What Makes Something Funny?

[Skeptical Greg]

The recent controversy about the appropriateness of posting jokes in R & P, and when is a joke 'just a joke', got me to thinking about this...

Someone once pointed out, that it is very difficult, as adults, to find something that makes us laugh that does not in someway degrade or ridcule another person ... ( or oneself )...

While childhood seems to have a higher share of spontaneous laughter, the cruel things that make us laugh, get an early kick off with the misfortunes of bungling and mangled cartoon characters..


So, this is a challenge for you to present to us a situation, in which you have found yourself laughing, that could not be tied to the real or imagined misfortune of someone else...


As an example of how this concept can seem to hide it's true nature; someone might quickly point out:

" Clowns make me laugh .. What's cruel or demeaning about clowns ? "

But a little thought, will reveal what a challenge it is to give us an example of a clown, or their performance, that is not a caricature of a disfigured; or a physically or mentally handicapped person...

I know this cruelty or ridicule is not in our ( most of us ) hearts, or conscious thoughts, when we find ourselves laughing; but I thought I would bring up for discussion, the idea that what we usually find funny, is at the expense of someone else's real or imagined misfortune..

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Good question. No one has ever figured out the purpose of humor.

[Ossai]

Humor = Tragedy + Time *

Think of it as a coping mechanism.

You may have a small chuckle over an odd situation but laughter invariably involves tragedy.
As to your clown example, this is from memory, there are a variety of clown types.
The most basic is one that exemplifies a person or small group's deficiencies (deficiencies as viewed from the larger groups perspective) - a tramp clown or the like. Quiet a few clown acts deal with tragedies or tragic.
For a brief rundown of clowns start at the Clown Ministry (http://www.clown-ministry.com/).

Ossai

* I know this is a quote but I don't know from whom.
(edited for *)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I've heard many good jokes that don't involve tragedy or much in the way of degradation, either.

Maybe laughing just evolved as a way of saying "I like what you just did." Or perhaps it's a way of releasing the tension of the cognitive dissonance caused by the joke.

~~ Paul

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I've heard many good jokes that don't involve tragedy or much in the way of degradation, either.



~~ Paul

I hinted at a challenge to provide counter examples.. Care to share?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Diogenes
So, this is a challenge for you to present to us a situation, in which you have found yourself laughing, that could not be tied to the real or imagined misfortune of someone else...The best definition of humor that I've heard is "a safe shock."

A situation comes up that should have a disastrous or predictable outcome, but then doesn't. Squirting someone with seltzer or throwing a pie in their face isn't funny itself; the non-violent reaction of the person targeted is what makes it funny. If the target responded to the squirting by pulling out a gun and killing the squirter, well then there'd be nothing funny about the squirting.

Same with clowns. You see someone that looks grotesque or downtrodden like a clown does, but then you realize that that person really isn't like that, and it's funny. That's also why people like High-Pitched Eric and Beetlejuice on Howard Stern really aren't funny - because they really are that way.

What's funny is imagined misfortune. Why tragedies become funny over time is the realization that the misfortune, to you, is imagined. Helen Keller jokes are funny because you aren't Helen Keller.

This is also why explaining a joke ruins it - if it's not a safe shock to begin with, no amount of explaining will go back in time and make it shocking.

[Skeptical Greg]

Beleth, thanks for the insight..:)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

One of the absolutely most funniest jokes of all time:

http://www.funnyjoke.net/joke/j3361j7.html

It's even better when told by my friend Charles.

~~ Paul

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Plays upon the expectation that men desire sex more than anything else.

Nah, it degrades men. That's why it's funny.

[roger]

A puppy or kitten playing with a ball.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

We're laughing at its clumsiness and lack of effective behavior.

Degrades the competence of little animals.

[roger]

nonsense.

Another one - a little kid jumping up and down clapping their hands at their excitement at a birthday party (or similar).

more - just about any pun (yes, I know a lot of people hate puns).

witty expressions, such as "If horses were vicious, rides would go begging" (Oscar Wilde)

The scene in Woody Allen's movie where one character (the woman), while talking to her therapist, answer's his question about the frequency of sex, replies "All the time. We're always doing it. In the bedroom. In the kitchen. We must do it 3, 4 times a week." Cut to woody in same situation: "Never. We never do it. My god. Probably no more than 3, 4 times a week". (quotes made up from memory by me)

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Children generally aren't funny, unless we're laughing at their lack of knowledge or sophistication.

