Humor-Pattern Recognition Theory Gets Clarifications

Clarke's pattern-recognition theory of humor has drawn numerous critics and commendations since its publishing, as well as misinterpretations and unfounded assumptions, the author tells. That's why evolutionary theorist Alastair Clarke has recently stepped out on the scene again, and has brought forth a few clarifications of what he believes have been abusive interpretations of his work.

“There are two major misconceptions that have arisen. First, there is the assumption that this theory suggests that the deviation from a pattern is rewarded in humor; second, there is the idea that the eight patterns identified correspond to categories of jokes or types of comedy in some way, as if there were eight types of humor. Both are entirely untrue,” he says.

He continues by adding that, “In all circumstances, it is the recognition of simple repetition that is being rewarded in humor, not any form of anomaly, aberration or deviation. It is the recognition of this repetition in increasingly difficult or unlikely circumstances, despite any altered context or associated problems of perception, which is valuable to the individual. This is a major departure from prior theories and turns the whole received wisdom about both the mechanism and function of humor on its head.”

“When we talk of pattern recognition, this does not include the recognition of deviation from a pattern, which is not a cognitive process rewarded by the faculty of humor. While this may seem counter-intuitive, it is fundamental to an understanding of humor that such aberrations and deviations are discounted from the range of humorous causality. The eight patterns don't correspond to eight types of humor. Rather, they are cognitive processes by which the brain identifies and analyses information unconsciously. Since this necessarily involves perceptual subjectivity, the same stimulus may lead to the recognition of completely different patterns by different individuals,” the expert mentions.

He also emphasizes that, “By examining humor through patterns, it becomes clear why theorists and researchers have identified certain traits as humorous, although each has been restricted by attempting to identify a constituent element of that single type as the source of all humor. This has been impossible since thematic and perceptual issues relating to different media or formats of humor get in the way until humor is looked at as a whole. By removing content and culture from our analyses, we have been able to achieve a distance from the material that has made this possible at last.”

“As a consequence, humor can finally be studied as a single faculty rather than a phenomenon caused by an ever-changing range of stimuli. Patterns are simple things constructed from any information, which has confused analysts for hundreds of years. Unfortunately, that confusion shows no signs of abating,” the acclaimed scientist concludes.