Something I have really never understood is why people think that watching someone who gets hurt, frightened, or both is funny. America's Funniest home videos featuring drunk relatives falling off of furniture is innocent enough (especially when they stand back up and laugh) but what about people who fall off roofs? You know - the ones that need to be hospitalized? Hilarious. I know, maybe put the camera down and call an ambulance.
Better yet, maybe convince your friend not to do the crazy stunt in the first place.
Immediately you're thinking "wow, this post is totally killing my Tosh.0 induced humor-buzz." But before you get defensive, chill. I did some research, and this is actually really interesting.
Also, you will be impressed to know that this post spans my knowledge of theater history AND psychology.
First of all, physical humor involving violence and injury has been alive in performance arts since the rise in popularity of Commedia dell'arte in Italy during the 16th century (side note, Commedia dell'arte also gave us other elements of modern entertainment such as the 'stock' character and sketch comedy).
In fact, the term slap-stick comes from this early form of professional theater, and is linked directly to the sort of humor I'm referring to. The "slap-stick" is actually a tool called the bataccio. It's comprised of two flat pieces of wood that, when smacked together, sounds like someone getting popped in the face. The slap-stick was used to create this sound effect so that the characters could feign over the top violence and injury without really hurting each other to create the appropriate stage sounds.
So clearly, people have found pretend physical violence and injury funny for a long time.
Why?
Lets turn to some humor research to find out.
According to a short article published in Scientific American, a certain level of incongruity must be established for a joke to work. The punchline is unexpected, and surprises the joke comprehender. The punchline is incongruent to the set of for the joke.
Here's a good one
"Knock Knock" "Whose there?" "cash" "cash who?" "no thanks, but I'll take a peanut!"
During the set up of the joke, the comprehender focuses on the separate words "cash" and "who", and two separate constructs represented by the words rather than the sound they make together ("cashew"). However the end of the joke is inconsistent with the assumption that "cash" and "who" are separate entities, and that they can have a relationship to one another: "who is this "cash" and what is his first name?" Rather the punchline introduces an entirely different way of thinking about the sounds uttered rather than their meaning, which takes the comprehender by surprise and leads to a giggle. Or maybe an eye roll.
According to Scientific American, physical humor may work the same way. Falling is incongruous to everyday experience. Think about the number of times in a day that you fall -- I don't know about you, but mine is usually 0. So as someone is walking along and suddenly trips and falls, the punchline (represented by the fall) is incongruous with the everyday experience of walking, and thus the onlooker is taken by surprise and laughs.
Another component necessary for a joke is that it must be established in a frame of reference that is relatively consequence-free. With no (or few) consequences, we can suspend the usual empathetic reactions we may be more prone to, and laugh at the person who is now laying on the floor.
So whats the problem? Sounds like laughing at people's pain and humiliation is pretty natural.
Well...no.
To be fair, the slap-stick humor is understandable. Unreasonable levels of violence and injury can be funny in a play, because it is an inherently consequence-free environment. Thus, because we are overtly aware that the proceedings are false, we can laugh at the "joke" freely.
This can be extended even to extreme examples, such as T.V shows like Family Guy and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
I personally have trouble watching it regardless, mostly because I am overly empathetic. I cry easily in dramas, I get very easily scared by horror movies, ect.
However, the featured videos on shows like Tosh.0, Tru TV and the like are NOT slapstick. They appeal to the same type of humor, but they do not occur in a consequence free environment.
Perhaps the setting is misleading. Many of us are accustomed to seeing things on TV and in movies that aren't real. While this is pure speculation based on two paragraphs published in SA; what if this is happening: because the video of the real event is presented in the same format as the event that we know is not real, we don't bother making a distinction between real and not real events where humor is involved.
If that's the case, I think that's a little dangerous. Do we really want to train ourselves to laugh at some of this stuff?
Just food for thought.
And if you're interested in reading the article, it's called "Ask the Brains: Why Do We Laugh When Somebody Falls". Google it!
