GENIUS FORUMS

Sher,

That one was David's proposition. I have responded to quite a few threads, and going along with other peoples' hypotheticals is simply part of discussion. I also participated in Ryan's future communities of sages being attacked by future communities of Christians thread. Again, not my hypothetical. Furthermore, three hypotheticals out of 1700+ posts is not exactly noteworthy.
.

Carl G wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:Give me an example of humor that is not based on laughing at a percieved human weakness.

What time is it when an elephant sits on a fence?

Time to get a new fence.

This one involves the destruction of human property, where an oversized animal is causing misfortune to another human being. Somebody is the loser here, getting thwarted by an elephant. That's partly why it's funny.

Another dimension to the joke is based on cleverness. The relationship between the question and the punchline create sort of a sense of wittiness, that depends on acknowledging human deficiency, not being clever. The cleverness of the joke gives a sensation of progressing cleverly away from the slight bewilderment that the joke sort of sets up. So, the amusement comes because you recognize that you are 'in the know', and thus, like a winner, you progress away from being confused by the conditions of the joke, and that leaves you free to enjoy an elephant destroying human property.

Horse goes into a tavern, sidles up to the bar. Bartender says, "Why the long face?"

This one involves the generic human phenomena of going to the bar in sadness/depression. So there's a human weakness.

And like the first joke, the question being asked creates a momentary confusion that, when resolved, gives a sensation of progressing away from the absurdity of the question. So the stupidity of the bar tenders question is partly what makes this joke amusing as well. And you're amused because you 'are in the know' in regards to how silly it is. You are above that sort of thing - that's why you laugh.

You also laugh because of the eccentricity of a horse doing something human. Our competitve instinct is to sometimes laugh out of malice when we are faced with too much deviation from the norm.

Consider the following:

I once witnessed a catepillar fall into a pool of water where there were water skippers. The water skippers started attacking the caterpillar. You see, that's the competitive drive latent in organisms that despises too much variation and desires uniformity.

Humans are like these water-skippers, but instead of attacking, we sometimes just laugh.

Duck goes into a pharmacy asks for chapstick, and says, "Could you put this on my bill?"

This one, in part, involves laughing at animals trying to do human activities, so it taps into that same drive where we laugh in response to too much variation. The horse in the bar, and the duck in the pharmacy, is like the caterpillar that fell into the pool of waterskippers. So the joke taps into our competitive drive for uniformity.

Also, because animals are elevated to a position where they can try to do human things, humans are made to seem more deficient as well. But part of the joke involves laughing at the stupidity of the duck. I should have mentioned that humor can involve laughing at the deficiencies in animals, especially when they try to be human. The stupidity of a duck trying to put chap stick on is one thing, and asking to pay for it with his bill is another. Then there is the moment of understanding the joke and thus progressing away from the bewilderment of not understanding it - this contributes to the effect of the joke. So the amusement comes from acknowledging the stupidity of the duck, and also from being clever, progressing away from stupidity, by acknowledging the play on words. These jokes give a sensation of being part of wittiness, as they also instill a moment of bewilderment.

There's alot going on in these jokes.

Cory,

You’re analysis of Carl’s jokes maybe a little too deep for how the jokes actually register in the human psyche, the main reason as to why his examples are funny to people is merely the play on words.

Carl’s point is that puns are an example of a type of humor that doesn’t fit into your analysis.

Another type of humor that doesn’t fit into your analysis is how many humans find certain words funny just by their sound alone.

Some people find sexual jokes funny because they are forced to imagine something absurd, and it surprises them, they are suddenly shocked by the imagery that has been caused into their consciousness. When humans are shocked, they laugh.

While I agree that the winner/loser duality combined with sadism/masochism duality explains most of the humor that exists, it doesn’t explain all instances of humor.

Moreover, upon reading the above post, I was rather intrigued by how adamant you were in defending your analysis against Carl’s exceptions.

Hey Ryan

Well, I was amused by how far I was stretching it in the last post there - but then again, I was suprised that I managed to preserve the underlying principles that I've been arguing for so far in this thread.

I'm not convinced that my analysis of Carl's jokes was taking it too far, although I'm open minded to the possibility that I did.

I'd like to here your response to the following:

Ryan wrote:the main reason as to why his examples are funny to people is merely the play on words.

But that's just like saying: "the main reason they laughed was because the man sincerely confessed that he had sex with a horse"

What is your underlying explanation for why 'a play on words' is funny?

