Paul, You've written two posts and I'll try to answer your points. I will "snip" some of your statements below in order to save space and make the text more readable. I will number my points in order to make them easier to refer to in subsequent posts. Consider the following points:
(1) I don't have a copy of Catania's text (any edition) but a search of the contents on books.google.com using Catania's full name and "jokes", "humor", "satire", and "irony" turn up only one hit: a blog entry on the Rachel Madow MSNBC website: https://www.google.com/search?num=100&safe=off&tbm=bks&q=%22a.+charles+catania%22+jokes++humor+satire+irony&oq=%22a.+charles+catania%22+jokes++humor+satire+irony&gs_l=serp.12...16926.17456.0.21578.2.2.0.0.0.0.60.115.2.2.0....0...1c.1.32.serp..2.0.0.76cLK1yrux0 No, it's not a behavior analysis of humor/jokes/satire/irony/whatever. If you know a specific example of where Catania provides a behavioral account of these concepts, especially irony (what is the behavioral process that causes one to ignore the literal meaning of a sentence and assume that the opposite meaning is being communicated; how does one discriminate when to make a literal reading or an opposite reading?). (2) Yes, I did read Skinner's "Verbal Behavior" or at least parts of it when I was an undergraduate close to 40 years ago. I have not had reason to go back to read it. This does not mean that I agree with Chomsky (I don't) but I do find trying to understand language and world knowledge in terms of rule and symbol cognitive architectures and connectionist architectures and hybrid systems more satisfying. Of course, language occurs in an environmental or sociocultural contexts but contemporary sociolinguistcs provide, IMO, better explanatory accounts and frameworks than Skinner's approach. More below. On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 08:10:07 -0800, Paul Brandon wrote: >From a behavioral viewpoint verbal behavior IS behavior and obeys the same >basic laws. >The -situations- in which it occurs are unique, leading to unique analyses >(there are journals filled with these). (3) I actually don't understand what you are saying here. I have no doubt that there are journal that take a behavioral approach to certain aspects of language use, I just don't think a radical behaviorist approach is very informative. I think that most cognitive psychologists would consider themselves "methodological behaviorists", connecting models of internal processing to external behavior, but I think that today they would view such a term a quaint or out of date. Sociolinguists who study how speech varies as a function of familial relationship (one speaks differently to one's grandmother than to one's sibling), job status (one speaks to one's boss differently than to one friends), gender/sex (one speaks to members of one's sex differently than to members of the opposite sex), race (one speaks to members one's race differently than to members of other races), and so on, all without the kind of behavioral conceptions that I think a behaviorist would use. >And it's an oversimplification to say that >>".... Skinner did not believe in the study of cognitive and neuroscience >>processes...." >He talking much about private events, and was interested in their study >(remember, he started out with biological leanings). >He considered them part of a different science that was interesting in its own >right; he chose to let other people study them. [snip] (4) I quote from Skinner (1990) speech which was delivered at APA the day before he died. It was published in the American Psychologist: |Cognitive psychology was left as the scientific companion of a profession |and as the scientific underpinning of educational, clinical, developmental, |social, and many other fields of psychology. The help it has given them |has not been conspicuous. A version of the vernacular refined for the |study of mental life is scarcely more helpful than the lay version, especially |when theory began to replace introspection. I break the quote to note that I interpret Skinner to be saying that cognitive psychology as he understood it was little better than the everyday descriptions of folk psychology. This does not sound like a ringing endorsement of research in cognitive psychology. The quote continues: |Much more useful would have been behavior analysis. It would have |helped in two ways, by clarifying the contingencies of reinforcement to |which the vernacular alludes, and by making it possible to design better |environments-personal environments that would solve existing problems |and larger environments or cultures in which there would be fewer problems. |A better understanding of variation and selection will mean a more successful |profession, but whether behavior analysis will be called psychology is a |matter for the future to decide. (page 1210) This is a curious statement because there is nothing in cognitive psychology that precludes the type of analysis the Skinner suggests -- priming effects in the social psychology research area can be thought of as falling into this realm but researchers like John Bargh while paying passing attention to behaviorist approaches does not really indulge in them. [snip material on neural science; I'll leave to someone who actually cares about neurscience to handle Skinner's attitude toward it]. >Again, your examples of humor are very similar the