Funny or Not: A Theory of Joking Relativity

This topic is very interesting for psychologists. There aren’t just national and territorial factors which have a particular influence on accepting jokes and on suitable reacting.

Social psychologists will tell you that age, profession, general knowledge and intelligence (for listeners) and creativity, imagination, behaviour, openness, and sociability (for the person who is a joke-teller)have an impact on the perception of a joke as funny or not.

Igor Kristofovich is a scientist who has twenty years of experience in researching humour phenomena. He has created a formula for laughing:

 

S (smiling) = (personal engagement of one who tells a joke (PE) + joke complexity (JC)) / time which is necessary to understand the funny thing (t) + general mood of the audience (GM).

 

I agree that some jokes might be amusing to all people. But, it is necessary to be a really talented joke-teller to produce a wide world effect of your funny stories. That kind of person will use everything to animate his audience: mimics, different rhetorical skills, voice variations, arms, and legs, etc.

Beside Charlie Chaplin, there is another well-known comic person – Mr. Bean, whom I admire. He isn’t funny only on TV, but in his real life, too. Lots of people don’t understand English humour, but it seems that the Bean’s adventures have a universal appeal.

A very funny face on the world comic scene is Borat, whose humour was born as a result of huge differences between two cultures: the American and the Kyrgyzstan ones. The jokes which he uses are typical of his homeland but are not considered normal in North America. That is the thing which makes people laugh to tears throughout the whole world.

I haven’t seen the situation in which an Italian can’t be made laugh by a Turk, but I have had another similar experience.

Last winter I told some jokes to my cousin from Germany. They were up-to-date and very funny. She laughed after I laughed, just because she acknowledged that the situation requested reacting in that way. In fact, the funny thing wasn’t funny for her and my German cousin didn’t enjoy it. Hence, it was solely the result of his politeness.

There are many examples of a special type of humour called “sick humour”. It is also recognized as “black humour” which used to be my favourite type (but I also liked jokes about cops, animals, and fair-haired girls).

In spite of the things I have just mentioned, some of the examples of jokes in, for instance, newspapers, don’t have an influence on my mood and they do not astonish me. In my opinion, lots of them are very monotonous and I do not react to them because I only read them, without hearing them from, for example, my friend’s mouth. Also, the sequence of events in these humorous short stories happened to people I have never met.

All of us usually find it amusing, when somebody in our neighborhood is a part of funny circumstances. It didn’t need to be a very funny situation, but there must be a person whose personal traits we know very well.

When I have told such a story to a little girl, her face was smiling and she was enjoying it. I concluded that this example is a good prototype for children jokes!

Sick (black) humour wasn’t only based on situations like serious accidents or violent death. It is also connected with incurable diseases (such as AIDS, cancer, etc.), body anomalies (for example, a child without legs who wants to play football), below-average intelligence and absentmindedness (a poor guy who always forgets what the parents told him to do…).

To conclude, funny or not – it’s a relative thing because it depends on lots of characteristics of various social situations, people who perceive a particular joke, and those who tell a joke to others.

We can never know what situation will be funny and amusing to the particular person.

 

Selman Repišti

November 14, 2017

selman9r@yahoo.com

 

O PREDIZBORNIM KAMPANJAMA: VOĐE NARODA IZ PERSPEKTIVE EVOLUCIJSKE PSIHOLOGIJE

Uprkos trendu društvene kultivacije i globalnog imperativa urbanizacije, čini se da filogenetsko naslijeđe dobrim dijelom diktira naše: izbore, odluke, percepcije i ponašanja. U tribalnom (plemenskom) okruženju, socijalnu i ”političku” moć najčešće su imali najstariji i najiskusniji članovi klana. Ovdje nije bilo presudno samo njihovo iskustvo, mudrost i razboritost, već i sama činjenica da su mnogo puta učestvovali u borbi za zaštitu svoga plemena i pribavljanju prirodnih i društvenih resursa za vlastitu zajednicu. Gotovo uvijek su to bili snažni i hrabri muškarci, koji su lojalno poštivali religijska i ostala socijalna pravila matičnog plemena.

