This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
See talk:Humor research#Article history. Laudak ( talk) 17:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
"Evolutionary psychologist, Geoffrey Miller contends that, from an evolutionary perspective, humor would have had no survival value to early humans living in the savannas of Africa."
Most primate researchers would disagree, I think. Unless he's using an extremely intellectual definition of "humor", it is in general a more survival-oriented reaction to social frustrations than anger. It would take a a really unusual definition of humor to assert believably that bonobos and chimpanzees, for example, DON'T have senses of humor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.160.105.110 ( talk) 18:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
So what about humor as defence mechanism? -- Dennis714 ( talk) 22:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
This can be added:
Humor as defense mechanism
According to George Eman Vaillant's (1977) categorization, humor is level IV defense mechanism: overt expression of ideas and feelings (especially those that are unpleasant to focus on or too terrible to talk about) that gives pleasure to others. Humor, which explores the absurdity inherent in any event, enables someone to "call a spade a spade", while "wit" is a form of displacement (level 3). Wit refers to the serious or distressing in a humorous way, rather than disarming it; the thoughts remain distressing, but they are "skirted round" by witticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis714 ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
ok im not going to start the argument over whether american or british spelling is correct, but shouldn't the spelling in this article be brought into line with its parent article Humour? seems a bit silly to constantly change spelling —Preceding unsigned comment added by -ross616- ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I have a plan to introduce my academic research and original theory of humor into this article, under a new heading of two equal signs. Can someone tell me if a self-published pdf file, from a blog, can be posted as the primary text presenting the new theory? cdg1072 4:15, 1 March 2012
As you can see from the discussion just above, an editor has added a new section to the main article, titled "Mimetic Theory". That section is based on a single reference, a paper from the editor himself. I have a feeling that this is not an appropriate citation, so the section in question should not be included in the article, but I'd like to read the views of other editors.-- Gautier lebon ( talk) 08:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
This issue appears to have been settled, and it is agreed that all must be published AND reviewed before being given actual attention herein. I hope by this statement that I don't overstep any bounds. But though you have reasonable rules to which I promise to adhere, your criteria for what counts as reliable material produces an odd result, in the final analysis. I only suggest this for your reflection. Some of the material which I questioned turned out, on fair judgment, hardly to be of publishable quality. You require reliable debate to respond to these entries, when in fact some of those same entries are themselves unreliable or unintelligible. It seems off base, to assert that I attacked such theories solely for my own gain, without the proper regard or respect for them. Cdg1072 ( talk) 02:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, it looks like we have consensus here. Dear CDG, can you please delete the section "Mimetic Theory" at this stage? You can add it later if your article is references or summarized in publications that are not authored by you.-- Gautier lebon ( talk) 15:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The idea "theory of humor" is not well organized in this article. Editors should consider that "benign violation" and other ideas of mixed emotions are accidental to humor, and that they clearly don't make a strong claim to a "theory of what humor is." Of course, this may not be reason to label the section "Benign Violation" as "disputed."
But if all theories pertaining to humor belong in this article, should there be a section for theories that merely describe something accidental about humor, rather than define the essence of it? For example, the topic of humor's moral impact is not unimportant. It may have applications in sociology, psychology and statistical analysis. "Benign violation" exists in things that are not humorous (mixed emotions, moral controversy). As the article already notes, there is a consensus that the classic theories of "incongruity, superiority, and relief," have all been shown to be accidental or fail to account for many features.
If an editor wants to claim that a section is unclear, this ought to be proposed in the talk page first. Then if there is at least some agreement that the section is difficult to understand, it can be so labeled. But, if a section gives solid counterexamples by means of basic logic, as does the Mimetic Theory, it is probably not unclear. If a theory claims necessary and sufficient conditions, then it claims to be a "holy grail theory," that is, it does not merely describe some property of humor which is present in other things. "Tension and release," for example, is in humor, but it is also in other things. The benign violation theory claims necessary and sufficient conditions. Many qualified scholars find this to be a very weak claim with many counterexamples. Cdg1072 ( talk) 23:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.46.145 ( talk) 23:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
A theory of humor is any supportable proposition about the nature of humor that is capable of being proved wrong. A theory of humor doesn't need to cover the entire subject, just the parts that it claims to cover. A complete and unified theory of humor might be a kind of ideal, but such a theory might never happen, and certainly doesn't have to be the starting point. TooManyFingers ( talk) 14:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Humor is concerned in a very general sense with delusions. The Ontic-Epistemic Theory instead focuses on the desire for "social reality." The OET is proposing that an ultimate desire, shattered in humor, is simply to see the world as meaningful rather than a collection of atoms without such meaning. But although this is a desire, it is a specific one motivated by intellectual traits. Desire in a general sense is broader and more palpable than the concern for the meaning of life and the world.
