What type of humor do i have

We feed on the positive energies you leave here so please keep your comments coming! Got a great quiz idea? Please let us know. Even better, if you'd like to contribute in writing a quiz, write in anytime! Contact us here. Let's Play! Decide on the funniest bit from Saturday Night Live that leaves you in stitches!

Which of these things make you laugh the most, even if you shouldn't? Show me my results! Irony , as expressed in interactions, aims at creating a mutual sense of superiority toward others by saying things differently than they mean it. It does not entail lying as one assumes that smart people will understand what was actually meant irrespective of what was said.

Ironic people are courting and letting in the intelligent, thereby at the same time mocking the stupid. Irony is a means of confusing the non-insiders and finding out who is a knowledgeable informed insider.

Others may see them as conceited, superior, and frequently negative-critical. There are lighter styles that do not contain these skeptic elements. They are very diverse despite sharing a more positive basis of interpersonal cooperation, benevolence, positive emotions, and cognitive capabilities. Specifically, fun joking, jesting is aimed at spreading good mood and good comradeship.

People using this comic style are considered to be social, jovial, and also agreeable. In everyday life situations, they use teasing waggish, impish with friends and people accustomed to bawdy matters.

They might see themselves as funny jokers and like to make mischievous jests. They play harmless tricks on friends and like to jest and act clownish. Next, humor a. People with humor are realistic observers of human weaknesses, but treat them benevolently, often including themselves in the judgment rather than directing it exclusively at others. There is an understanding for humanity in all weaknesses, which are observed and shared with a jovial, relaxed, and contemplative audience.

A person with humor in this sense knows that, both on a large and small scale, the world is not perfect. Still, with a humorous outlook on the world even the adversities of life can be amusing and be smiled at. A person using this comic style manages to arouse understanding and sympathy for imperfections and the human condition through humor. Nonsense , as intellectual and playful, cheerful fun, aims at exposing the ridiculousness of the sheer sense, though basically without any purpose.

People enjoying nonsense describe themselves as playful and cheerful. They let their mind play, for example, by being creative with language and by playing with sense and nonsense. For them, incongruities do not need to be resolved, but the opposite holds true; that is, the more absurd, and the funnier.

They create an upside-down world, use language in its imperfection, and find bizarre and fantastic stories amusing. Finally, one style can be seen as part of the lighter styles despite also containing elements characteristic of the darker styles.

Wit intends to illuminate like a flashlight, typically with a surprising punch line that uses unusual combinations created on the spot. Producing wit requires skills: It entails quickly reading situations and nailing non-obvious matters to the point in a funny way.

They surprise others with funny remarks and accurate judgments of current issues, which occur to them spontaneously. They make relationships between disconnected ideas or thoughts and thus create a comical effect quickly and pointedly. Witty people might be tense, vain, and take themselves seriously, and look for an educated society that appreciates brief pointed utterances as an ideal audience.

The use of many narrower styles will yield interrelated scales, and the intercorrelations could be used to derive fewer and more abstract styles, which poses the question what these different levels are good for. To uphold the use of the narrower styles, it is important to demonstrate a that they can be separated conceptually and empirically and b that each style predicts different phenomena and is not redundant. Being sarcastic does not necessarily mean that one is also more cynical, although these two styles will be highly correlated.

Training to be witty might enhance wit, but not necessarily satire, although both might correlate as well. This suggests that it is best to keep the concepts at this level of abstraction, rather than, for example, cluster them together and use aggregated styles. However, one can look at the interrelations among the styles based on covariations of individual differences in a sample and conduct a second-order factor analysis for two reasons.

First, one can examine how these interrelations can be represented in a smaller space and describe the styles at an aggregated level. While there is no intention of reducing these styles to a fewer number of concepts, it might provide insights into the structure of the styles and indicate where they overlap. Should styles correlate too highly, one might consider dropping some or combining them at a conceptual level to form a new scale but not a factor derived from it.

Second, structure-building methods could be applied to empirically test the assumptions of different authors about the structure inherent in this list of styles. For example, Lauer ordered the styles in the sequence listed above to reflect different mixtures of two tendencies, namely self-assertion as a consciousness-limiting tendency and participation as a consciousness-expanding tendency.

This allows for predictions about the relative proximity of these two styles as well as the postulate that two factors might be sufficient to represent most of the variance. Interestingly, Schmidt-Hidding ordered the styles similarly. However, these are spread along a rhomboid that is marked by what he considered to be key terms i. These and some satellite words with lower frequency as well as the comic styles are depicted in a topographical model see Figure 1A.

While the generation of the model is not fully explicated and it is also not clear whether these terms would be still the most frequent nowadays, this configuration can be taken allowing for hypotheses about the structure of the eight comic styles to be tested empirically Study 1. These descriptions allow deriving the hypothesis that unique predictors for comic styles may come from the domains of ability for wit and character for the virtuous forms in addition to traditional personality traits Study 2.

