Veatch (1998) presents an ambitious, and supposedly complete, theory
of humor, the N+V theory of humor. N+V says that three conditions are, individually, necessary
and, jointly, sufficient for humor to occur. The conditions are these
Something is wrong. That is, the perceiver thinks that|
things in the situation ought to be a certain way -- and
cares about it -- and that is Violated.
The situation is actually okay. That is, the perceiver has|
in mind a predominating view of the situation as being Normal.
Both occur at the same time(+). That is, the N and V understandings|
are present in the mind of the perceiver at the same instant.
So humor is emotional pain (V) that doesn't actually hurt (N). Or
a violation (V) that you care about, overlaid with (+) the conviction
that everything is normal (N) (either good or neutral, but not bad).
This theory is supposed to rule out every occasion when humor is not
perceived, and rule in every occasion when it does occur. That's a
big claim, can you find a counterexample?
My favorite example is peekaboo. I think the initial, intrinsic humor
in peekaboo is relief laughter. Let me explain relief laughter with
an example, and then peekaboo.
One day I opened the refrigerator, and a
milk carton fell onto the floor. When I realized the carton was new
and unopened, and that no milk was being spilt, I laughed very hard
for about a second and a half, and equally suddenly stopped laughing.
Why? Because at the instant of realization that this minor tragedy
was really okay, I had in my mind both the trauma of mess and breakage
-- and the predominating view that nothing bad had really happened.
So both a painful view and a predominating normal view of the
situation were simultaneously in my mind, and therefore (following the
N+V theory) I laughed. Then, after a second and a half passed, I came
to realize that I was simply going to put the milk back in the fridge,
and therefore there was frankly no violation at all, and at that
instant, laughter abruptly ended. So it was exactly during the time
when both interpretations were present that laughter occurred, and as
soon as they weren't both present, laughter stopped.
It's universal: Why?
Peekaboo is a game in every culture around the world. It seems that
all children, around the age of 8 months or so, pass through a phase
in which reappearance after hiding seems intrinsically funny. In many
cultures, perhaps most, this initial humor perception is elaborated
into a variety of games and play, such as hide-and-seek. I'm talking
about that first intrinsic humor that babies have when they first
All babies learn object permanence, the ability to know that
objects which one can no longer see still exist even when they no
longer are visible. There are three phases here. In the beginning,
if you can't see it, it doesn't exist -- in fact, it never existed,
because you don't understand about object permanence yet. At the end,
if you saw it before but don't see it now, it (probably) still exists,
because you do understand about object permanence. But in between
these phases, objects that you see at first, which then leave your
field of view, are now things that DID exist but NO LONGER exist,
because you have memory but no current evidence of them. This is the
phase where peekaboo is funny.
So in phase one, Mommy leaves the room and it's no big deal, because
once she's gone, it's as if she never existed. In phase two, Mommy
leaves the room and, suddenly, that is grounds for crying and despair,
because the Mommy that I care so much about has blinked out of the
universe. That would be a subjective moral violation, V. But if one
leaves and then comes back into view, one has come back into
existence, making everything whole (N). Just like discovering to my
relief that the milk wasn't spilt, babies are so relieved to find that
you haven't been erased from the universe that they laugh with relief
Then later on, as object permanence is established, grownups, whom the
baby has now trained to play peekaboo, begin to elaborate it with
further play in which the thrill of mutual attention and the teasing
(i.e., painful and hostile) action of withdrawing one's attention are
alternated in increasingly complex ways, all to shrieks of laughter
timed simultaneously with the everything-is-okay events. By then the
baby has lost that initial intrinsic humor perception, of being
relieved that you haven't actually been wiped out of existence.
True and Useful?
So that's the idea. Humor occurs when something is wrong that you
care about (V), but everything is actually okay (N), and only occurs if you
see (and feel) both views at the same time (+):
N + V
Now you can take any joke, and analyse it by figuring out what is the
emotional violation, and what is the normal interpretation. I find I
can do this for every joke that I actually find funny, but it often
takes a while to do it for one that I don't see the humor in.
