specially if it includes an insult about an acceptable target.
Sounds like you’re referencing Hanson, who references benign violation theory. Who is the target of insult in the Garfield quote? The characters, the author, or his readership? Which would be acceptable? I suppose the case to make is that he’s insulting his readership and the quote is intended for non-readers.
The Computer Theory of Humor looks interesting. The details in that entry are a bit unclear, but it appears to characterize our humorous response as being a bit of a kludgey and excessive hack to remove our focus from the incorrect interpretations we were forming prior to the punchline about pink elephants.
If you read the Hanson piece prior to this, I’d be surprised if it didn’t factor into your ability to spot that particular feature about acceptable targets. I suspect most of my original ideas are that way. Not that I’m complaining you didn’t reference him. Just idle chat.
I agree about benign surprise.
There’s also the old essay on humor by Bergson about how humor derives from depicting people as behaving like simple automatons. The Garfield characters would be shifting into that mode of mechanical operation. This would be like a character that is drinking coffee and reading his paper: the coffee is replaced with hot sauce, and the character just keeps on drinking.
I’m gonna followup on that computer theory later. I find it interesting to speculate that we have a humorous response whenever we have some inference about something that is about to reach conscious level of perception, and then it suddenly gets reversed in an important way and the brain has to speed it up so that it catches up and overtakes the other one. In that process, there are side-effects.
Sounds like you’re referencing Hanson, who references benign violation theory. Who is the target of insult in the Garfield quote? The characters, the author, or his readership? Which would be acceptable? I suppose the case to make is that he’s insulting his readership and the quote is intended for non-readers.
The Computer Theory of Humor looks interesting. The details in that entry are a bit unclear, but it appears to characterize our humorous response as being a bit of a kludgey and excessive hack to remove our focus from the incorrect interpretations we were forming prior to the punchline about pink elephants.
I think I came up with “acceptable target” on my own—at least it felt like I was doing original work while contemplating the highest voted quotes.
My general theory of humor is that it requires benign surprise—there are many sorts of humor that don’t involve insults.
Both benignity and surprise are highly contextual.
Davis was talking about actual hitting in his comic—it’s about a cat with a considerable will to power.
Also, Hanson’s theory needs to be elaborated to include self-deprecating humor, though maybe counter-signaling is enough to do the job.
If you read the Hanson piece prior to this, I’d be surprised if it didn’t factor into your ability to spot that particular feature about acceptable targets. I suspect most of my original ideas are that way. Not that I’m complaining you didn’t reference him. Just idle chat.
I agree about benign surprise.
There’s also the old essay on humor by Bergson about how humor derives from depicting people as behaving like simple automatons. The Garfield characters would be shifting into that mode of mechanical operation. This would be like a character that is drinking coffee and reading his paper: the coffee is replaced with hot sauce, and the character just keeps on drinking.
I’m gonna followup on that computer theory later. I find it interesting to speculate that we have a humorous response whenever we have some inference about something that is about to reach conscious level of perception, and then it suddenly gets reversed in an important way and the brain has to speed it up so that it catches up and overtakes the other one. In that process, there are side-effects.