Puns are highly unpleasant. They certainly don't help your case.

Again, making fun of the idea that men are sex-crazed fools who desire sexual stimulation constantly. Also plays off the idea that women hate sex.

See? All funny is pain.

[roger]

I suppose so, if you twist things that way.

I'll choose not too, thanks.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Wrath said:
Plays upon the expectation that men desire sex more than anything else.

Nah, it degrades men. That's why it's funny.
Huh? The guy is clever enough to get his house painted for $20. Mere expectation is not degradation.

Well, maybe it is. But he showed them!

~~ Paul

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Ah, but we're lead to expect the guy is going to get his tuba polished (if you'll excuse the crudity) for only $20.

The idea that there's something he'd want even more than that is what makes the joke funny.

All funny is pain; yours, or someone else's.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
All funny is pain; yours, or someone else's.
I dont know, some of George Carlin's Short Takes are a gray area:

Test of metal:
* Will of iron
* Nerves of steel
* Heart of gold
* Balls of brass


Kilometers are shorter than miles. Save gas, take your next trip in kilometers


If you mail a letter to the post office, who delivers it?


"On the fritz" is a useful expression only if you're talking about a home appliance. You wouldn't say, "The Space Shuttle is on the fritz." You'd never hear it in a hospital. "Doctor, the heart-lung machine is on the fritz."


Some see the glass as half-empty, some see the glass as half-full. I see the glass as too big.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
All funny is pain; yours, or someone else's. Those who research humor (and there are a few--a former colleague of mine was one) make a distinction between disparagement humor, which is what most examples in this thread have been, and a humor based on the juxtaposition of unexpected elements (exemplified in Freud's Humor and its relation to the unconscious). A clever play on words need not be unkind to any individual or group in order to be funny.

That said, the vast majority of the actual experimental work on humor has examined disparagement humor, in part because it is much easier to look at. And despite Wrath's assertion that no one has figured out the purpose of humor (an odd requirement, unless he means the selective advantage to it, in which case there are a few theories, the dominant one being that it is a social signal of a dominance hierarchy), we do know a bit about gender differences, status differences, some of the "under what conditions is humor employed?" type of questions that science is better at.

Oh, I forgot...there is also a third line of research in humour, one that looks at the physiological correlates. Here, the measurements are most often EEG or other polygraph measures, although one researcher, Ron Shor, invented what he called the "mirthometer" which used strain guages to measure facial expression as his physiological measure (this, of course, ties humor research with that on general emotional expression, which is a pretty cool area itself). Some of the measures are pretty delicate, and are generated by projecting jokes on a screen while the subject is wired up and grounded...not a very "real life" situation, for such a real-life phenomenon. Oddly enough, the humor researcher Shor...committed suicide, shooting himself in his office (and we know that a bullet in the office is fatal) (note, all the elements of a joke, but not funny in the slightest--to me, anyway).

[Atlas]

When I was kid I loved elephant jokes and knock knock jokes.

Images of elephants jumping out of trees or in the fridge leaving footprints in the butter... and the plays on words of the knock knock were smilers if not always laughers.

So absurdity I guess is the term is not always at anyone's expense - But I did like Dr. Strangelove too and they pretty much blew up the world in that one.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Oddly enough, the humor researcher Shor...committed suicide, shooting himself in his office (and we know that a bullet in the office is fatal) (note, all the elements of a joke, but not funny in the slightest--to me, anyway). That is absolutely hilarious.

Your point about plays on words and puns is well taken, but keep in mind that many people find them mildly unpleasant, even painful. Sometimes the pain in the funny is your own.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
That is absolutely hilarious.

Your point about plays on words and puns is well taken, but keep in mind that many people find them mildly unpleasant, even painful. Sometimes the pain in the funny is your own. Many people? Got any numbers? Data? I used to follow humour research closely, but have not in the past couple of years. Have you a survey or something I could look at?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

No, I'm afraid not. I have only my anecdotal experience.

It seems to me that there is a minor but definite cultural tradition that puns are "painful". They're also considered the lowest and least sophisticated form of humor.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Here's a good example of a joke within a joke, and both involve pain of one kind or another: Player vs. Player (http://www.pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=20040413)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
No, I'm afraid not. I have only my anecdotal experience.

