• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What Makes Something Funny?

Wrath of the Swarm said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
In defence of the pun
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, a pretty nice essay, for those who appreciate the pun.
 
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.
 
Wrath of the Swarm said:
I can see an argument defending the quality and value of puns, but it seems clear they're among the simplest forms of humor.
Click to expand...
"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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Wrath of the Swarm said:
I can see an argument defending the quality and value of puns, but it seems clear they're among the simplest forms of humor.
Click to expand...
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...
 
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.
 
Wrath of the Swarm said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.)
Click to expand...
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...
 
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?
 
Wrath of the Swarm said:
And then there's tickling, which many people perceive as highly unpleasant, yet makes us laugh.

Peculiar, no?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ossai said:
Humor = Tragedy + Time *

...

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

"Comedy is tragedy plus time "
- Carol Burnett

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

"Satire is tragedy plus time. "
- Lenny Bruce
 
Mercutio said:
Puns may be simple, of course, but they may also be extremely sophisticated.
Click to expand...

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.)
 
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?
 
Beleth said:


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom