Apples versus oranges, normative claims, and other things we did not mention: a response to Purser and Harper (2023)

Dean Baltiansky, M. A. Craig, J. Jost
{"title":"Apples versus oranges, normative claims, and other things we did not mention: a response to Purser and Harper (2023)","authors":"Dean Baltiansky, M. A. Craig, J. Jost","doi":"10.1515/humor-2022-0133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In a previous article, we observed that system justification was positively associated with the appreciation of humor targeting low-status groups (Baltiansky, Craig, & Jost, 2021). We are pleased to learn that other researchers took interest in our study, reanalyzing the data set we made publicly available and writing a commentary. We are also pleased that, using Bayesian statistical analyses, Purser and Harper (2023) reached the same conclusion we did based on frequentist analyses, namely that low system-justifiers found jokes targeting low-status groups to be less funny than high system-justifiers did. However, we object to the commentators’ use of value-laden language in characterizing the pattern of results and to several unsubstantiated insinuations and allegations of an ideological nature that they make about our motives and opinions about “cancel culture” and the deplatforming of professional comedians.","PeriodicalId":73268,"journal":{"name":"Humor (Berlin, Germany)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Humor (Berlin, Germany)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2022-0133","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In a previous article, we observed that system justification was positively associated with the appreciation of humor targeting low-status groups (Baltiansky, Craig, & Jost, 2021). We are pleased to learn that other researchers took interest in our study, reanalyzing the data set we made publicly available and writing a commentary. We are also pleased that, using Bayesian statistical analyses, Purser and Harper (2023) reached the same conclusion we did based on frequentist analyses, namely that low system-justifiers found jokes targeting low-status groups to be less funny than high system-justifiers did. However, we object to the commentators’ use of value-laden language in characterizing the pattern of results and to several unsubstantiated insinuations and allegations of an ideological nature that they make about our motives and opinions about “cancel culture” and the deplatforming of professional comedians.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
苹果与橘子,规范主张,以及我们没有提到的其他事情:对Purser和Harper(2023)的回应
在之前的一篇文章中,我们观察到系统辩护与对低地位群体的幽默欣赏呈正相关(Baltiansky, Craig, & Jost, 2021)。我们很高兴地得知,其他研究人员对我们的研究很感兴趣,重新分析了我们公开提供的数据集,并撰写了评论。我们也很高兴,使用贝叶斯统计分析,Purser和Harper(2023)得出了我们基于频率分析得出的相同结论,即低系统正当性发现针对低地位群体的笑话比高系统正当性发现的笑话更不有趣。然而,我们反对评论者在描述结果模式时使用充满价值的语言,并反对他们对我们的动机和对“取消文化”和专业喜剧演员的平台的看法所做的一些未经证实的暗示和意识形态性质的指控。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Banter as transformative practice: linguistic play and joking relationships in a UK swimming club. A general mechanism of humor: reformulating the semantic overlap The Humor Styles Questionnaire: a critique of scale construct validity and recommendations regarding individual differences in style profiles Jennifer Caplan (2023). Funny, you don’t look funny: Judaism and humor from the silent generation to millennials Villy Tsakona (2020). Recontextualising humour. rethinking the analysis and teaching of humor. De Gruyter Mouton, 229 pp.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1