It seems to me that there is a minor but definite cultural tradition that puns are "painful". They're also considered the lowest and least sophisticated form of humor. In defence of the pun (http://www.fanac.org/fanzines/Willis_Papers/Defence_Of_The_Pun.html) In the last FAPA mailing but one Harry B. Warner said something so dreadful and I can hardly force my hand to write it down. (Three of my fingers are willing enough, but my thumb and forefinger are opposed.) He said -- Ghod forgive him -- that the pun was " the simplest and lowest form of humour". Comes the next FAPA mailing and I see that Warner is still alive -- by FAPA standards anyway. He has not been struck down. Obviously Simon Salt Peter, patron saint of punsters, has left it to me to warn the Warner, and to prove that the pun is not only the most complex, but the very highest--I might even say the all-highest -- form of humour.
Actually, a pretty nice essay, for those who appreciate the pun.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I can see an argument defending the quality and value of puns, but it seems clear they're among the simplest forms of humor.

Possibly laughter is how our brain reconciles and eliminates cognitive dissonance, which would explain a great deal of Samuel Clemens' beliefs about it. Also why people who believe stupid things tend not the have a sense of humor about them.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
I can see an argument defending the quality and value of puns, but it seems clear they're among the simplest forms of humor.
"seems clear"? I will assume that this is once again your opinion, and you have already made it clear that you find puns "highly unpleasant". Puns may be simple, of course, but they may also be extremely sophisticated. I don't much care for Freud, but some of his analyses of puns demonstrate how complex some puns are. Puns are, quite simply, a different form of humor than disparagement; to lump all puns together as "simple", or "complex", or "painful" or any one thing would be foolish.

But then, I am biased; Shakespeare was extraordinarily fond of puns, and gave them to characters from kings to fools...

Possibly laughter is how our brain reconciles and eliminates cognitive dissonance, which would explain a great deal of Samuel Clemens' beliefs about it. Also why people who believe stupid things tend not the have a sense of humor about them. Are you using "cognitive dissonance" colloquially? Certainly, Festinger's term would have to be stretched almost to the breaking point to fit your first sentence here. Or, of course, you could be refering to a use I have not seen in the literature.

Also...once more, is this your personal experience about "people who believe stupid things" and a lack of sense of humor? Or could you point me to a source? My own personal experience offers many counter-examples, but I am always willing to admit I am wrong in the face of evidence. It just seems that your statement is more parsimoniously explained by simply seeing that it is you who define both "people who believe stupid things" and "people with no sense of humor". Again, unless you can show me a study; I know that there have been studies of intelligence and humor, but I am not aware that any have found what you say.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
I can see an argument defending the quality and value of puns, but it seems clear they're among the simplest forms of humor.
Hmmm....this is a very interesting statement, now that I think on it a bit. Which is simpler, a pun, or a guy slipping on a banana peel? (The latter as, arguably, the distillation of disparagement humor and laughing at another's pain)

What makes a put-down (and I do appreciate a good put-down) more sophisticated than a pun? Or are you speaking of the quality of the disparagement, rather than its function?

I rather like the question...

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Not quality in terms of value or worth, no. But I can't shake the feeling that the aspect of puns that make them funny is a very basic and fundamental one.

We have some reason to believe that humor is a very "primitive" function of the brain, as serious brain injuries that negatively impact higher functions are known to frequently leave the "sense of humor" unaffected.

Perhaps puns are extremely simple examples of the type of cognitive contradiction or conflict that induces humor? (Not in the degree of thought put into them, but in their mechanism of action.)

Asimov went through great lengths to write a short story involving a criminal who stole a time machine and went into the future until the penalty for his crime expired. He explained the arguments from both the defense and the prosecution, and had the judge return the following verdict:

"A niche in time saves Stein."

Very, very clever lead-up, but the pun itself is a transposition that leads to a coherent sentence. It's basic, simple even, although the framework necessary to understand it was quite complex.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Not quality in terms of value or worth, no. But I can't shake the feeling that the aspect of puns that make them funny is a very basic and fundamental one.
Hmmm....why would something basic and fundamental to our nature be something that you find "highly unpleasant", and yet is also something we tend to seek out? (just thinking out loud, not trying to make a point)

We have some reason to believe that humor is a very "primitive" function of the brain, as serious brain injuries that negatively impact higher functions are known to frequently leave the "sense of humor" unaffected.
any sources on this? (for the record, I am not trying to hoyt you to death with this; it honestly is an area of interest, so if you have sources, I am interested in seeing them)

Perhaps puns are extremely simple examples of the type of cognitive contradiction or conflict that induces humor? (Not in the degree of thought put into them, but in their mechanism of action.)
A reasonable hypothesis. Makes me wonder if there might not be two completely different humour mechanisms, for the pun/cognitive conflict type and for the disparagement/social dominance type...or perhaps if two mechanisms piggyback some of the brain hardware....I gotta get back into that literature, that's what I gotta do...

