studying...
i am studying for my research methods midterm...sorta. i'm actually doing this instead (clearly)...but i need the break. i have had my head buried in psychobabble for the last week, and i still have 2 midterms to go...this week.
however, as i "study" for this midterm just shortly after writing my philosophy midterm - a couple of thoughts come to mind: 1) can Aristotle's idea of ethics ( ethos - habit/custom) be reconciled in any way to the relatively new APA guidelines for ethical treatment of people in experimental situations? 2) am i losing my freaking mind?
luckily for me, the answer to both is a resounding "no". not so luckily for me: i can't figure out why my head tried to make those two connect in the first place. i think it may have been because of the words "ethics". oh well...
seriously, though. my brain stops working about 20 minutes after i wake up and somehow i have to force myself to go through classes everyday, go to work, come home, study/do homework and be a husband. why do people do this to themselves? i dunno, but i hope they keep doing it. i'll never be out of work!
i had a great idea for my major term paper in my cognition class. there is just recently an interest in how the brain organizes what is funny, and why certain things are funny and others aren't.
one of the main dudes (read:proponents) of this research is a guy by the name of Victor Raskin. he sets up this theory called "incongruity-resolution". what he means is that we find things funny when what we expect is not what occurs. this is totally going to kill a joke that is bad to start with, but let me illustrate:
"What is the last thing that goes through a bug's brain when he hits a car windshield?"
"His butt."
What makes that (almost) funny is that you are thinking I mean something entirely different than what I actually do. A script is activated in your mind: what is the bug thinking? This is what most of us (who had never heard this groaner) would think of when we hear the expression "goes through a bug's brain". The punch line provides a script (a script is something that creates an expectation in our minds based on our experiences) that is incongruous (or opposing) to the original script. The resolution of that ambiguity is what makes the joke funny.
Only problem is, sometimes incongruent statements just aren't funny. Take the following paragraph for example:
Jimmy got up early. He was thinking about the math test. He was worried he wouldn't be able to control the class today. It's just not part of a normal janitor's job.
Incongruous? Yes. Funny? Not particularly. Chances are, after the first two sentences (and possibly the start of the third) you thought that Jimmy was a student. Oh, wait...no. He's the teacher. Oh - he's the ... uh... janitor? Weird. But not funny.
It may make an interesting paper.
however, as i "study" for this midterm just shortly after writing my philosophy midterm - a couple of thoughts come to mind: 1) can Aristotle's idea of ethics ( ethos - habit/custom) be reconciled in any way to the relatively new APA guidelines for ethical treatment of people in experimental situations? 2) am i losing my freaking mind?
luckily for me, the answer to both is a resounding "no". not so luckily for me: i can't figure out why my head tried to make those two connect in the first place. i think it may have been because of the words "ethics". oh well...
seriously, though. my brain stops working about 20 minutes after i wake up and somehow i have to force myself to go through classes everyday, go to work, come home, study/do homework and be a husband. why do people do this to themselves? i dunno, but i hope they keep doing it. i'll never be out of work!
i had a great idea for my major term paper in my cognition class. there is just recently an interest in how the brain organizes what is funny, and why certain things are funny and others aren't.
one of the main dudes (read:proponents) of this research is a guy by the name of Victor Raskin. he sets up this theory called "incongruity-resolution". what he means is that we find things funny when what we expect is not what occurs. this is totally going to kill a joke that is bad to start with, but let me illustrate:
"What is the last thing that goes through a bug's brain when he hits a car windshield?"
"His butt."
What makes that (almost) funny is that you are thinking I mean something entirely different than what I actually do. A script is activated in your mind: what is the bug thinking? This is what most of us (who had never heard this groaner) would think of when we hear the expression "goes through a bug's brain". The punch line provides a script (a script is something that creates an expectation in our minds based on our experiences) that is incongruous (or opposing) to the original script. The resolution of that ambiguity is what makes the joke funny.
Only problem is, sometimes incongruent statements just aren't funny. Take the following paragraph for example:
Jimmy got up early. He was thinking about the math test. He was worried he wouldn't be able to control the class today. It's just not part of a normal janitor's job.
Incongruous? Yes. Funny? Not particularly. Chances are, after the first two sentences (and possibly the start of the third) you thought that Jimmy was a student. Oh, wait...no. He's the teacher. Oh - he's the ... uh... janitor? Weird. But not funny.
It may make an interesting paper.
posted by psychdude | 21:49
4 Comments:
i'm intrigued. i'd read the paper... so, if the results of your research were't what i was expecting, would that make it funny?
quite possibly ... but not necessarily.
does anyone know where i can find more info on this? (assuming mav isn't the only one that reads this thing.)
where'd ya go?
Hi psychdude.
You sent a carrier pigeon through my blog about a month ago and I thought I'd send one back.
I think the bug joke is funny. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home