I feel like Superiority theory, and Relief theory are more or less subsets of Incongruity theory. This doesn't help the idea that incongruity is unfalsifiable, but having a theory that perfectly describes all humour would be bounded only by the non-humourous, so I'm not sure what to think there.
In the case of Superiority, perhaps the thought that this person could be superior to you is incongruous to you. Personally, I find very little humour in this category, and might choose to call it scorn instead, where laughter might be an aspect of glee or amusement rather than comedic. This certainly makes me wonder how this article/author might define the term humour.
As for Relief, it seems that the emotions aren't quite built up as expected. Expectations being subverted might involve a tonal shift, rather than pressure; a relatively serious setting leads one to expect serious discourse, so something comical disrupts that, more like a pressure change.
It's interesting how this article only briefly eludes to the function of humour in society, as I think that is the place to look for a falsifiable and scientific theory of humour.
Mesrour t1_ixe477t wrote
Reply to The Philosophy of Humor: Three theories about what makes something funny. Essay by philosopher Chris A. Kramer (SBCC) by thenousman
I feel like Superiority theory, and Relief theory are more or less subsets of Incongruity theory. This doesn't help the idea that incongruity is unfalsifiable, but having a theory that perfectly describes all humour would be bounded only by the non-humourous, so I'm not sure what to think there.
In the case of Superiority, perhaps the thought that this person could be superior to you is incongruous to you. Personally, I find very little humour in this category, and might choose to call it scorn instead, where laughter might be an aspect of glee or amusement rather than comedic. This certainly makes me wonder how this article/author might define the term humour.
As for Relief, it seems that the emotions aren't quite built up as expected. Expectations being subverted might involve a tonal shift, rather than pressure; a relatively serious setting leads one to expect serious discourse, so something comical disrupts that, more like a pressure change.
It's interesting how this article only briefly eludes to the function of humour in society, as I think that is the place to look for a falsifiable and scientific theory of humour.