” … a perfect example of what British science writer Alastair Clarke has dubbed: “The Pattern Recognition Theory of Humor,” a new theory in a field in need of one.”

I understand the difference between primary and secondary sources of scientific information. I also am interested in both pattern recognition and humor. I am familiar with the incongruity theory of humor and wondered how Clarke’s pattern recognition theory differed from incongruity theory. Consequently, I looked in PsycInfo (the psychology journal article database) to find the research on which Alistair Clarke’s theory was based.  There was none.

I thought maybe Alistair Clarke wasn’t publishing in psychology journals, so I used Google Scholar to try to locate the primary research on which his theory was based. This search was also unsuccessful at identifying such research.

Further searching brought me to Mr. Clarke’s website in which I found that he was not affiliated with any university and had left graduate school without receiving an advanced degree. Let me say at this point that I have no problems with Mr. Clarke developing his own theory of humor and writing a book about it. As far as I can tell, he has not made any unjustified claims about his qualifications in regards to developing theories of humor.  What I DO have problems with are the various science-based blogs treating his work as “science,” when in fact, the theory is just rationalism (at best) or opinion (at worst).

I say this because what I DID find when searching for primary source information on the pattern recognition theory of humor was a series of science-based blogs and websites that treated Mr. Clarke’s work as science. For example, the Science Daily news website (“Your Source for the Latest Research News”) reports Mr. Clarke’s theory as follows:

“First universal theory of humour answers how and why we find things funny. Published June 12, The Pattern Recognition Theory of Humour by Alastair Clarke answers the centuries old question of what is humour.”

The rest of the Science Daily article just quotes Mr. Clarke.  They also provide instructions following the article about how to “cite this story in your essay, paper or report.”

The website, ScienceBlogging, reported Clarke’s theory similarly, introducing it as

“Published today, The Pattern Recognition Theory of Humour, by Alastair Clarke, answers the eternal question about the nature of humor. Clarke explains how and why we find things funny and identifies the reason humor is common to all human societies, its fundamental role in the evolution of humans and its continuing importance in the cognitive development of infants.”

I believe this gives the impression that the information being reported is science with all the credibility that goes along with something being scientific. However, the theory they are reporting is anything but scientific.

I’m sorry to say that the original article in Psychology Today that got me started on this rant is no better. In it, the author says the following:

“Author Arnold Glasow argued that laughter is “a tranquilizer with no side effects,” while the political commentator Norman Cousins felt is ‘a powerful way to tap positive emotions.’ While neither of these men are psychologists their answers represent some of the earlier ideas about where humor comes from and why we use it.

Robert Provine, on the other hand, spent over a decade studying the topic and later wrote in the pages of this magazine: “laughter is primarily a social vocalization that binds people together….a hidden language we all speak. It is not a learned group reaction but an instinctive behavior programmed by our genes.”
Clarke disagrees with all of them. In his just published theory, he had gone hunting for a ‘global theory of laughter.’ Because researchers have been interested more in what we laugh at (content) rather than mechanism, this kind of universal theory is one many thought impossible. But what Clarke realized is that laughter is just another example of our brain’s pattern recognition system at work.”

The blog author then explains Mr. Clarke’s ideas about why Robert Provine is wrong and his Pattern Recognition of Humor is correct.

I looked up Robert Provine’s work in the PsycInfo database and found 38 articles in which he was one of the authors. He was first author on many of the articles which dealt with issues of language, laughter, emotion and, yes, even evolution.

Dr. Provine’s work IS science. His understanding of laughter and his opinions about the nature of laughter are based in science and deserved to be reported as science. It annoys me that his opinions are so lightly brushed aside by Steven Kotler in his Psychology Today blog.

In fact, Dr. Provine is one of many top-notch scientists who blog for Psychology Today. Two psychologists I know and for which I have the highest respect have Psychology Today blogs. Though they sometimes post on topics outside their area of research, they make very clear the distinction between science-based information and opinion-based information when discussing those topics. I only wish the other science blogs would do the same.

By failing to critically evaluate the science they are reporting, science blogs are potentially guilty of promulgating misinformation, pseudoscience or out-and-out falsehoods to the general public. It is my opinion that if you are making yourself out to be a science-based purveyor of information, you are obligated to critically evaluate the scientific integrity of that information.

Why do I believe that critically evaluating the information is up to those reporting that information rather than those consuming the information? Because it takes training to effectively engage in the kind of critical analysis that is sometimes necessary to distinguish science from pseudoscience. One has to understand the scientific process and know how to determine whether the information being communicated was obtained through a scientific process. Though the general public should be thinking critically about the information they consume, they may never have had the training necessary in order to verify the scientific integrity of the information. Consequently, they rely on the expertise of those publishing the science blogs to report scientific information accurately.

As science bloggers, how are we to inspire public acceptance, understanding and enthusiasm for science if we don’t report good science? Education should not be sacrificed in favor of entertainment.

chimp looking at reflection in a mirror

This post doesn’t have anything to do with creativity or analogy.  However, it does concern a question about something I have a deep interest in and that is the issue of consciousness – human or animal.