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Sources? No, not that I can remember. I have seen it - and in discussions about people who have suffered serious brain injury, I've heard it mentioned that humor didn't change although cognitive capacity did.

I'll go take a look around, see what I can find.

And then there's tickling, which many people perceive as highly unpleasant, yet makes us laugh.

Peculiar, no?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
And then there's tickling, which many people perceive as highly unpleasant, yet makes us laugh.

Peculiar, no? I've seen some neat evolutionary biology explanations for tickling...but I don't remember enough to speak on it without checking first.

Yeah, the difference between what we label as unpleasant and what we approach or avoid is an interesting problem (why do we feel the need to stick the tongue into the tooth-socket after losing a tooth?); it is the reason, for example, that reinforcement is defined by its consequences rather than by some feeling of pleasantness or some such. When we choose to ignore the specific scientific vocabulary that a given research area has developed, it can easily lead to misunderstandings. In this case, for instance...if we colloquially link laughter and pleasantness, and link pleasantness with reward or reinforcement (again, colloquially), then an aversive event that makes us laugh is problematic. Only when we recognise that the subjective feelings and the behaviors are not necessarily causally linked (that is, the feelings causing the behaviors) can we start to make sense of the seeming conundrum.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Ossai
Humor = Tragedy + Time *

...

* I know this is a quote but I don't know from whom.


"Comedy is tragedy plus time "
- Carol Burnett

"Humor is tragedy plus
time".
- Mark Twain (Maybe)

"Satire is tragedy plus time. "
- Lenny Bruce

[triadboy]

I've always enjoyed monkeys wearing human clothing.

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=barmonkey.wmv

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Puns may be simple, of course, but they may also be extremely sophisticated.

A wealthy Texan cattle rancher split his ranch in two and gave one of the parts to his two children, Jack and Bill. He named the part he gave to them "The Focus Ranch." Why?

Because it's where the sons raise meat.




(That is the most sophisticated pun I know of. Three homophones in a row.)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Beleth

Because it's where the sons raise meat.
:D :D :D

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Beleth, you shall die a terrible, terrible death.

[evildave]

I have a beef with that pun... as the groan grows. It's real PUNishment.

For me, the sort of Humor that seems to be funniest when it has a component that is truth, or at least like enough to truth.

Usually when it exposes a new way to perceive something in an absurd way.

Generally, if you know it's false, or have had that perception already, the joke falls flat.

If it's some new way of seeing something that makes that absurd connection, it seems to become humor.

Something that has been loaded with absurd social pressure or emotion is usually the "funniest", for having a lot of different, but "forbidden" ways to think about it. It's why religion tends to be funny.

Now the following jokes may or may not be funny, yet, given the tragedy+time figure. These are examples of tragedy+time for most, but some found them funny shortly after the events. Forbidden, and emotionally loaded. They're 9/11/WTC based, so don't go if you think you'll be offended... because you almost certainly will be.
http://www.temple.edu/isllc/newfolk/bigapple/bigappleappa.html

Challenger/Columbia jokes...
http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/88q3/16840.12.html

The really 'awful' thing is, people are more inclined to forgive a horrible disaster joke than a cheesy pun... what's with that Mr. Peabody?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

To paraphrase Mel Brooks:

"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall down a manhole and die."

[sorgoth]

Originally posted by Beleth


A wealthy Texan cattle rancher split his ranch in two and gave one of the parts to his two children, Jack and Bill. He named the part he gave to them "The Focus Ranch." Why?

Because it's where the sons raise meat.


That took me a while to figure out, but it's a good one...

I'm pretty sure there's no pain in that joke, yet it made me laugh.

[c4ts]

What makes something funny?

Black & white drawings with strong Christian messages.

This summer, I'm going to make a movie based on Dark Dungeons. Don't worry, it's a parody, but then again, I think the original is also a parody.