Where humor is focused on desire in any way, it always means some form of delusion is shattered. The possibility of delusion is a basic fact of every instance of love. Since there are many such examples, together they all indicate that humor is to be explained in terms of desire. Although our perceptions of meaning and social identity may count as humorous deception, this is a specific case.
It is difficult to miss the ubiquity of lying and deception in humor. It even shows up in ambiguity, since this idea strongly suggests misinterpretation of context or of reality. This concept is sufficiently humorous to serve as evidence pointing toward a general concept of humor. A "theory of humor" must mean a general theory that encompasses every form of the phenomenon. The idea of "pleasant delusion" or "shattered pleasant delusion" fits that requirement. Cdg1072 ( talk) 18:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The Computer Theory of Humor is similar to the claim that humor is like something paradoxical or untrue, being fed to a computer. And as though the input damaged the machine, the claim is that such damage resembles laughter. Is the explanation pseudoscience? This question is raised respectfully and inviting the opinion of others.
"A realization of this algorithm in neural networks justifies naturally Spencer’s hypothesis on the mechanism of laughter: deletion of a false version corresponds to zeroing of some part of the neural network and excessive energy of neurons is thrown out to the motor cortex, arousing muscular contractions." Cdg1072 ( talk) 04:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
"Pattern recognition" is too vague to make a noteworthy case for the meaning of humor. There may be specific patterns mentioned in the full version of the theory. But to group them together as merely "patterns" skirts the demand for some substantive idea that unites them. The "humor theory" article ought to feature the history of humor theory, but within reason and plausible examples. There is justification to delete the Pattern Recognition article. Cdg1072 ( talk) 23:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Editors ask me to delete the so-called "Mimetic Theory" or Delusion Theory, and I comply by deleting it, but you put it back. What's your intention? Cdg1072 ( talk) 17:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
"Proponents of each one originally claimed their theory to be capable of explaining all cases of humor, however, they now acknowledge that although each theory generally covers its own area of focus, many instances of humor can be explained by more than one theory."
This statement does follow, it is not a non sequitur. It is true that the assertion, "many instances of humor can be explained by more than one theory," contradicts the assertion that some theory is "capable of explaining all cases of humor." But, while the statement does contain a correct logical implication, it has other problems, because "areas of focus" implies that there are several types of humor covered by different theories.
The statement has it appear as though several theories were limited to certain classes of humor, and that explanations of these classes were largely satisfactory. These assertions are inaccurate, however, since the theories generally don't limit themselves to groups of humor instances, but it is assumed that they select some aspect applying to the totality which they hold to be the single most important. It has been proposed that explanation is shared (see Rod Martin, 2007). (That is trivial, and only follows from the proliferation of theories). But, even if several theories limited themselves to isolated classes, it could not also be true that many instances of humor can be explained by more than one theory. Those assertions are incompatible. There cannot be isolated theories of types of humor and "many" instances of shared explanation. The latter implies that theories are basically global.
Only a linguistic theory might purport to explain just a class, or an "instance of humor." No global theory does. We are not told what an "area of focus" means among the other theories, we don't know whether it means a type of humor or a way of explaining humor generally. Cdg1072 ( talk) 22:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
This page is severely lacking in not mentioning the Hurley/Dennett book/theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jibal ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the theories mentioned in this article should be collated and perhaps pruned. The article currently does not present the theories in any relation to each other. Even sections like "Predominant theories" and "Alternate theories" would be helpful, but it would be better to try to categorize the theories into different types and organize the sections according to this categorization. I'm not sure if there exist good sources for such categorization, though.
The other thing is that some of the theories seem to be very minor ones. For instance, who is Alastair Clarke and why should we care about his pattern recognition theory of humor? Essentially, the theory seems to be that humor arises when "the brain recognises a pattern that surprises it". In other words, humor arises when your mind encounters something funny. What a useful theory! At least the other theories attempt to explain why some patterns are found to be funny and others are not.