my quote from Charles >Catania about humor. (5) You're going to have to elaborate here. Are you talking about the "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar/Sometimes a penis is just a penis" example? I would be curious to see how that works. >Finally, have you actually read 'Verbal Behavior'? (6) Yes, see above. I've also read Chomsky's review of it. And as someone who has followed research on psycholinguistics research since the late 1970s, I know which one has been more influential though not necessarily more correct. >Any issues of the journal Analysis of Verbal Behavior? (7) Nope. Nor do I remember seeing any references to it. Then again, I have been trained as a cognitive psychologist. Have you ever read "Leonardo"? Consider: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1575571 For fans of JJ Gibson, see: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1574737?uid=3739832&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103352516253 >Finally, as far as the arts are concerned, I'm not sure this is an important >criterion for the validity of a science. (8) I did not argue that the arts are a criterion for science, rather that science should be able to explain how and why art operates IF it claim to explain behavior, cognition, and affect [snip] >It seems to be the the liberal arts are the ONLY area where classic >psychodynamics (as opposed to psychoceramics) are still common. (9) Read the following and weep. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/203/3/170.short Now do a Google search on neuropsychoanalysis. Prepare to be disturbed. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu On Jan 17, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Mike Palij wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:39:53 -0600 (CST), Joan Warmbold wrote: >> Carol--consider contacting the Skinner foundation via his daughter, Julie >> Vargas at opera...@bfskinner.org. Folks who knew Skinner have told me >> that he had a wonderful sense of humor so bet he would have had an >> opinion. >> >> Certainly ones life experiences and reference systems play an important >> role, which could explain why ones culture and the time era so influence >> perception of humor. For example, many of students think "Family Guy" is a >> riot whereas I think it's plain stupid. Whatever, love your question. > > A point I tried to make in an earlier post which seem to have > have overlooked/ignored is that defining humor from a behaviorist > perspective focuses is on "behavior". Clearly, some > humor is "physical humor" (the silent films of Charlie Chaplin, > Buster Keaton, Harold Loyd, and so on clearly give examples > of this) while some humor is based on language (e.g., jokes, > puns, etc.) and situations (e.g., sketches). When we get to > aspects of humor that involve interpretation of words or situations, > purely behavioral (or radical behaviorist) accounts *should be silent* > because these positions do not work in these areas. I can imagine > Tolman speculating about humor as a scientific subject but I cannot > imagine Skinner doing so in any meaningful way (this does not mean > he might not have re-framed humor into behaviorist terms but this, > like his account of language, would probably not work very well). > This does not mean that Skinner was a Scrooge or humorless, rather, > because Skinner did not believe in the study of cognitive and neuroscience > processes, he would not be interested these components of humor. > By implication, students of Skinner and believers in radical behaviorism > would hold similar views. > > Freudian interpretations (no matter how much one disagrees with them > and I do tend to disagree with them) it should be noted that in the arts, > Freud is a major influence while Skinner is a minor influence (the only > instance I can think of Skinnerian influence is in "Young Frankenstein" > when Dr. Frankenstein gives the Monster a reinforcer for doing a dance > routine correctly).provide a better framework for thinking about > certain aspects of humor. Consider: why is the following funny: > > Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar. > > And updated version of this statement that focuses on alleged intrusive > nature of male-oriented sex is and the weapon-like nature of male sex > organs:: > > Sometime a penis is only a penis. > > The humor in these statements involves (a) a certain set of concepts, > (b) an understanding of certain theories about people and events, > and (c) some knowledge of Freudian theory. How would a > behavioral account explain why these statements are funny. > > Finally, I know that the word "humor" was originally left vague which, > in my opinion, is generally a bad idea -- better to be more specific about > what aspects of humor one is concerned with given the wide variety > of events that can be considered "humorous" from slapstick to satire. > A behavioral account might be relevant to certain situations but are > unlikely in others (e.g., how would a behaviorist explain satire?). > > -Mike Palij > New York University > m...