[epepke]

Originally posted by evildave


"Comedy is tragedy plus time "
- Carol Burnett

"Humor is tragedy plus
time".
- Mark Twain (Maybe)

"Satire is tragedy plus time. "
- Lenny Bruce

"The world is a tragedy to those who feel but a comedy to those who think." -Horace Walpole

"Those who both feel and think have to have a sick sense of humor." -Me

[Dorian Gray]

Also why people who believe stupid things tend not the have a sense of humor about them. Interesting that you don't find puns funny, and you say that.

I think that the cliched puns are reflexive and simple, but that it takes a sophisticated level of intelligence to construct a good and new pun. Puns that are spontaneous are funny as well:

I had a girlfriend that swore she would never touch beer unless it came from a bottle. I said 'How uncanny!'

Not all humor involves pain, but if it doesn't, it involves something unexpected. Here's one with both:
What's the difference between Neil Armstrong and Michael Jackson? Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, but Michael Jackson molests little boys.

The unexpected humor often involves stream-of-consciousness delivery, like Stephen Wright's:
I bought some batteries, but they weren't included, so I had to buy them again.
And Jack Handey's:
It takes a big man to admit he's wrong, but it takes an even bigger man to laugh at that man.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Not all humor involves pain, but if it doesn't, it involves something unexpected. Here's one with both:
What's the difference between Neil Armstrong and Michael Jackson? Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, but Michael Jackson molests little boys.

The unexpected humor often involves stream-of-consciousness delivery, like Stephen Wright's:
I bought some batteries, but they weren't included, so I had to buy them again.
And Jack Handey's:
It takes a big man to admit he's wrong, but it takes an even bigger man to laugh at that man.

I tend to like jokes that go like this:

Q: How many Dadaists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Fish!

Q: How is an elephant like a grape?
A: They're both purple, except for the elephant.

A priest, a rabbi, and a string walk into a bar. The bartender says, "What is this, some kind of a joke?"

However, all of these can be force-fit into the making-fun-of category, by declaring "joke-tellers" the category that is made fun of. Maneuvers like this seem to make it tautological to claim that all humor is based on discomfiting someone, real or imagined.

I would say that the sine qua non of humor is irreducible cognitive dissonance, and that humor is a reaction that involves giving up on trying to reduce the cognitive dissonance.

[epepke]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by epepke
[B]

I tend to like jokes that go like this:

Q: How many Dadaists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Fish!

Q: How is an elephant like a grape?
A: They're both purple, except for the elephant.

A priest, a rabbi, and a string walk into a bar. The bartender says, "What is this, some kind of a joke?"

Q: What do you get if you cross an elephant with a grape?
A: Elephant * grape * sin theta.

However, all of these can be force-fit into the making-fun-of category, by declaring "joke-tellers" the category that is made fun of. Maneuvers like this seem to make it tautological to claim that all humor is based on discomfiting someone, real or imagined.

I would say that the sine qua non of humor is irreducible cognitive dissonance, and that humor is a reaction that involves giving up on trying to reduce the cognitive dissonance.

Edited to add: Of course, I could probably force-fit this explanation as easily.

[TwoShanks]

A joke I found amusing:

Q: What's the difference between a ferrari and a pile of dead babies?

A: There's no ferrari in my garage.

[Christian]

There are only five reasons why a joke is funny, and only five.

1. Because it is a pun
2. Because it is an exageration (big or small)
3. Because it is out of place (silly or ridiculous)
4. Because it is unexpected
5. Because it is a put down

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Christian
There are only five reasons why a joke is funny, and only five.

1. Because it is a pun
2. Because it is an exageration (big or small)
3. Because it is out of place (silly or ridiculous)
4. Because it is unexpected
5. Because it is a put down
Many things that are not funny also meet some of these criteria.

[stamenflicker]

This is an interesting topic... I tend to think about words and our understanding of them by figuring out what their opposite is-- most things have a good antithesis. But the opposite of funny is ????

1) Sad? No, the opposite of sad is "Happy"
2) Dull? Not really-- a better binary would be "lively" or something along those lines.
3) Boring? Can't go there either-- "Stimulating would be an appropriate opposite.
4) "Not funny, humorless, et. al." That is hardly an acceptable concept. It's like saying something is "not red." It tells us something, but not much at all.

What kind of things are descriptors without solid opposites? Colors, shapes, ????