To summarize, this page needs cleanup from someone familiar with the subject, who can sort out the important theories from the fringe ones and who can organize the sections in a meaningful way. 138.16.21.199 ( talk) 07:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
"This article needs attention from an expert in Comedy or Psychology." This article needs attention from a philosopher, but they are all too serious. Do they think humor is a joke or something? Wastrel Way ( talk) 21:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Eric
In response to the last talk entries, it should be noted that Mr. Clarke has also published another theory called "Information Normalization." Furthermore, that later theory is similar to the "false belief" theory of Matthew Hurley and Daniel Dennett. Editors here might consider whether it would be original research, merely to mention that similarity. Maybe it would be, and thus should not be allowed unless it has been published elsewhere. I myself don't intend to describe the comparison here, or the difference between them (though I know that as well). Cdg1072 ( talk) 14:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
A contributor to this article has recently added an entry concerning a "Five Elements" theory of humor. This material is clearly original research, and not admissible in wikipedia as the author has self-published it through amazon.com, without any academic vetting. A better theory was removed from this article, on the grounds that it too lacked an established journal or publisher. The "Five Elements" is not an actual theory of humor, but only an outline of types of humor, or things that happen to be funny. That much is trivial, and uninformative. A "theory of humor" is expected to present one idea that is common to all humor, not five. This entirely self-proclaimed author has no known qualifications in psychology or philosophy. Cdg1072 ( talk) 03:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.223.195 ( talk) 22:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
In the book, the element of surprise is shown as the central element, and the other four are just manifestations of that element. In addition, the two requirements of humor just qualifies surprise. So it is one cohesive theory, centering around surprise.
But if you don't want it on the Wikipedia page, fine. Just please remove the one-star review I got, it's been hurting my sales. I won't edit on Wikipedia again if that's what you want. 63.143.241.191 ( talk) 13:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Five Elements is a self-published brief essay. It has no "academic vetting" of the sort mentioned in wikipedia guidelines. Why is it allowed? Cdg1072 ( talk) 16:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Interestingly, right now there is a poor review at Amazon's page for the book that mentions the Wikipedia spamming explicitly, and which someone who may or may not be Mr. Toa appears to confirm that they are using WP as an advertising medium. -- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 04:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The "Superiority theory" section has quite a bit of evidence behind it, yet it consists of only a few lines about its origin. Also, simply suggesting that people laugh because they feel are better does not do the theory justice. There needs to be more application, and the full biological reasoning on why some psychologists believe it.
...I really can't write a formal article, and I never have. When I can, will link to a useful book on the subject. Burriloom ( talk) 00:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Burriloom
On notability grounds. The only references are papers by one man. CiteSeer and ResearchGate don't give it much weight. I don't mean to question the value of the research itself. But it would seem to be too small & untested for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterstein ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I recommend against deletion. I have heard this particular "debugging" theory of humor discussed in other secondary sources (though I can't lay my hands on them at the moment), and the section contains other worthwhile material, including connections to other related theories of humor. It would make ideally make up a small part of a recommended rewriting of this article, where the broad range of theories of humor, many of which shade into one another, would be presented in a more coherent manner. CharlesHBennett ( talk) 20:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Many human emotions and behaviors, e.g. anger, play, have counterparts in animals, it so it might be expected that humor would also. I know people who think their dogs have a sense of humor, but aside from such dubious anecdotal evidence, there must have been serious research into whether and in what sense non-human animals exhibit or experience humor. If so, it should be part of this article. CharlesHBennett ( talk) 20:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The current introduction to this wikipedia article tries to establish that there is a reasonable amount of consensus in humor theory, that the relief and superiority theories have a place in the center of theory. It claims that those ideas combine significantly with incongruity to help it form a complete picture of what humor is. Even if the incongruity theory is true (and I am increasingly confident that it will eventually be considered marginal), there is no such authoritative consensus about relief and superiority having such an important supplementary role. The sources in this wikipedia article used to support the said consensus are not enough to establish the consensus. Furthermore, the source used as an example -- the only example -- is by a Professor Vandaele, an obscure humor theorist who works in another field, and isn't an authority in the subject.
This is the first statement related to the consensus issue, that the introduction is trying to establish:
"However, they now acknowledge that although each theory generally covers its own area of focus, many instances of humor can be explained by more than one theory."