The eight comic styles in a schematic representation together with the key terms and other humor-related words A , left and in an individual-differences model B , right. Adapted from Schmidt-Hidding , p. There is also a north—south distinction, but it is not seen as a bipolar dimension in Figure 1A. Fun is in the south position, with satellite terms connecting to mock e.

While this is not a bipolar dimension, the former is more akin to high comedy and the latter to low comedy. The order of the eight styles can be examined as well.

From the arrangement of terms, cynicism and sarcasm are expected to be the most difficult to distinguish as they are very close to each other. The second type of testing the structure of comic styles involves a second-order factor analysis of individual differences in the use of comic styles, and somewhat different results may be expected due to the inclusion of the third dimension that represents a general factor g-factor of comic styles use see Figure 1B.

For example, while mock and humor are opposite as concepts in Figure 1B i. This variance overlies the pattern of relations among the styles and alters the size and potentially even sign of the correlations. While there are people that clearly prefer mock over humor and others that prefer humor over mock , this might happen at different levels of comic style use.

Thus, by controlling the level, an initially perfect negative relation might turn into a slightly positive one. Figure 1B posits that the relations depicted in the rhombus Figure 1A only exist if the third dimension is kept constant i.

Prior work with two different sets of preliminary markers for the eight comic styles documented in Ruch, suggested that two or three second-order factors might be sufficient to represent the eight styles. The overarching aim of Study 1 is to design and evaluate marker items for the eight comic styles the Comic Style Markers, CSM that can be used for both self- and other-reports, that represent the comic styles as identified in literary studies, and that allow measuring differences among individuals.

In detail, this entails a confirming the item-level factor structure, b selecting suitable marker items based on factor loadings and item statistics , c examining the reliability internal consistency and retest reliability of the CSM, d replicating the psychometric properties in a different language English , e examining whether there is convergent and discriminant validity in self-other agreement, f determining socio-demographic correlates, and g examining the structure of the comic styles by looking at their intercorrelations, and vertical and hierarchical configurations by means of hierarchical and ipsative second-order factor analysis.

Overall, 2 five samples were employed in Study 1 see Table 1. Sample 1 was used to select the best items from the pilot version of the CSM for the final version. Sample 2 was employed to test whether the final item selection could be replicated in an independent sample.

Sample 3 investigated the test-retest reliability of the CSM after 1—2 weeks. This sample partially overlaps with another study in which everyday humor behaviors and the HSQ were investigated Heintz, b.

Sample 4 investigated the self-other agreement by having two close others rate the participants on an other-report form of the CSM. This sample partially overlaps with another study in which the construct validity of the HSQ was investigated Heintz, a.

Sample 5 investigated the English version of the CSM. TABLE 1. Overview of the samples including basic descriptive statistics, measures, and analyses of Studies 1 and 2. A pilot version of the CSM was generated, which was designed to mark the comic styles fun, humor, nonsense, wit, irony, satire, sarcasm, and cynicism Schmidt-Hidding, as clearly as possible. The pilot version of the CSM comprised 73 marker items that depict the eight comic styles.

Descriptions of the styles were compiled incorporating the elements discussed by Schmidt-Hidding and supplemented by other sources, such as descriptions of the comic styles in the literature, encyclopedias, dictionaries, and so on. Special care was taken that these elements could be related to individuals and eventually be transformed into corresponding items.

This was achieved by studying definitions of the styles and transforming them into statements depicting everyday thoughts, feelings, and actions, while taking care of sticking to the definitions as purely as possible. There were between 6 and 13 marker items per comic style in the pilot version. The revised version of the CSM includes 48 marker items, with six marker items for each comic style.

The same seven-point Likert format is utilized. For now, the main aim was to preserve the meaning of the styles and to be able to study the concepts.

A final questionnaire to measure the comic styles comprehensively e. The other-report version consists of the same 48 marker items as the CSM.

The only difference is that the marker items were rephrased to capture other-reports. It employs the same seven-point Likert scale.

The English version of the CSM was adapted in a translation back-translation procedure. Inconsistencies were jointly resolved in a group discussion among the first, second, and third author of this paper. The five samples were collected online via www. Other variables were collected that are not relevant for the present study.

The study was conducted in compliance with the local ethical guidelines and participants provided online informed consent. In Sample 3, participants completed the final version of the CSM twice in a period of 1—2 weeks. In Sample 4, participants were provided with a link to an online survey including the other-reports of the CSM, which they forwarded to two close others. The rationally derived 73 items of the pilot version of the CSM listed in the Supplementary Table S2 were subjected to three analyses to select the final items: Descriptive item analyses, corrected item-total correlations CITC , and loadings on the first unrotated principal component FUPC to ensure the unidimensionality of the scales.