Ryan wrote: Carl’s point is that puns are an example of a type of humor that doesn’t fit into your analysis.

Well what is the underlying reason for why it's funny? There must be a reason.

Ryan wrote: Another type of humor that doesn’t fit into your analysis is how many humans find certain words funny just by their sound alone.

In my experience, words that people find funny sound really childish and silly. They are laughing at the feebleness and ecentricity, as well as enjoying a certain sense of bonding, which can trigger laughter simply because isolation is for losers, and those who bond, win and laugh.

Some people find sexual jokes funny because they are forced to imagine something absurd, and it surprises them, they are suddenly shocked by the imagery that has been caused into their consciousness. When humans are shocked, they laugh.

I think people laugh at sex because winners are in control and have restraint, where sex regulates people down to mere animals without any control. People are shocked and laugh at what they think is weak.

Cory,

What is your underlying explanation for why 'a play on words' is funny?

With a pun, there is a dual meaning that works in two different situations simultaneously, and when the mind experiences this realization, there is laughter.

In my experience, words that people find funny sound really childish and silly. They are laughing at the feebleness and ecentricity, as well as enjoying a certain sense of bonding, which can trigger laughter simply because isolation is for losers, and those who bond, win and laugh.

My point is that the word itself sounds funny just by the sound alone, independent of a speaker, so there isn’t really a loser, so I’m not sadistically poking fun of anyone in particular.

I think people laugh at sex because winners are in control and have restraint, where sex regulates people down to mere animals without any control. People are shocked and laugh at what they think is weak.

I’m not sure, many of the students in my classes that laugh at sexual humor actually value sex, meaning they think of it as an important part of their life. It is almost as if they are shocked by such vivid imagery being talked about in an academic atmosphere, as they feel sexual humor is a private affair. The are shocked, as they didn’t expect it to be talked about in the place it is.

Promiscuous guys that share sex stories are quite different. They are laughing for many reasons simultaneously. They are laughing due to the accomplishment, so there is a sense of being a winner. They are also laughing based on whatever bizarre events have transpired in the experience itself, whether it was something odd or absurd. Guys also laugh because they enjoy reveling in the idea of being a loser, the enjoy boasting about how dirty and low their existence has become.

So a guy that shares sex stories tricks himself into believing he is both the winner and loser simultaneously. During the story, he is both exalted and deprecated.

Ryan R wrote:Cory,

cory wrote:What is your underlying explanation for why 'a play on words' is funny?

With a pun, there is a dual meaning that works in two different situations simultaneously, and when the mind experiences this realization, there is laughter.

I think the laughing results from acknowledging a mistake, glitch or blooper in reality - so with puns or play on words, we are laughing at the deficiency of language, sadistically, but we're also being masochistic in the sense that it is us who is generating this glitch inadvertently. My theory here, is that laughter cannot emerge unless some sort of duality is set up.

Before there can be laughter, right and wrong have to not only be established, but the mind must also get emotionally invested in what is right and thus, when there is wrong, laughter results. Its a very subtle sadism/masochism.

Ryan R wrote:

cory wrote: In my experience, words that people find funny sound really childish and silly. They are laughing at the feebleness and ecentricity, as well as enjoying a certain sense of bonding, which can trigger laughter simply because isolation is for losers, and those who bond, win and laugh.

My point is that the word itself sounds funny just by the sound alone, independent of a speaker, so there isn’t really a loser, so I’m not sadistically poking fun of anyone in particular.

I'm implying it's more masochistic and sadistic simultaneously. You're being sadistic towards the sounds of the words, and masochistic in the sense that it is you who is uttering them.

Ryan R wrote:

cory wrote: I think people laugh at sex because winners are in control and have restraint, where sex regulates people down to mere animals without any control. People are shocked and laugh at what they think is weak.

I’m not sure, many of the students in my classes that laugh at sexual humor actually value sex, meaning they think of it as an important part of their life. It is almost as if they are shocked by such vivid imagery being talked about in an academic atmosphere, as they feel sexual humor is a private affair.

I think they feel it's a private affair, because they know in some way that there is an unconscious consensus that it's base, low-brow, embarassing and axieity arousing for people.

The are shocked, as they didn’t expect it to be talked about in the place it is.

Yes, they are shocked because its being talked about in a place where people are uncomfortable about it, a place where there is an unconscious consenses that it is a lowly state. There's sadism/masochism involved for sure.