One of the students in my module of the Animal Assisted Therapy Certification program asked me the following question:

“Cynthia, I know you’re busy now, but whenever you have the time I’d love to hear a psychologist’s take on this: I’ve heard and seen a lot of anecdotal evidence that dogs prefer the company of their own breeds. For instance, a vet I knew had dachshunds that would only play a certain chase game with other dachshunds who were visiting. Doggy visitors of other breeds had to settle for other games. Cesar Millan said that when he is jogging with his dog pack and stops for a rest, the rottweilers all find a spot in the shade together, the pit bulls will all segregate in a different area and so on. At a breeder’s golden retriever reunion in a park, there was one odd-man-out amongst all the goldens, an Australian shepherd mix that the breeder’s mother had brought. I watched as the goldens formed into interchangeable, small packs as they romped across fields and swam in a pond. The Aussie mix was excluded from these packs and tended to mill about on the edges of the group, ignored.

Is this evidence that dogs have self-awareness since they know when a dog is, or is not, of the same breed as them? So, how do they know if another dog is of the same breed? Is it because the other dog resembles their mothers? Or is this something more primitive, like a school of fish swimming together in the ocean?”

Cool question right?

This was my response.

“That is a very interesting question, Student X.

In general, self-awareness has been demonstrated in only a few of the most intelligent animals such as elephants, dolphins, and the great apes.  Magpies are the only non-mammal to have passed the test so far. However, I believe that the self awareness to which you are referring is different from that discussed by cognitive psychologists.  The cognitive psychology definition of self awareness depends upon how an animal performs on the “Mirror Test.”  In the test, the animal is marked in some way while it is asleep or sedated (i.e., lipstick on the cheek of an ape).  When the animal awakens, it is presented with a mirror. The animal is said to be self-aware if it then directs grooming behaviors to the new mark.  Such behavior demonstrates that it recognizes itself in the mirror and can use that information.

The obvious problem with such a test is that it is entirely visual.  I don’t think dogs could respond appropriately to such a test even if they were self aware. As an interesting side note, human children fail the mirror test until they become toddlers.

I know that dogs have concepts and categories and can visually classify each other because when we are driving in the car, my dogs will essentially ignore humans walking on the sidewalk but if a dog is walking with the human, they get very interested and stare at the dog until we drive out of sight.  It is not olfactory because this happens when the windows are up and at a distance.

I realize that basing a claim on my observations as I drive in the car is not at all scientific but I am a trained observer of behavior so it counts for me

The behavior you are talking about with breeds of dogs grouping together could be explained by breed-specific patterns of behavior. (I am just guessing on this so interpret the following accordingly.) Goldens orient the world in a certain fashion than do Australian Shepherds. Play behavior of animals is often closely tied to the behavior an animal engages in that is important to its survival. Play is a training mechanism. Though there are species general ways of interacting with others of its species (the “Play bow”), it could be that certain breeds of dogs play in a specific fashion. For example, Goldens are retrievers and Shepherds are herders.  Perhaps this difference manifests itself in the way the animals play making it easier for a Golden to play and interact with other Goldens and difficult for an Australian Shepherd to interact with Goldens. This would explain the birds-of-a-feather-flock-together behavior you are asking about.”

It sounds plausible doesn’t it?  But then, I think that is mainly what an advanced degree trains you to do – make intelligent guesses by extrapolating from the knowledge you already have.

When looking for images related to this post, I found a blog post that discussed the work demonstrating that elephants can pass the mirror test. I pulled the following image and the video showing the elephant passing the mirror test from this blog.

Click on image to watch video of an elephant passing the mirror test

Her question:

“I was wondering if perhaps the way people handle or express their depression is connected with their level of creativity.  For example, some people’s form of escape is delve into an imaginary world with things like fairies and vampires and dressing “goth.”  Other people seem to delve into reality, such as gang members or people who choose a life of crime.  I do realize there are many reasons for this variation such as environment, anger, opportunity, ect., but I thought maybe perhaps the people who seem to float away from reality are a bit more on the creative side.  This is just a jagged thought that popped into my head at 11:30 at night, so it’s not very well thought out, but I would like your opinion if you have the time.  Thanks for your time.”

My Response:

“Before I answer, I want you to know that this is just a total guess.  It will be based on what I know about creative personalities and the relationship between mental illness and creativity but it is just an inference and may be totally incorrect.

Remember the “Big Five” personality traits (Conscientiousness,  Extraversion, Agreeableness, Openness to Experience, and Neuroticism/Emotional Stability)?
Creative individuals tend to score higher than normal individuals on Openness to Experience.  This means that they are more open to trying new things, thinking new thoughts, appreciating art and culture and (relevant to your question) they are more prone to enjoy and engage in fantasy.
Creative individuals are also tend to score low on emotional stability which means they are more likely than normal individuals to suffer from mental illnesses (especially mood and anxiety disorders).

The above is actually fact. What follows is a guess on my part.

Because creative individuals have personalities that are high in openness to fantasy and imagination, I think your hypothesis that they may deal with depression by escaping into fantasy worlds is right on the mark.  People that have little tolerance for fantasy worlds or imagination are unlikely to seek them out when troubled. Such thoughts and activities would provide no comfort to them and appear to be stupid, useless or irrelevant.  People that score highly on Openness to Experience actually ENJOY fantasy and imagination so imaginary worlds would provide them with good feelings, distract them from their problems and would actually be comforting to them.

It is also very likely that creative individuals will handle or express something such as depression in creative endeavors. They might do this by escaping INTO fantasy and creating alternate worlds and universes (through drawing, writing, programming….).  Even creative scientists might deal with their depression by developing new theories or creating experiments to test theories.  You almost have to escape into a world of imagination to create something new. ”

As I stated earlier, I am just guessing as to creative individuals’ propensity to escape into fantasy when psychologically or emotionally distressed.  However, it is a guess based on scientific findings so I am thinking it is a pretty good guess and, hopefully, it answers your question.