Sense of Humor

 Descartes and Freud’s humor theories of humor, although complex, both address sense of humor and why it differentiates amongst individuals.  

As discussed in class, not everyone will find the same thing funny or at least not in the same way. Furthermore, sometimes humor may exist without laughter and vice versa. In the cases of Irby and Sedaris, it appeared that the whole class was able to decipher moments or stories in the text that were humorous. Nevertheless, there are points of contention, which became clear in students’ different analyses of the same story. It’s possible that laughter occurs for different reasons even in reading the same stories.  

It seems that the concept of humor cannot be separated from perception and context. As readers or “hearers” to use the Freudian term, of humor, individuals bring each of their own psychologies and past experiences to the humorist and, subsequently, it affects how that humor is digested and understood. Freud writes, “The hearer must have copied the process in the mind of the humorist...the solution of this problem is found in the humorist himself; in the listener we may suppose there is only an echo, a copy of this unknown process” (Freud, 113). In mapping out the cognitive process of humor, Freud explains how the reason something ends up being funny or not relies on the humorist’s ability to replicate their own process in the mind of the hearer. When we think of the funniest people in our lives it’s usually those who understand us and think like us. For example, my brother and I share a special sense of humor that feels like only he and I understand, which probably comes from our ability to copy each other’s cognitive processes, resulting in a shared sense of humor.   

Spencer also contemplates on this idea of why someone may or may not find something funny. His theory is more relevant to a group of people watching or experiencing one humorous event. He writes, 

 

This explanation is in harmony with the fact that when, among several persons who witness the same ludicrous occurrence, there is some who do not laugh, it is because there has arisen in them an emotion not participated in by the rest, and which is sufficiently massive to absorb all the nascent excitement (Spencer, 107).  

In his description of emotions Spencer clarifies how on an individual level everyone experiences their own emotional roller coaster which occurs inside of the hearer/reader, then outside forces like the humorist continue to influence the emotions of the hearer/reader until there may be a moment of tension and discharge. Personally, I often laugh at things that no one else laughs at, usually in very mundane moments. In these moments, I pay attention to something that elicits certain thoughts and feelings that begin to bubble up and continually get reinforced by my focus on this thing and if no one else is observing it then obviously I will be the only one to find it humorous.  

Overall, there are no “rules” to humor so it’s a captivating discussion to ponder what defines our sense of humor.