The analyses were conducted in Sample 1 and then replicated in Sample 2. To examine the factor structure of the revised version of the CSM, both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted.

The exploratory factor analysis EFA was a principal axis factoring with oblimin rotation, as the factors were expected to be dependent conducted with SPSS The MLR estimator was employed to yield robust standard errors, and the factors were allowed to correlate with each other. Fit indices were evaluated by the recommendations for acceptable fit of Schermelleh-Engel et al.

For the CFI somewhat lower values were expected in the present analysis due to the large number of variables per factor, which can lead to low CFI values even if the model is correctly specified see Kenny and McCoach, To investigate test—retest reliability, the scores from the first assessment of the CSM were correlated with the scores from the second assessment Sample 3.

In Sample 4, self-other convergence convergent validity was tested by correlating the self-reports of the CSM with the aggregated other-reports aggregated across two raters per participant. First, the descriptive statistics of the 73 marker items in the pilot version of the CSM were analyzed. Second, the CITC of the items were computed and compared to the correlations of the items with the other seven scales. Similarly, the FUPC of the items belonging to one scale was extracted in a principal component analysis, and the factor score was saved.

Then the 73 marker items were correlated with each of the eight factor scores. This procedure contributes to the reliability internal consistency and unidimensionality and factorial validity of the resulting scales. Also, the correlations of the marker item with the other scales should be at least 0. Based on these criteria, 15 items were deleted 0—5 items from each scale , resulting in a second pilot pool of 56 items. This resulted in an exclusion of 8 additional marker items 0—5 items from each scale , resulting in 48 marker items six marker items per comic style.

Importantly, the marker items that were excluded in Sample 1 were also those that showed the lowest CITC and loadings on the FUPC in Sample 2, replicating the selection of the revised 48 marker items i. Table 2 shows the psychometric properties of the revised set of marker items of the CSM in the pooled construction and replication samples Samples 1 and 2. As shown in Table 2 , the psychometric properties supported the reliability of the eight scales. Internal consistencies ranged from 0.

The CITCs ranged from 0. TABLE 2. Descriptive statistics, reliability, factor structure, and test—retest correlations of the Comic Style Markers CSM in the German-speaking samples. In the EFA, the eight factors explained While the scree test indicated the retention of either four or six factors, the parallel analysis suggested the retention of nine factors, and the revised minimum average partial test suggested the retention of seven factors.

Loadings were high for each factor, ranging from 0. Finally, the test-retest reliability was high for all scales 0. As the time interval was rather short 1—2 weeks , this indicates at least short-term stability of the eight scales. The intercorrelations of the eight scales ranged from essentially 0 to 0. The zero correlations suggest that there will be no general factor in the field of the comic. However, it should be mentioned that the zero correlations all either involved sarcasm or cynicism and hence the other comic styles showed a positive manifold i.

The factor correlations were similar to the scale intercorrelations. In the factor analyses, the factor correlations were highest between sarcasm and cynicism 0.

As the CFA correlations were true-score correlations, this supports the notion that sarcasm and cynicism were similar, yet not interchangeable. Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics, reliability, and factor structure of the CSM in the English-speaking sample.

The reliabilities of the comic styles were also sufficient, ranging from 0. Your humor is very subtle, you prefer to use your charm and wit to win people over. You have a very dark and pessimistic view on life, but it means that you cope well with stress and tragedy since you are able to turn them into humor. Stop being so funny. You have an absolutely, crazy sense of humor! You throw your entire body, facial expressions and loud voice into performing.

Whether you're telling someone about your day or doing an elaborate impersonation of someone, you crack everyone up with your dramatic clownish persona. You are naughty! You love talking about sex, bodily functions and anything else that makes people cringe but crack up at the same time.

You understand that there's nothing funniest than the true, raw human condition and you use personal experiences to get your audience to relate with your outrageous, outlandish and controversial jokes. You are a ball of wit. You have perfect comedic timing and know just which one liners or punchlines to throw into a conversation to get everyone howling with laughter. You appreciate intellectual humor, not just the silly stuff. People with charm and wit are very successful because you win over anyone in the room, and form relationships easily.

You have a cheesy, corny, jokes-that-your-dad-tells sense of humor. You are totally lovable and everyone has fun with you since you are so optimistic and know how to turn any situation into a joke. You may not have the deepest or most intelligent jokes, but your charisma and charm puts a smile on anyone's face.

You have the most absurd sense of humor. Scroll To Start Quiz. Turn into a thousand bats. Do some bossing. Remove the stick. Take a shower. Watch horror movies. Get naked. Their overlord. A fast food menu. A toddler's diet. A free for all. A hot fudge sundae. Sense of style. The middle of the night.