Why was it funny?

When I first began reading Katherine's post, the thought crossed my mind, "Can Jim Gaffigan's comedy act really be explained so easily by the Superiority Theory?" At the time, I was thinking, "If Gaffigan actively makes fun of himself is he really utilizing the Superiority Theory in his show?" After reading Katherine's post and understanding her claim, I realize that I was misunderstanding her point. It is the audience who feels superior to Gaffigan's jokes about himself and society, and this is why they are possibly laughing. Katherine makes a very interesting evaluation. I find no reason to disagree with the claim she makes. Obviously, Gaffigan's style of humor does not encompass Hutcheson's version of the Incongruity Theory where humor, a social tendency, attacks those in power over us, those who are in fact superior. No. Through his humor, Gaffigan attacks the ills of society, obesity, malnutrition, etc. Out of the four theories, it is ...

Jake used strong language in his post to better convey how much he believes in his argument. Reading a post with powerful word choice enhanced the point he was trying to make. Jake, excellent job! I truly enjoyed exploring your view while dissecting your post. However, I must disagree with your claim. Maybe, Seinfeld is the greatest TV comedy of all time. I wouldn't know. I haven't seen the series. But, Seinfeld cannot be the greatest comedy ever produced based on the absence of character development and drama. To make this assumption would be to say the relief theory does not exist. The shows Friends and The Office use their drama and character development to magnify the laughter in the audience. For example, Friends'  iconic scene with Ross and Rachel's breakup employed the Relief Theory to invent new laughs and relieve stress and tension in the most intense periods. According to the Relief Theory, it is as if our minds are begging to release piles of stress and in...

Three theories are used to explain comedy, but is explaining humor really that simple? One theory does not agree with the others. For example, the Incongruity Theory was invented to reject the previous notions brought about by the Superiority Theory. So, can we claim that all three exist in harmony with one another or does one theory more closely explain the essence of humor correctly? In her blog, Alex brought up many great points about what theories could possibly explain why we are laughing. I especially agreed with how she explained the use of the Incongruity Theory and the Relief Theory. You  do  never know what is going to come out of Phoebe's mouth, and the absurdity, ridiculousness, and unexpectancy of the situation never fail to be hilarious. But, is it this incongruity, our inability to predict what she'll say, the reason why we find Phoebe's actions so funny? Yes, I believe it is. The strange comments, her unique quirks, and the way she wri...

Based on the comedies I've seen, heard, and read, I believe the three theories can be used to explain all types of humor felt. The theory of incongruity, for example, explains why the typical punchline jokes are humorous. As the listener, we expect the joke to mean one thing, but suddenly it takes an unexpected turn. This unpredictability, according to the incongruity theory, is why we find the joke funny. The incongruity theory, however, cannot be used to explain everything we find comical. For instance, the incongruity theory cannot explain an audience laughing at jokes or skits which do not make unexpected or unrelated comparisons. All examples of incongruity are not always funny because sometimes an audience can find comparisons offense. Occasionally, a listener will take a joke as ridicule rather than humor. However, sometimes offensive jokes are funny. For example, in "The Office", most of Michael Scott's jokes are offensive, but the audience still finds hi...