Promiscuous guys that share sex stories are quite different. They are laughing for many reasons simultaneously. They are laughing due to the accomplishment, so there is a sense of being a winner. They are also laughing based on whatever bizarre events have transpired in the experience itself, whether it was something odd or absurd. Guys also laugh because they enjoy reveling in the idea of being a loser, the enjoy boasting about how dirty and low their existence has become.

So a guy that shares sex stories tricks himself into believing he is both the winner and loser simultaneously. During the story, he is both exalted and deprecated.

lol - yes, precisely.

Cory,

There is another reason for laughter that I have not heard you mention yet: the unexpectedness of the punch line, or the phrase that we consider funny. We laugh at things we don't expect. This is also true of when people fall down -- it is an unexpected and rare event, plus, we laugh after the person gets up, as if saying, "it wasn't so bad after all".

.

Shahrazad wrote:Cory,
There is another reason for laughter that I have not heard you mention yet: the unexpectedness of the punch line, or the phrase that we consider funny.

Well, unexpectedness and confusion are interdependent and definitely an instrinsic part of humor. The event that triggers our laughter, does so because of our notions of what is right and what is wrong.

Something funny is due to our ideals of what should be expected, what is right. And as I've said before, this mechanism of laughter is rooted in a competitive instinct, to be a part of superiority and to celebrate it. We laugh at a confusing moment, which by definition is unexpected, when we are sufficiently dettatched from it, and we are detatched from it because we identify with something higher.

Punchlines, in their unexpectedness, simultaneously create and deliever us from confusion - - But only if we are sufficiently detatched and at a certain level of consciousness.

Today my lecturer for psychology got caught up on a certain word - she started stuttering on the word 'Library'. Someone in the audience, being bold, finished the word for her in a sarcastic sort of voice. She bashfully said thank you and genuinely laughed at herself, as the class was laughing as well. She just continued on with lecture - she didnt seem to mind too much and just carried on. I attribute this to a masochistic reaction which is a very useful mechanism for becoming re-unified with the group when an inappropriate and unexpected variation occurs.

If she took herself too seriously and got tense and dour about it, then the collective dislike for her would be much stronger.

By laughing at her errors she shows to the group that she respects their ideals, and so their collective approval of her is higher. They laugh celebrating the success of their ideals.

We laugh at things we don't expect. This is also true of when people fall down -- it is an unexpected and rare event, plus, we laugh after the person gets up, as if saying, "it wasn't so bad after all".

If the person didn't get up because they were seriously hurt, then the ideals of the observers would fail and it would not be funny. The ideals of the observers involve that the deviations of the victim be not too serious and taxing.

Consider if Jesus backed down and took back what he said, managing to squirm out of being crucified by being diplomatic and cowardly.

After they let him go - consider if he then took up drinking and got a wife. He would be a laughing stock. They'd say to the 50 year old Jesus: "Hey Jesus, remember back when you were in your thirties, and said all that crazy shit and almost got nailed to a cross??" They'd laugh as they thought about how silly Jesus was. They laugh because their ideals suceeded.

But the truth is that Jesus didnt back down. And thus he's been a very solemn and serious subject ever since his crucifixion.

Cory,

By laughing at her errors she shows to the group that she respects their ideals, and so their collective approval of her is higher. They laugh celebrating the success of their ideals.

My interpretation: she is willing to laugh at herself, which means she couldn't really be all that arrogant and mean, and has a healthy self-esteem to boot. Now the audience can't laugh at her, as we don't laugh at people that have already accepted they are weak. Instead, the audience laughs with her, and starts liking her.

I'm a lot like your teacher, btw.

But the truth is that Jesus didnt back down. And thus he's been a very solemn and serious subject ever since his crucifixion.

So, you're saying that only in hindsight can we tell if a certain event was funny or serious.

.

Shahrazad wrote:Cory,

By laughing at her errors she shows to the group that she respects their ideals, and so their collective approval of her is higher. They laugh celebrating the success of their ideals.

My interpretation: she is willing to laugh at herself, which means she couldn't really be all that arrogant and mean, and has a healthy self-esteem to boot. Now the audience can't laugh at her, as we don't laugh at people that have already accepted they are weak.

Well, this isn't always the case. I know that Kierkegaard, a man who refused to accept he was weak, was made a parody of quite badly by some members of the community who didn't like how he was living. In Kierkegaard's case, the author of the parody's had to actually draw really goofy caricatures of Kierkegaard in order to make Kierkegaard seem more harmless, feeble and silly. So it was by imposing an imagined cartoon-like Kierkegaard onto reality and trying to make that Kierkegaard more real then the one who was out there being threateningly serious, that the author managed to laugh, and garner laughs from others. And of course they are laughing at characteristics of weakness.