That statement is plainly contradicted by those who are acknowledged to be the major authorities in humor theory, namely Noel Carroll, John Morreall, and Jerrold Levinson. Professor Levinson is clear about the relief and superiority theories not being theories of what humor is. And he does not appear to concede that those theories are important in another way, as supplementary ideas that make the incongruity theory more complete. Carroll and Morreall have a similar opinion. Morreall does say that there is an important element of play or the playful, but he doesn't suggest that relief or superiority have such roles. My conclusion is that this article distorts the actual authoritative consensus on theories of humor. I'm not going to say there is any ulterior motive, but the false claim of a consensus involving the three traditional theories, makes them look stronger than they really are, especially incongruity.
Finally, I should mention that the theory of humor that I have put forth (and mentioned here before) is quite well known in academic circles, and it isn't mentioned here, even though very good arguments suggest that it is a better theory than all of those shown here, of what humor is. Cdg1072 ( talk) 18:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I thought I was answering your question, because the point of my last reply was that an edit could be done that would 1) explain better how incongruity and incongruity resolution theories are currently applied, in the mainstream view, and 2) explain in what sense superiority and release/relief theories are currently regarded. After hearing from you recently and thinking about it more, I feel less interested in seeing this done, though it would be an improvement. It might help but overall the article covers not only the historical theories but many recent developments. It's quite informative in that sense. As to the original research and COI issues, I am pretty sure that, at this time, my work does not meet the criteria of what you mean by published. And if it was published, I would have by now asked someone else to mention it in this article. It is mentioned in the Of Mind and Mirth conference website through Colby College, but there only as an abstract, not a whole article or speech. At that conference, the work was informally, or orally, vetted by Dan Dennett and John Morreall. Thus, except for my online self-published posts or reviews, it is not published. But I'm not very worried, since recognition of the theory seems to increase gradually. Eventually it may possibly become the mainstream theory of what humor is, displacing the dominant incongruity tradition. But it's hard to say how many years that shift would take. Cdg1072 ( talk) 21:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Mr. O'Shannon's book does not present or advance a "theory of humor" in the sense of the incongruity theory, or benign violation or the like. It doesn't belong in that category, it has nothing to do with the "theory of humor" in that sense. The phrase "theory of humor" doesn't mean a set of guidelines for how to be funny or make jokes or comedies. Nor does it have much to do with humor appreciation due to external factors that make humor either more or less effective.
But we find O'Shannon's book placed in the "theory of humor" list. Why? It should be placed in a separate section about theories of how to write humor and what external factors affect the appreciation of humor. Cdg1072 ( talk) 01:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I want to settle something about this page. Several years ago, in 2012 to be exact, one of the editors told me that I used the word "discredit" incorrectly by using it as a synonym for "refute." I notice also that the conversation has been deleted (or I don't see it), even though that's against the rules. Now here is wiktionary's definition of "discredit."
discredit (third-person singular simple present discredits, present participle discrediting, simple past and past participle discredited) (transitive) To harm the good reputation of a person; to cause an idea or piece of evidence to seem false or unreliable. The candidate tried to discredit his opponent. The evidence would tend to discredit such a theory.
It clearly has both meanings of harming personal reputation and disproving a theory. Cdg1072 ( talk) 19:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The word "irony" does not appear anywhere in this article, yet it is a fundamental form of humor not explained by any of the theories listed. Somebody should probably look into that. 68.189.139.242 ( talk) 11:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
You are mistaken to claim that the theories in the article don't claim to account for irony. As seen in the work of Marta Dynel and several others, irony is a kind of incongruity resolution humor. That's the standard view of the humor in irony, I'm not saying that it's correct. It's wrong--all the theories in this article are either trivial or false, as I've proved. But Dynel, Elliott Oring, and similar authors, represent the known standard for discussing irony in the context of theory of humor. For someone to introduce something new here would be considered original research. Cdg1072 ( talk) 23:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The article states that "there is no consensus" that privileges any one of the three most-often encountered theories, superiority, relief, and incongruity-resolution. This is clearly not the case. I don't think that we face a dilemma between neutrality and authority, as though the authority of one central scholar, such as John Morreall, was at odds with a diverse majority that breaks down into those sympathetic towards incongruity, superiority and relief theories. It can be shown that the actual state of affairs is simpler than that.