@nyu.edu > > > Carol DeVolder wrote: >>> Thanks, Mike and Paul (Paul responded back channel as he had already >>> squandered his posts yesterday :) ) >>> Mike, I have read many of the things you mentioned and I'm familiar with >>> Darwin's take on it, as well as the changes through the centuries *vis a >>> vis *the various philosophers. I have not found anything specifically >>> behaviorist that addresses my question, except for the link that Paul sent >>> me, which I enjoyed very much (thanks again, Paul). I find it interesting >>> that, given the amount of time we spend engaging in things that make us >>> laugh, invoke a feeling of mirth, or both, there isn't more from a >>> behaviorist perspective. I don't believe that behaviorists are grim by >>> nature (I consider myself a behaviorist, and I don't think I'm grim), but >>> I >>> haven't found much literature that addresses humor and its associated >>> constructs from a behaviorist perspective. It just seems like something's >>> missing, and I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something of which I >>> should be aware. I'm definitely not as well-read as some TIPSters, so I >>> turn to you all for ideas. >>> Thanks, >>> Carol >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Mike Palij <m...@nyu.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:40:38 -0800, Carol DeVolder wrote: >>>> >What sources should I look at to find a behaviorist view of >laughter, >>>> >mirth, and humor? I realize I'm being vague--that's on purpose. :) >>>> >>>> A few points to consider: >>>> >>>> (1) If you have not examined the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's >>>> entry on humor, I suggest that you do since it gives an interesting >>>> overview >>>> of the philosophical/religious opinions concerning the nature of humor >>>> and whether engaging in humor should be considered socially acceptable. >>>> See: >>>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/humor/ >>>> The early negative view of humor is captured in Umberto Eco's book >>>> and movie "The Name of the Rose" where a book by Aristotle on humor >>>> plays a significant, if deadly, role. For the book, see: >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_the_rose >>>> For the movie, see: >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Name_of_the_Rose_%28film%29 >>>> >>>> In recent centuries, alternative philosophical interpretations of humor >>>> have developed though these may not be directly relevant to >>>> psychological >>>> theories of humor. >>>> >>>> (2) I think that there are two opposing perspectives on humor within the >>>> behaviorist tradition and perspective: (a) Darwin's work on the >>>> expression >>>> of emotion in animals and humans suggest that all species experience a >>>> core of similar emotions, which serves as a justification for the >>>> psychological >>>> studies of animals as surrogates for humans and (b) the tendency against >>>> anthropomorphizing, that is, interpreting the behavior and internal >>>> states >>>> of >>>> animals/other species (including AI creations like "Her") in terms of >>>> personal >>>> human experiences. One source on this is the Wikipedia entry on the >>>> topic: >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism >>>> But, I believe that behaviorists have developed a more specific and >>>> sophisticated >>>> view of this position, one such view I think is expressed here: >>>> http://www.jstor.org/stable/23006496 >>>> The fundamental question is whether behavior in animals that appear >>>> "similar" >>>> to human behavior is best described in "human terms" or in more neutral >>>> terms. >>>> For example, "smiling" or "laughing" in human may be interpreted as the >>>> internal >>>> experience of humor but does "baring one's teeth in a nonthreatening >>>> manner" >>>> and "making vocalization of certain types" equivalent counterparts in >>>> animals? >>>> If one believe this to be true, then one can study animals to determine >>>> what >>>> laws of behavior apply to the behaviors that constitute the experience >>>> of >>>> "humor". If one does not believe in this position, especially if one >>>> thinks that >>>> language plays a critical role in the experience of humor, then studying >>>> animal >>>> behavior will tell us little if anything about the experience of humor. >>>> >>>> If one only limits consideration of humor to humans, I suspect that one >>>> can >>>> reduce the "joke situation" or "comedic situation" (i.e., humor that is >>>> primarily >>>> physical; consider slapstick humor in silent films) to a simple set of >>>> relations: >>>> Stimulus(joke/comedy) -> Response(Laugh/etc) -> >>>> Stimulus(Positive/Negative/Null). >>>> >>>> Given the above, we laugh at a joke, especially ones we have experienced >>>> before or ones similar to jokes we have been reinforced for before. We >>>> may >>>> fail to respond because we were punished for our response (e.g., >>>> laughing >>>> to racist/sexist/etc jokes) or received no reinforcement for a response >>>> (stimuli >>>> might be required to indicate that a response should be made like an >>>> "applause" >>>> or "laugh track" to indicate that laughter/etc should be emitted; TV >>>> studio >>>> audience have an "applause" sign go as a reminder that they need to >>>> clap). >>>> >>>> This does leave unanswered why certain classes of jokes (e.g., fart >>>> jokes) >>>> are considered HILARIOUS by some people but disgusting by others; >>>> I guess peoples reactions to bodily sounds and functions play a role but >>>> that's too Freudian for me. ;-) --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=32843 or send a blank email to leave-32843-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