Fortunately, thinking about it doesn't prevent me from laughing in the
first place -- but it may be part of the reason I'm such a bad
joke-teller. No problem, those who can't do, do research.
The long version
``A Theory of
'' is a detailed and comprehensive academic discussion of
Veatch's N+V theory and it explains everything from the laughter of chimps
to the ability to make a room of tense people in conflict suddenly relax and
realize their common ground, from puns to group giggle-fests to
nervous laughter to tickling. You are invited to click your way
around in it and read the parts that interest you. Don't miss the
section on society and
, which is what matters most to social animals (like
The fundamental idea of the N+V theory is that humor is really a form of
pain (it even has repeated, loud exhalations similar at some level to
gasping in pain or crying). But it is a cognitively complex form of
pain where you don't really feel it as pain, but you really believe
that things are truly just fine. If you make this insight your own
then you can see how teasing is hostility between (true) friends, and
how negative and painful experiences are an essential part of even the
happiest human lives. A life full of laughter is a happy life, not
because one avoids pain but because we have the power to enjoy life
even with pain all through it.
If you think about N+V anytime you encounter humor you should
be able to identify some view where the situation is okay and another
one where it's not. If you do, you can tell your friends you
understand humor, and even better, if you don't understand your
friends' humor, you have here a way to try to figure out what they're
laughing at, by looking for the okay (N) and not-okay (V) interpretations they
must be perceiving, if the N+V Theory of Humor is true.
- Joke analysis, not! Sorry, I don't think this is very
interesting. It's more interesting to understand really different
kinds of actual phenomena, than to take apart yet another set-piece
presentation of a false world described dramatically for peer
entertainment and approval in order to find what's N and what's V
about it. Been there, done that, let's move on already.
- Can we generate jokes by machine? Yes, if the machine has the
ability to reason about N and V interpretations, and to concoct
situations encoding both interpretations simultaneously. There is no
intrinsic reason this cannot be done, if artificial intelligence can
provide the infrastructure of a reasoning machine. The humorless
android character, Data, of Star Trek TNG, represents a false
prediction about the future; I tell you that computers will both seem
to laugh and make us laugh in the not-too-distant future.
- Relate and distinguish laughter and crying. Crying
may be the same as laughter but where the V interpretation is
predominant. One cries when in a painful relationship the other
person says I love you (the pain is predominant, but the
things-are-really-okay view is there also).
- Use humor perception studies to understand the emotional and
moral differences between people of different political leanings,
ethnicities, ages, cultures, different gender, etc. At
https://tomveatch.com/else/humor/intro.php we are presently
exploring whether a humor profile can be created, and if anything in
it correlates with various social dimensions.
- Clarify whether the N/V distinction is (a) a structuralist
distinction between relatively more or less okay and not-okay, or (b)
an absolute distinction between non-relativistic cognitive categories
of normal and not-normal, divided by an unmoving line separating the
normal from the unacceptable. This theory can be interpreted in
either way. There are of course many elements of subjective
interpretation in humor; two people may differ relativistically on how
bad some violation is. However, one wonders if there is a
qualitative, discrete difference, anchored to non-relativistic
underlying cognitive elements, which have an independent existence
separate from the contrast between them. If the perception of a
violation is neurologically hardwired to an aversive reaction, then
even if the intensity of the violation varies relativistically and can
shift across the line between normalcy and pain, still if the mental
category must be evoked first and separately from the hardwired
aversive reaction, then at the point of evoking that discrete category
there is an absolute and independent psychological basis for the
violation interpretation. A layer of structural relativism on top of
this might not necessarily rule out the possible underlying presence
of a non-relativistic process of mental categorization. This needs to
be explored, perhaps through brain imaging studies, which in principle
might distinguish among relativistic and absolutist interpretive
processing and the pleasure or pain or laughter responses thereto.
This document is located at
|RSS for updates