This article states in the very beginning that "incongruity and superiority theories, for instance, seem to create complementary mechanisms that describe humor." That statement, first of all, is unattributed to anyone and synthesized as fact. It is stated as an opinion or original research. That could perhaps be fixed, by placing a scholar's name in the sentence.
But worse than being stated as a fact, it is off base as a description of an authoritative opinion in this field. It is a statement that perhaps an editor or admin decided would reflect what they thought was a neutral view, since it combines more than one theory--which is understandable. As it turns out, the claim just before that, that various examples of humor can be explained by more than one theory, also does not reflect an actual theoretical view shared by many scholars. It is like saying that, just because many theories of humor exist, then they are all valid. It's sort of a tautology, and does not clarify for the reader what authoritative view might exist, as to what theory might be considered dominant, even according to a consensus. The only real basis for suggesting a synthesis of incongruity, relief and superiority, is that a few scholars today might favor one of the latter two, superiority or relief, as a universal theory. But such individuals if they exist, are very rare, and also if they held that opinion, it would not be one which combined theories together, but favored one of the three over the other two. In fact, a scholarly majority nominally favors some sort of incongruity theory above everything else. The dominant theory is incongruity-resolution theory, however misguided it is. This article ought to reflect that opinion, rather than attempting to be creative about it. The latter approach tends to fall into the appearance of original research.
If you're still not convinced, note that as indicated by the phrase "for instance," the claim about incongruity and superiority creating complementary mechanisms, only reflects the minor view of one individual theorist. And yet it is placed there at the beginning of this article, not as a minority opinion, but as the basic view of humor. This statement being in such a position is inappropriate and biased, at odds with an actual authoritative view. As John Morreall and Jerrold Levinson both state in some of their books, superiority and relief are extraneous ideas that pertain to humor, and are not central, and in their view, only incongruity has such essential status. That John Morreall and other incongruity theorists are actually wrong--as they are deeply misguided--is irrelevant. The point is that this article does not have to face a dilemma between neutrality and authority. A neutral, authoritative view does exist. There is an authority in someone like John Morreall, whose view reflects a consensus of many other theorists, possibly the majority. Cdg1072 ( talk) 03:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The dominant theory is incongruity-resolution theory, however misguided it isand
That John Morreall and other incongruity theorists are actually wrong--as they are deeply misguided. Meters ( talk) 03:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I have recently thought about the "consensus" issue again, and am saying today that I think there's good evidence that the consensus is, in fact, that the incongruity theory is the dominant theory, and that the superiority and relief theories don't even have close to the status of incongruity, in the majority scholarly opinion. So what I'm stating here is, first the evidence I found, and then I'll concisely describe the actual changes that I propose. First, one thing I noticed is that some of the citations here used as evidence that "many examples of humor can be explained by more than one theory," don't support that opinion at all. For example, the article attributes that view to Arthur Asa Berger, and yet Berger in his Editorial, "Why We Laugh and What Makes Us Laugh: The Enigma of Humor," states that "the most widely accepted theory of humor is the 'incongruity' theory." So Berger can't be used as a citation to support a different view from that. Second, the article also cites Thomas Veatch on the "multiple theory" claim, yet Veatch is very adamant in his claim that Benign Violation, which he helped devise, is the "dominant theory of humor today." He has written that before, on his linkedin page, and it's probably stated in his article, "A Theory of Humor," which makes a bold claim that his theory of "affective ambiguity," which has been popularized as Benign Violation) is sufficient to explain all humor without the slightest help from any other theory--except that it is regarded as similar to incongruity. Third, Wikipedia states that "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity." I'm not trying to play the expert on that, and lecture Wikipedia admins--surely you know better than I. And finally, John Morreall in his Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on humor, states that the incongruity theory is today "the dominant theory of humor in philosophy and psychology," by which he means, pretty much for all fields that participate in this topic. Morreall is not stating what is considered to be his opinion of what the consensus is. He not only describes the consensus as one that favors incongruity alone, with no major competitors, but he also states in other writings of his that the relief theory and superiority theory are not, properly speaking, theories of humor at all, but describe extraneous processes that closely accompany the experience of humor.
These are, then, my specific changes, to be either accepted or rejected.
Option I: Step 1. Keep the consensus as it is, and the claim that there is no consensus as to a single dominant theory of humor, and keep the statement, that many or most theorists claim that many examples of humor can be explained by more than one theory--which I am confident that very few theorists claim to be the case. Step 2. Remove the footnote linking A.A. Berger to this statement. Step 3. Remove the footnote linking Thomas Veatch to this statement.