Is the opposite of funny -- tragic or pain? I just don't know. Looking for feedback.

BTW-- I prefer puns too and humor that involves a language twist. Like:

Why is a man who invests all your money called a "broker?"

Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations?

I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure that's true.

I once had a psyhic girlfriend but she broke up with me before we met.

You get the idea...;)

Flick

[Suezoled]

A white dog jumped into a mud puddle!

That, my friend, is a dirty joke.

[Ladewig]

"Comedy is tragedy plus time "
- Carol Burnett

"Humor is tragedy plus
time".
- Mark Twain (Maybe)

"Satire is tragedy plus time. "
- Lenny Bruce

Johnny Carson got a lot of mileage from the definition. He'd tell Abraham Lincoln assassination jokes and when the audience reacted poorly, he'd turn to Ed and say, "make a note, Ed, it's too soon for Lincoln jokes."

As for the clowns, I laugh when they all get out of that little car, but I don't think that is degrading.

[Christian]

Originally posted by aerosolben

Many things that are not funny also meet some of these criteria.

True, but if it is funny it meets at least one of them.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Christian
There are only five reasons why a joke is funny, and only five.

1. Because it is a pun
2. Because it is an exageration (big or small)
3. Because it is out of place (silly or ridiculous)
4. Because it is unexpected
5. Because it is a put down

2 men walk into a bar. the 3rd one ducks.

[EGarrett]

Great jokes here.

Here's something else to consider that might help us understand humor...

Why is it so incredibly insulting when someone laughs at your personal misfortune?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Christian
There are only five reasons why a joke is funny, and only five.

1. Because it is a pun
2. Because it is an exageration (big or small)
3. Because it is out of place (silly or ridiculous)
4. Because it is unexpected
5. Because it is a put down The last time we got a blanket statement like this on this thread, it was Wrath with "all funny is pain". This turned out to be his personal opinion, based on his admittedly biased personal experience. So...Christian...would you like to trot out your evidence or sources for this? Would you like to add a simple "in my opinion" to the beginning of it? Or are you speaking ex cathedra?

#1 may be covered by 3 or 4.
#2 may be covered by 3 or 4.
#3 seems that it must be covered by 4.

Your analysis also does not tell us what sort of exaggeration (#2) will be funny. It does not tell us what aspects, if out of place (#3), would be funny. It does not define unexpected (#4). It certainly does not explain why Wrath is pained by puns, whereas I enjoy them.

Your claim is, in my opinion, a pretty decent place to start looking at humor. It is not a place where we can claim this, and only this makes something funny.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Christian

True, but if it is funny it meets at least one of them. Arguably (thus, the importance of operational definitions) the shaggy dog story does not fit any of these. Could you force it to fit? Probably...but only to the extent that the rules are non-falsifiable.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

It's a very old problem.

I can think of many things that are out of place without being funny, as well as things that are unexpected without being funny. So while those traits might be associated with humor, they can't explain humor.

The only constant attribute I can identify is that humorous situations must make us uncomfortable in some way.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
The only constant attribute I can identify is that humorous situations must make us uncomfortable in some way.

I wouldn't say it was a constant. I might suggest that in some cases a humorous situation makes us feel good because we're in a group of people laughing at the same thing. It gives us a nice social feeling.

If you watch a comedian on stage with just you in the audience, you may well laugh at his jokes. With an audience, you will tend to laugh all the more - the audience sort of eggs each other on.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
The only constant attribute I can identify is that humorous situations must make us uncomfortable in some way. To me, the biggest question of humor is "why these individual differences?" You don't like puns (or more precisely, find them painful), I love them. My sister loathes disparagement humor, but considers herself to have a very good sense of humor ("those things just aren't funny; they're mean!"....and btw, why is it that a solid majority of individuals report themselves as having a better-than-average sense of humor? In my classes, as many as 80% have claimed a better-than-average sense of humor, in anonymous surveys.) Some people love the Stooges, others hate them. Some "just don't get" Monty Python, or Lenny Bruce, or Jim Carrey, or...the list goes on, of course.

I designed a study (never ran it, sadly) that used the humor cue of limerick form to test inappropriate humor (as in "that's not funny, that's sick"), another to look at unexpected juxtapositions (e.g., Monty Python's "oh, molluscs! I thought you said bacon!") which, I would argue, don't involve discomfort in any way. (I suppose one could shoehorn a discomfort explanation to it...but I would have to be convinced.) In both cases, my own personal interest was in what sort of variability we would get between subjects...in other words...are there any truly universally funny things?

