Response to Whit's lead blog

This one is really funny and it caught my attention when Bruno Mars started singing. I never thought he is so talented that can imitate so many voices of famous singers. There are two reasons why I laugh so hard.

First of all, due to the superiority theory, people will laugh when they observe ones' disadvantages, and those singers are perfect target to laugh without feeling bad. The popularity of songs ensures audiences know exactly what the differences and similarity between these two versions so that they can easily get the point. He not only did a good job on the voices but also make a lot of fun by exaggerating those singers' typical facial expressions or movements. When Bruno Mars sang Justin Bieber's song, he acted showily which perfectly stress the Justin Bieber's character and people laugh it like laugh at a popular "secret".

Second of all, some of the characteristics he showed are knew by audiences unconsciously. Sometimes, people will ignore the imperfections of the celebrities because they are much better than ourselves and we do not think we have ability to judge. However, when listening Bruno Mars' performances, we are not only laugh but also share his professional point of view about those singers. Because of his popularity, people can laugh without thinking about if it is wrong and feel like they are judging from a professional perspective. This gave audiences opportunities to look down to those famous people and feel superior.

Moreover, the plot is super simple but also necessary, because it is that connect all the parts together without feeling awkward by singing different songs randomly.

Response to Charlotte's blog

This blog is so thoroughly that almost covers everything I want to say. However, even after reading analysis for several times, I was still impressed by his new perspective on marriage proposal. 

I never think about why we should marry before, because this is a significant affair I knew from little and was asked to obey in my life. We are supposed to adapt the society by following the rules and sacrifice part of freedom. The so-called regulation is not always reasonable, but efficient. In order to establish good order in society, government must deal with the basic needs for human's nature. For example, one's sexual desire is necessary for human reproduction which will ensure we have enough labor force to work and develop. However, if we do not control this natural desire, social problems, such as excess population, orphans, chaotic relationship will appear. Therefore, in order to make better and peaceful life, the society decides to limit people's desire by doing some silly arrangements. Once we set up rules of marriage, the basic structure "Family"is created. In this small group, children can be took care by their parents and parent have responsibility to satisfy children's need of education and surviving. This small unit divides society into small part that everyone can be cared and controlled. 

If we do not have the regulation for human's behaviors, the society may not be formed, and the whole environment cannot be developed. Therefore, after thinking about this rule controlled human, I start to understand the meaning of weigh up the pros and cons. Sometimes, it is more worth to give up than obtain.

Response to Nick's blog

I do like the point that John is using comedy as a way to make people listen, which shows that comedy can not only make people laugh but also gathers people attention about something serious.

Sometimes, I questioned the way the social media filter the information, should they pick the ones interested to audiences or the ones really matter to the society but maybe less attractive to viewers. Considering the audience rating, if they pick the ones that more attractive to audiences, they may gain a lot of economic benefit by ignoring the truly important dull information. However, after watching this show, I know we do have a way to spread news without decreasing its audience rating, which is using comedy. In my opinion, the charm of this show is that it uses comedy as a tool to attract more people, including the audiences who care less but just like John Stewart, to see the news. John can make news became lively and easy to understand, just like watching cartoon. In this way, people can not only learn the new but also have a good time, just like learning while playing. If this strategy is used properly, news will not be too dull to watch, and the process to view news will become meaningful and benevolent to society.

Response to Parker's lead blog

The Office is different from the other American TV series I watched before, because it creates funny atmosphere by Michael's absurd thinking pattern, not just the words he said. For instance, he questioned if he should saved this person because the dummy has on arm and legs. It seems like he was too serious to distinguish the dummy and a real person, and even has emotion with a dummy. This makes me feel like he is serious and a little bit cute. However, the behavior he did next denies my previous knowledge about him. He found it hard to pump in the right way, so he started to pump to the beat of the song and then singing more and more excited. He already changed his focus from saving the dummy to sing a song in the funny way which make me feel like he is not as cute as I imagine. He is not serious to this dummy at all and all he wanted to do is using the dummy to make fun. Here is the scene similar with it showed in my head, a child, who fancies about her doll very much, twists its neck after finding out it cannot play with her like a real friend. The contrast of the lovely little girl and her behavior makes her seems queer and little laughable. In this way, I found more absurdity than laugh in The Office. I would feel much funnier if  he is not intend to make fun but do ridiculous things unconsciously.

Superiority theory

Superiority theory claims that the reason why people laugh is because they found out disadvantages or defects of others. However, it sometimes seems distorted when we thinking about laughing at a beggar or make fun of disabled people. People usually will not deride the ones who have genuine difficulties in their life, but the ones who have difficulties temperately. For example, <Running Man>, an entertainment programme in China and Korea, is famous for its weird and funny games and its all-star cast. None of stars can keep their perfect image on this programme. In the game, their is no preparation, no time to think, and even no make-up. All the thing they need is won the game by luck, wise or strengths. So, here is the question, why popular stars so eager to join this programme even if they know they might be embarrassed by it? Could this programme show their advantages? -Yes, if they think they are wiser or stronger than others, but most of people will not think so. Could it help them get better image? -Absolutely not if we are talking about appearances, because most of people cannot make up or wear gorgeous clothes on it. However, is it possible that people join this programme is simply want themselves to look "bad" or be closer to populace?


In my opinion, showing their imperfections will help them gain more popularity. After creating their so many perfect figures on the screen, the marginal utility of being perfect idol decreases; moreover, many fans will start to question their authenticity of being so perfect. Therefore, the most effective and cleverest way to gain more popularity is being more likely to common people, who are imperfection and have less beautiful outfit. In this way, being embarrassed and teased to make people laugh at this point is not that embarrassing, and the outcome of being in a inferior situation is not that hurtful for their position.


In conclusion, superiority theory sometimes will not hurt the targets, but actually benefit them for showing their imperfections.