Option II: Revise the lead, so that it no longer asserts that there is not a "consensus" identifying a single theory of humor as dominant, or as dominant by a wide margin. Change the lead so that it reflects the view that the incongruity theory is generally considered much more important and effective, and more universal than any other theory. Cdg1072 ( talk) 22:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
It's all only a suggestion, but of course I favor Option II here, as I personally find no evidence that any theory is as dominant as the incongruity theory, in scholarly opinion. Cdg1072 ( talk) 02:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
If admins want to keep the lead of the article as it is, another example to add to Vandaele, is that Terry Eagleton in his recent Yale Press book, Humour, suggests "splicing" the incongruity theory with the relief theory. Cdg1072 ( talk) 13:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Not unrelated to the above issues, but a more neutral point is that (I think) this sentence can be made much clearer: As written: "Proponents of each one originally claimed their theory to be capable of explaining all cases of humor."
Revision: "Proponents of each one originally claimed their theory to be the only one explaining all cases of humor." (Or "the only one capable of explaining").
The revised version of the sentence seems to be the actual intended meaning of the passage (and clarifies why it had been so puzzling). If it just says, "capable of explaining" then the claim of dominance and uniqueness formerly attributed to each theory, is lost or obscured. Cdg1072 ( talk) 03:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC) I intend to make this small (yet significant) edit if there is no objection. Cdg1072 ( talk) 04:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I object to your claim about the "intended meaning" of the passage. Where is this made obvious? You are attempting to change a statement that leaves open the possibility that various theories are not mutually exclusive, for one that says that they are. Maybe that's so, but where is this in the article?I'm not saying that sentence must remain as is. I am asking you to justify your claim that it should be changed as a misstatement. I don't see this in the article. Meters ( talk) 01:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I have corrected the historical sequence in the incongruity section by placing Beattie just after Hutcheson where he appears in history, instead of between Kant and Schopenhauer where he had been placed. I also clarified in a concise way how Beattie's view was related to Hutcheson's. I moved the first mention of Kant down to the larger paragraph about Kant, and put citation-needed tags on Schopenhauer and Hegel. Cdg1072 ( talk) 00:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vtrevizo18 ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Chickadee101, Jaybreeze123.
— Assignment last updated by Chickadee101 ( talk) 06:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Someone has recently moved misattribution theory from "Other theories" to place it with those often referred to as the three most prominent theories. This was a very strange thing to do (regardless of the poverty or logical error of all the theories listed). There is certainly no support anywhere for regarding misattribution theory as on a par in status with superiority, relief, and incongruity. It looks no better than vandalism. Cdg1072 ( talk) 16:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
The most recently added first paragraph in "Incongruous juxtaposition theory" is poorly written. It refers to "incongruity humor," a manner of description not used by any source. Cdg1072 ( talk) 18:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
To the Wikipedian who added the Essay-like tag, it might be generally appreciated if you would be more specific about what areas you refer to. Do you mean the portion in the lead where editors have several years ago inserted description of a combinative view of the so-called three main theories? What I'm suggesting is not about the truth or falsehood of that combinative theory or of any opinion. I merely ask if that is one of the things you found to be biased--that is, you thought it was not a widely held view (which it is indeed not).
Suppose that area at the end of the article's lead strikes you as biased or unusual, and you would prefer a more well-rounded, and partly authority-based, description of how the relief and superiority theories are actually regarded today. Consider (1) asserting that they are treated by the media as instructional theories, while (2) John Morreall and other academics regard those two theories as irrelevant to what humor itself is, and claim those theories say something extraneous about humor.
Or, are you referring to the area shortly after that in the section on the superiority theory, that was recently edited with rather less than polished writing? That new edition does sound a bit too much like a college philosophy paper --which it could be taken from. I believe you need to be more specific about why you put on the "Essay-like" marking. It is hard to know what you mean. Cdg1072 ( talk) 20:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
This article has the text of a joke written thus: "What is black and white and red all over?" But the crux of the joke is that the listener parses the word "read" as being its homophone "red"—the word having been read the while. So a better spelling is necessary, as the spelling "red" does not signify the word in context. I don't know of a solution, yet this inaccuracy cannot stand. Would it be acceptable to write the word as "re[a]d" here? I shall apply that change. —catsmoke talk 05:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)