Actually I don't recall any babies I know of laughing much more than adults except when someone is trying to make them laugh.
Also you give babies less credit as thinking organisms than I would. I think as separate entities unto theirselves they definitly understand pain. They understand how to look into the faces of adults. And they learn very quickly what they expect to see there. At extremely young ages they recognize their parents. (Days old I beleive). And when they look at facial expressions and see an expression that is "wrong", or doesn't fit into what they know, (its not happy, neutral, or mad), they laugh.
But still, I haven't been around young children much. So I don't know.

Francois Tremblay

Another thing I just thought about is that the pitiful hypothesis doesn't hold much water with evolution. What purpose would it serve from an evolutionary standpoint to recognize pitifulness ? It seems much more useful to be able to recognize cognitive absurdities.

elwoodblues

"What is funny, is when a person is exposed to a unique example of how pitiful existence is."

Read 'Stranger in a Strange Land'. Best explanation of humor I've ever seen. It's not inconsistent with your interpretation, but it's infinitely more positive, as I think it should be.

emphryio

OK
You have three cavemen.
Two recognize how pitiful/wrong their life is. How pitiful/wrong mankind is. The one laughs, the other jumps off a cliff.
The third person doesn't recognize things being wrong/pitiful. He doesn't notice those berries don't look right. Eats them and drops dead.

So from an evolutionary standpoint it is useful to laugh when you recognize pitifulness.
Also it is very useful to reconize that which is wrong.

But going back for a sec, let me define what pitiful and absurd mean to me personally. And of course you know people maybe do develop slightly different understandings and usages of words?

By pitiful, I really mean essentially, that which is wrong. And in more particular, I mean that which is wrong that really is a very simple thing and is somewhat inexcusable in being wrong.
What these inexcusable wrongs are, differs from person to person. So if a man getting a masters degree in math goes to the professor with a problem and it becomes apparent he doesn't even understand what an integral is. Its an inexcusable wrong. Its pitiful.
By my definition of humor, I mean that which is wrong, but was a thing that you took for granted as being right. You never seriously considered its failing as a possibity. Such as a Master math student not understanding what an integral is.

Absurd to me, means virtually the same as pitiful. Except that which is wrong and therefore absurd is less serious than that which is wrong and therefore pitiful.
In my opinion, what is pitiful is usually also absurd. But occasionally a thing can be more absurd than pitiful. And when this is the case, it isn't usually as funny.

But all of that is hard to follow and I feel the communication barrier is mounting. My use of the language could be better. And maybe the language could be better.

emphryio

And thanks Elwood, I read that long ago but don't remember what it said about humor. I think I've still got it somewhere. I'll look it up.
But I would have prefered you just telling me instead of refering me to a book. For all I know you may be an idiot and the book may have one sentence on page 143 that talks about humor.
Not that I really suspect that, no offense intended.