Welcome

HUMOR RESEARCH

What is humor, exactly? The question seems pointless - because we can all think of examples of humor, and we all "know it when we see it." However, when we try to define exactly what does and does not count as humor, we find it quite difficult. For example, what do you think about the following questions?

If you tell a joke skillfully, but no one likes it, does that count as humor? When a group of children ridicules another kid's new glasses, is that humor? If an emotionally disturbed person suddenly laughs for no apparent reason, is that an instance of humor? If you "get" a joke that was made at the expense of a minority group, does that make you a racist? If you laugh because the dentist gave you nitrous oxide, or because you are nervous, or because someone stimulated some section of your brain, is that humor? The answers to these questions are not simple. Here is a graphic of the process of humor as I currently understand it:

We can see that humor (usually) involves an Initiator; someone who is telling a joke or fooling around or pointing out something funny. It also involves some Object that is being proposed as laughable. For example, some humor makes fun of people (the butt of the joke) and they serve as the Object of that humor. Some humor makes fun of language ambiguities (for example), and those would be the Object of the humor. All of this happens within a Context that may or may not be conducive to humor. Together, the Initiator and Object and Context make up the Stimulus that (it is hoped) will be humorous.

However, nothing is humorous until it is observed by someone (the Organism) and "appreciated." To appreciate humor involves two types of processing. The observer must both "get" or understand the humor (Cognition) and "like" it (Emotion). If the observer does not get the humor, for any reason, the attempt at humor will fail. If the observer gets the humor but dislikes it, for any reason, the humor is likely to fail. (It is rare that we laugh at things of which we disapprove, but it does happen.)

Following all of this processing (which might take about half a second), there may be a Response such as laughter, smiling, a groan or a smirk. This Response is not quite automatic and can usually be surpressed, as when we are at church or in a funeral. If the Response does appear, it will have Effects on the observer (such as the happy feelings generated by laughter) and on bystanders, who may be amused or annoyed or have some other reaction to the whole transaction. Thus, even one instance of humor is a complex event. Imagine the repeated and building instances of humor that we experience in a social setting, or that are orchestrated for us in a comedy club!

There is a whole different way of looking at this. People who study brain activity might describe the humor process this way: The observation of an incongruity automatically sets off a "processing error" (or anomaly) in the brain. It is the oscillations of THIS process that lead directly to laughter. When the laughter itself generates mirthful feelings (for purely chemical reasons), we misinterpret them as as enjoyment of the "humorous" stimulus. In other words, our common-sense understanding of what is happening is really just a superstitious way of looking at a process that is entirely biological in nature.

What goes on inside the head of the Appreciator is more of a "black box" to us. We cannot be sure, through introspection, exactly what happens in what order. Here is my best approximation of what I think happens in the mind of the Appreciator on perceiving humor:

This document reviews the existing literature on humor. What are some of the theories that have been offered to explain it? How have thinkers tried to answer the most important questions: What makes things funny (stimulus theories)? Why do we see things as funny (response theories)? What speculation has been offered about the purpose of humor (functional theories)?

These questions have fascinated our most respected thinkers (and many others) for millennia, but their sporadic writings on humor have produced more questions than answers. There are no agreed definitions of humor, or even accepted theoretical models of its components. Some have written about laughter while others have written about humor or jokes and others about the social impact of the content of humor, without identifying (or seeming to notice) the differences. The current status of the field of Humor Research would have to be characterized as preliminary at best.

For example, it is commonly assumed that laughter releases endorphins, because that claim appeared in early humor texts. However, only two scientific studies have been done on this topic. In each case, they failed to show any increase in the flow of endorphins. Of course, this doesn't detract from our enjoyment of laughter. Who cares whether it is endorphins or some other mechanism that provides the joy? It's just that we might have to be more careful about our facts if we are to make progress.

Those who claim that humor healed Norman Cousins of cancer are mistaken. Cousins recovered from a rare collagen disorder that has a 0.2% recovery rate (1 in 500 recover). He was certainly fortunate, but it's no miracle. Furthermore, Cousins took every medication his doctors prescribed for him, including five whole grams of Vitamin C per day! He did not reject medical treatment and retire to his room to watch funny films instead. He simply checked out of the gloomy hospital to have a more pleasant convalescence. He found that ten minutes of belly-laughter gave him two hours of pain-free sleep. While humor helped him avoid the fear and panic that usually accompany illness, and while this was a great comfort to him during his recovery, even he did not claim that laughter had "healed" him.

The enthusiasm of some writers in this area is astounding. Some claim that their own theory is "correct" and that other theories should be abandonned (silenced?) now that they have been explained away by the author's pet theory! They describe anyone who dares to disagree with them as "refusing to let go of their convenient beliefs" and so forth. Besides being tiresome, such bravado is simply unjustified. As in the early years of any other discipline, we will need to adopt a more thoughtful interdisciplinary approach in which different perspectives are acknowledged, compared and contrasted, and weighed for their relevance to different situations, if we are to make progress.

My own research into humor takes two directions: a philosophical inquiry into its nature, which is discussed here, and a practical assessment of its effectiveness in various professional applications. If you are interested in that aspect, you can visit my curriculum vita.

If you're interested in learning more about humor as a general human phenomenon, I recommend two essential books, both written by great scholars who are now involved in humor consulting.

The first book is Humor: Its Origin and Development (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1979) by Paul McGhee. You should be able to find this at a library under BF-723 (Library of Congress) or 152.4 (Dewey Decimal System). Although McGhee bristles at any suggestion of forming philosophical abstractions, and although the book is not very new, I think his writings are essential to understanding what we know about humor.

The second book is The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987) edited by John Morreall. You should be able to find this at a large library under PN-6149 (Library of Congress) or 128.3 (Dewey Decimal System). I think Morreall has provided the modern classic work on the philosophy of humor in this book, which should probably be consulted by all thoughtful people with any interest in this area.

After reading these, you will be ready to select and focus on your own particular area of interest using "Laughingly Referred To" - an online database of more than 3,700 scholarly works on humor created and maintained by sociologist Jason Rutter (Manchester).

You can also visit the website of the International Society for Humor StudiesISHS, where you will find a list of more than a hundred active humor scholars and information on the quarterly journal Humor: International Journal of Humor Research - published by de Gruyter since 1988. If you become interested in joining the ISHS, you should contact Martin Lampert for an application. You might also want to see the site of emminent psychological researcher Willibald Ruch (Zurich).

Even though others will tell you that humor research is frivolous (false) and largely unrespected (true), I urge you to continue. I would argue that humor is important enough to engage the time and attention of our brightest minds ... yours!