BTW--good point, RichardM; there has been quite a bit of study on the social facilitation of laughter, and of course comedians have known and exploited this effect very nicely...

[Christian]

Originally posted by Mercutio
The last time we got a blanket statement like this on this thread, it was Wrath with "all funny is pain". This turned out to be his personal opinion, based on his admittedly biased personal experience. So...Christian...would you like to trot out your evidence or sources for this? Would you like to add a simple "in my opinion" to the beginning of it? Or are you speaking ex cathedra?

#1 may be covered by 3 or 4.
#2 may be covered by 3 or 4.
#3 seems that it must be covered by 4.

Your analysis also does not tell us what sort of exaggeration (#2) will be funny. It does not tell us what aspects, if out of place (#3), would be funny. It does not define unexpected (#4). It certainly does not explain why Wrath is pained by puns, whereas I enjoy them.

Your claim is, in my opinion, a pretty decent place to start looking at humor. It is not a place where we can claim this, and only this makes something funny.



Tell you what. Why don't you roll out any joke and I will show you how it has to be one of those categories?

I claim these are the only reasons. It's going to be fun to if I'm proven wrong.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Arguably (thus, the importance of operational definitions) the shaggy dog story does not fit any of these. Could you force it to fit? Probably...but only to the extent that the rules are non-falsifiable.

Sorry, can you tell me the shaggy dog story? Was that joke posted before?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

To what degree does the average person perceive cognitive dissonance as unpleasant?

I suppose it could be the case that all humor is dissonance and most dissonance is unpleasant, so that most humor involves unpleasantness but is not necessarily unpleasant...

There are people who love eating "hot" pepppers, although the most obvious consequence of eating such foods is painful burning sensations. Do they find eating peppers pleasant or unpleasant?

Even unpleasant things can be reinforcing.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Christian


Sorry, can you tell me the shaggy dog story? Was that joke posted before? Shaggy Dog Story archive. (http://www.awpi.com/Combs/Shaggy/) The point of a shaggy dog story is its lack of punchline (if iI may oversimplify a bit). My joke in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39456) is a shaggy dog story.

So...we are expecting a punch line--something unexpected. And we get something that is not a punch line--something that just sorta fits with the story...ends it, but is not a real "punch line" at all. For your theory to work, you would have to claim that it was unexpected after all, because we were expecting the unexpected, but got what we expected instead, which we did not expect. In other words (please!), if this is the sort of explanation that makes "unexpectedness" fit all jokes, then it is unfalsifiable! If something can be unexpected because it is not the expected unexpected, then we can fit anything to an "unexpected" model.

[Skeptical Greg]

So, in other words, does that mean the Shaggy Dog Story is funny because it's not funny?

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by Beleth


A wealthy Texan cattle rancher split his ranch in two and gave one of the parts to his two children, Jack and Bill. He named the part he gave to them "The Focus Ranch." Why?

Because it's where the sons raise meat.

(That is the most sophisticated pun I know of. Three homophones in a row.)
That's a good one. I love word-play humor (and not all word-play is puns) I don't think I can top yours, but here's one with two homophones together:

Confucius say, oral sex can make one's day,
but anal sex can make one's whole week.

Then there's the whole Dicken's Cider routine.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Diogenes
So, in other words, does that mean the Shaggy Dog Story is funny because it's not funny? Isn't that what I said?

:D :p :D

Brevity may be the soul of wit, but I have never claimed to have a soul.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

But aren't they only funny because the design of the story leads you up to an anticipated ending, and then gives another that is consistent yet surprising?

A randomly-chosen ending isn't amusing at all.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Shaggy Dog Story archive. (http://www.awpi.com/Combs/Shaggy/) The point of a shaggy dog story is its lack of punchline (if iI may oversimplify a bit). My joke in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39456) is a shaggy dog story.

So...we are expecting a punch line--something unexpected. And we get something that is not a punch line--something that just sorta fits with the story...ends it, but is not a real "punch line" at all. For your theory to work, you would have to claim that it was unexpected after all, because we were expecting the unexpected, but got what we expected instead, which we did not expect. In other words (please!), if this is the sort of explanation that makes "unexpectedness" fit all jokes, then it is unfalsifiable! If something can be unexpected because it is not the expected unexpected, then we can fit anything to an "unexpected" model.

