This is my response to Rebecca's lead blog.
I thought Rebecca's lead blog was very interesting in its application of Alastair Clark's theory of humor. Obviously, his pattern recognition theory of humor is relatively new, but his theory does seem to have some strong merit. It does seem to be the case that any instance of humor will involve pattern recognition. After all, how could something be an incongruity without being an unexpected or atypical pattern? I also think Clark's theory has the strong advantage of being able to explain why humor is present in every society that has ever existed. In Clark's theory, pattern recognition permits us to discern the rules by which our world works, understanding the rules by which are world works allows us to predict our environment, and being able to predict our environment allows us to act on our environment in an effective manner. So, in other words, we had every incentive from an evolutionary point of view to develop a sense of humor.
However, I do think there is a side effect of this theory of humor which Clark does not anticipate. It would prove that humor is objective. That is because while recognizing patterns is subjective, the actual pattern itself is objective. For instance, if someone detects a pattern in the natural world, and this pattern is universal, then we have a law of nature which is completely objective. Similarly, if one of Clark's pattern is the case in some event, and someone does not find this funny, then there are objectively deficient in not being able to recognize the pattern. So, in other words, his theory would show that some things are funny regardless of whether anyone finds them funny or not.
Now, I do not know whether this result of his theory would be a disadvantage or an advantage to his theory, but it would show that we have a sense of humor in a very literal sense. That is, our sense of humor discerns things out there in the real world which are truly and objectively humorous.
I thought Rebecca's lead blog was very interesting in its application of Alastair Clark's theory of humor. Obviously, his pattern recognition theory of humor is relatively new, but his theory does seem to have some strong merit. It does seem to be the case that any instance of humor will involve pattern recognition. After all, how could something be an incongruity without being an unexpected or atypical pattern? I also think Clark's theory has the strong advantage of being able to explain why humor is present in every society that has ever existed. In Clark's theory, pattern recognition permits us to discern the rules by which our world works, understanding the rules by which are world works allows us to predict our environment, and being able to predict our environment allows us to act on our environment in an effective manner. So, in other words, we had every incentive from an evolutionary point of view to develop a sense of humor.
However, I do think there is a side effect of this theory of humor which Clark does not anticipate. It would prove that humor is objective. That is because while recognizing patterns is subjective, the actual pattern itself is objective. For instance, if someone detects a pattern in the natural world, and this pattern is universal, then we have a law of nature which is completely objective. Similarly, if one of Clark's pattern is the case in some event, and someone does not find this funny, then there are objectively deficient in not being able to recognize the pattern. So, in other words, his theory would show that some things are funny regardless of whether anyone finds them funny or not.
Now, I do not know whether this result of his theory would be a disadvantage or an advantage to his theory, but it would show that we have a sense of humor in a very literal sense. That is, our sense of humor discerns things out there in the real world which are truly and objectively humorous.
That is a great point that it makes humor an objective fact of the natural world. Do you think there's an example of a situation in which almost no cultural context is necessary? If so, why does cultural context seem so essential, as in the video where murder is contrasted with popular music?
ReplyDeleteThis is really interesting that you look at the difference between objective and subjective humor. I think humor is subjective, but I also agree that looking at patterns of humor renders the humor objective since patterns are predictable and not . dependent on the person studying them.
ReplyDeleteThat is a very interesting point. The theories could all be used to describe why something would be funny even if it isn't. Comedy has too much of a subjective nature for it to be described as a if...then scenario.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is nice to look at comedy from this new perspective of theories. It gives us some great additional resources to use when deciphering and explaining comedy. Great post!
ReplyDelete