Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
On the contrary, the violation will not be a moral norm if a person is not slightly attached. Thus, both of these must simultaneously be categorized as benign violations to emerge as humor. [36] The benign violation theory helps explain why some jokes or situations are funny to some people but not to others.
With Caleb Warren, he developed a theory of humor: the Benign Violation Theory. The theory suggests that humor occurs when a person simultaneously appraises a situation as wrong or threatening some way (i.e., a violation) and yet appraises the situation to be okay or acceptable in some way (i.e., benign). [ 11 ]
Warner was fascinated by McGraw's research and unified theory of humor, the Benign Violation Theory. [5] Starting in 2011, the two created "The Humor Code Project," a two-year, 91,000-mile global search for what makes things funny. Their travels took them to Tanzania, Scandinavia, Japan, Israel, Peru, and several other destinations in North ...
Humor research (also humor studies) is a multifaceted field which enters the domains of linguistics, history, and literature. Research in humor has been done to understand the psychological and physiological effects, both positive and negative, on a person or groups of people.
Analysis on elements and functions of laughter and humor date back to Ancient Greece (384 BCE to 322 BCE) and Roman empire (106—43 B.C.E). Most notably, Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero formulated early theories on the function of humor and laughter and paved the way for further philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes (17th century) to expand their positions.
Affective disposition theory (ADT), in its simplest form, states that media and entertainment users make moral judgments about characters in a narrative which in turn affects their enjoyment of the narrative. This theory was first posited by Zillmann and Cantor (1977), and many offshoots have followed in various areas of entertainment (Raney ...
united states district court for the district of columbia _____ public employees for environmental ) responsibility, et al., )
From the PAP definition "a person is morally responsible for what they have done only if they could have done otherwise", Frankfurt infers that a person is not morally responsible for what they have done if they could not have done otherwise – a point with which he takes issue: our theoretical ability to do otherwise, he says, does not necessarily make it possible for us to do otherwise.