Very interesting. It is a genre. I have learned something new today about english colloquialism. Thanks, thanks. In Latin America we don't have a term for those jokes. (we say they are either good long jokes or bad ones, for the bad ones people get booooo's)

Ok, I would argue that anyone can construct a Shaggy Dog Story, but the ones that will actually make us laugh will be under the category of unexpected punch line.

Remember, the categories that I presented are of those jokes that make us laugh.

So, a Shaggy Dog Story that was not funny to us was because it was not unexpected. If it was, it was because it was unexpected. And, also, it could be funny because of the any (or combination) of the other 4.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
But aren't they only funny because the design of the story leads you up to an anticipated ending, and then gives another that is consistent yet surprising?

A randomly-chosen ending isn't amusing at all.

But in these cases, the teller finds ( perhaps ) it amusing to watch the listener squirm..

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Christian


Remember, the categories that I presented are of those jokes that make us laugh.

So, a Shaggy Dog Story that was not funny to us was because it was not unexpected. If it was, it was because it was unexpected. And, also, it could be funny because of the any (or combination) of the other 4. Could you please tell me how this is not circularly defined? It seems to me (but I am not running on all cylinders right now) that you take the funny ones, say that they must have been unexpected, and then say that it was the unexpectedness that caused the humour. This is circularity. I suggest that your categories would be better if they were falsifiable; as is, you are willing (it appears) to shoehorn anything that is funny into one of the categories a posteriori.

Oh, and...glad to introduce you to the Shaggy Dog Story genre. The best I ever heard was from a Maine comedian who calls himself "the humble farmer". He told a story (on public radio) that went on for 15 minutes...I told it to my brother, and he actually hit me!
The Humbe Farmer (http://thehumblefarmer.com/index.html)
edited to add link

[evildave]

Then there's always the focus of this topic....

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39913

[Christian]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Could you please tell me how this is not circularly defined? It seems to me (but I am not running on all cylinders right now) that you take the funny ones, say that they must have been unexpected, and then say that it was the unexpectedness that caused the humour. This is circularity. I suggest that your categories would be better if they were falsifiable; as is, you are willing (it appears) to shoehorn anything that is funny into one of the categories a posteriori.


I know it sounds circular but it really isn't. But I don't know how to show you, other than with specific examples.

I do think my categories are falsifiable.

Let me explain what the category of unexpected looks like. The anatomy of the unexpected.

It is like a train that is going a particular direction and (the analogy is perfect because we think we know where the train is going, it is going where ever the tracks lead it) suddenly it is derailed.

What makes the joke funny is the WHERE the derailment takes us. It is place we did not think it was going to take us. The minute we can completely anticipate where the joke is going to go (where the train is going), then it can't be funny.

Now the Shaggy Dog gerne is has exactly that construction. But, the main characteristic is that it is long and because we know that a story that is meant as a joke must have an unexpected ending, we (conciously or unconciously) are trying to figure out what it will be (where it will go). I submit to you that if we guess correctly, then the joke is not funny.

If we don't guess correctly and the punch line takes us (and remember, this is a subjective appreciation [the subject, the listener has to think that it took him/her to an refreshing unexpected place]) to an unexpected place, then it will be funny.

Maybe, the way to prove this, would be to ask the listener if he/she could have guessed the ending and if he/she thought the ending was clever (or something like that)

Oh, and...glad to introduce you to the Shaggy Dog Story genre. The best I ever heard was from a Maine comedian who calls himself "the humble farmer". He told a story (on public radio) that went on for 15 minutes...I told it to my brother, and he actually hit me!
The Humbe Farmer (http://thehumblefarmer.com/index.html)

:D :D :D


Listen, let me construct the train for you.

An Arab merchant walks into a bar. He asks the bartender for a beer.

The bartener hands over the beer, and the merchant takes the first sip.

He lifts the glass one more time and takes another sip.

He puts the glass down.

A fly is whirling around, dives into the glass and takes a sip of the beer.

With lighting speed, with one hand, the arab merchant grabs the fly by the wings, putting it straight above the glass. And with the other hand begins to hit it on the back yelling:

SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT.


Now, this joke will only be funny of the ending was unexpected (and it was a smart [ingenious] place to go)