Savremena istraživanja otkrivaju sklonost ljudi da za svoje nacionalne vođe biraju visoke, snažne muškarce, koji su, pored toga (posredno ili neposredno), učestvovali u ratnim dešavanjima. Dodatno, imamo tendenciju birati ljude koji poštuju tradicionalne (npr. porodične) vrijednosti, te javno zagovaraju principe vlastite religijske skupine. Njihovo učešće u ratnim događanjima (podsvjesno) se shvata kao dokaz njihovih sposobnosti, snage i moralne nepokolebljivosti, te kao sklonost da zaštite narod i obezbijede mu odgovarajuće uslove za nesmetan i siguran život.

Takođe, postoji preferencija kandidata koji su domicilno stanovništvo, jer se oni percipiraju poput sebi sličnih. A čim je neko sličan nama, smatramo da je manje opasan, tj. bezazlen i da ima slične potrebe i ciljeve našima. Ovaj efekat poznatosti djeluje čak i kada svjesno ispoljavamo animozitet prema vlastitim političarima ili političkim kandidatima. Njegova potvrda leži u činjenici da bismo prije izabrali sumnjivog kandidata naše vjere i nacije, nego isto toliko opskurnog kandidata druge vjere ili narodnosti.

Evolucijska i socijalna psihologija nas uče i tome da, što se više identifikujemo sa svojom interesnom (nacionalnom, vjerskom, političkom) grupom, to imamo jaču tendenciju da odaberemo kandidata koji je njen tipični predstavnik (pa i pod cijenu da nas to dovede do opšte stagnacije ili nazadovanja).

Veće šanse (npr. prilikom izbora budućih parlamentaraca) imaju bogatiji i inteligentniji kandidati, zato što posjeduju materijalne i psihološke resurse koji su, evoluciono gledano, veoma poželjne karakteristike. Ove kvalitete podrazumijevaju veće šanse za preživljavanje i napredak (ili očuvanje) u kontekstu društvene hijerarhije. Nesvjesni toga, obično se težimo prikloniti ovakvim ljudima, jer (opet podsvjesno) očekujemo da su naše šanse za socijalnu mobilnost (prelazak iz jedne socijalne klase u drugu, u ovom slučaju, višu) veće.

Posljednja (ali ne i najmanje bitna) stavka koja utiče na našu odluku za koga bismo glasali je fizička privlačnost. Iz perspektive teorije evolucije (u društvenom kontekstu, sociobiologije), privlačnija osoba posjeduje fizičke, fenotipske, odnosno vidljive resurse koji je predisponiraju za lakši i efikasniji prenos svojih gena. Dakle, kada na plakatima ugledamo nekoliko lica kandidata, najviše pažnje ćemo posvetiti onom koje percipiramo kao najljepše i najprivlačnije. Ako tome dodamo poseban stil oblačenja koji upućuje na visok status,prestiž, ozbiljnost i odgovornost (npr. odijelo), u našoj glavi će se ”stvoriti” izrazito pozitivna predstava o datoj osobi. Kasnije, u skladu sa već formiranom predodžbom, selektivno ćemo posvećivati vrijeme javnim nastupima ovog kandidata, a njegove postupke ćemo tumačiti shodno prvom utisku o njemu.

Rezimirajući, evoluciona psihologija predviđa najveći uspjeh muškim kandidatima, koji su uz to: fizički privlačni, obrazovani, inteligentni i bogati. Takođe, njihova medijska i svaka druga reputacija će rasti kako budu sve više isticali svoju ulogu u proteklom ratu, te potcrtavali religijsku pripadnost i odanost tradicionalnim vrijednostima našeg podneblja. 

Selman Repišti