And so often, when someone we are in relationship to both deviates from our ideals 'and' refuses to accept he is weak, well, then we are sometimes compelled to make a parody of him in order to release our hatred in a creative way.

Socrates was lampooned in a similar way, but instead of having cartoons drawn of him, he was written into a comedic play. And so, he was likewise made into a cartoon, but just a different medium was used. But it was for the same reason, and it produced the same effect.

Parody and Cartoon softens the emotions of people who dissaprove of, feel disdain for, or are threatened by the actions of another.

Ealier on this thread I showed a moment where David Quinn made a parody of a group of people who come to this forum - depicting them as wooly-minded creatures gathering in a flock to nuzzle. Earlier, Elizabeth was likening certain people on the forum to hibernating bears that she poked with sticks. And then later, Steven made a parody of a sports game: Bears vs. Nuzzlers - with me as the solemn refree.

So these are all good examples of what I'm talking about.

Instead, the audience laughs with her, and starts liking her.

They like her more when she laughs at herself because she shows she values the ideal of not taking herself too seriously, and this is pleasant for people to see.

But the characteristic of weakeness, the stuttering was being laughed at nonetheless. It was just a more gentle malice.

I think they found it so funny because it was a professor who was doing it. If it was a young child learning to get a grasp on english, then it wouldnt be so funny. But a professional lecturer stuttering for a significant length of time on a word, is a bit more unexpected and funny. Especially when she demonstrates that she doesnt take herself too seriously. It makes it seem more cartoon like and fun.

I think ingrained in the human psyche is a knowledge of the dangers that lead to people taking themselves too seriously, and so people laugh in celebration when someone demonstrates that they can laugh at their mistakes.

Cory wrote:
But the truth is that Jesus didnt back down. And thus he's been a very solemn and serious subject ever since his crucifixion.

Sher wrote: So, you're saying that only in hindsight can we tell if a certain event was funny or serious.

Well, yes, but of course there's not really any analysis or thinking - it's just a knee jerk reaction, an instinct - but yes, it happens in hindsight.

Cory,

Well, this isn't always the case.

Can you please specify which part you are disagreeing with? I understood your examples, I just don't see how they invalidate what I said.

They like her more when she laughs at herself because she shows she values the ideal of not taking herself too seriously, and this is pleasant for people to see.

They like her more because she deprecated herself just to give them the gift of feeling superior. People like a generous person.

.

I don't think she depreciated herself. Everyone stumbles over a word from time to time - she showed that she could be a good sport about her humanity.
.

Shahrazad wrote:

cory wrote:Well, this isn't always the case.

Can you please specify which part you are disagreeing with? I understood your examples, I just don't see how they invalidate what I said.

oh sorry, yeah, looking back I kind of misinterpreted something.

You said: "we don't laugh at people that have already accepted they are weak."

I guess I should have simply said: "but we are indeed laughing at their weak characteristic, their mistake, and we laugh with better conscience if the person we are laughing at, is laughing as well"

She didnt identify with her mistake, and laughed at it. So she wasnt accepting that 'she' was a mistake, but she was accepting that her struggle to pronounce the word was a mistake - without identifying too much with her mistake. This enchanced the laughter of her audience because she was putting their conscience at ease. They would have laughed even if she didnt laugh at her mistake - but because she laughs as well, she puts her audiences conscience at ease and enchances their laughter and they end up liking her more, because she seems like someone who is sufficiently strong, who sufficiently identifies more with the ideals of the group than with her personal mistakes.

Sher wrote:

cory wrote:They like her more when she laughs at herself because she shows she values the ideal of not taking herself too seriously, and this is pleasant for people to see.

They like her more because she deprecated herself just to give them the gift of feeling superior. People like a generous person.

And they also like people who don't make them feel guilty. If she didnt laugh at her self and was overly embarassed and tense, then that would make the audience feel bad about their knee jerk malice and it would inhibit the joy of the laughter and make it more demonic. By laughing at herself, she knocks down the walls of seperation that create guilt in the people who are slaves to their knee jerk malice.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I don't think she depreciated herself. Everyone stumbles over a word from time to time - she showed that she could be a good sport about her humanity.
.

This is where it gets to be a bit of a semantics problem. In a sense she was self-deprieciating herself in the sense that she identified more with the ideals of the group, thus laughing with them, rather than identifying herself with her mistake. She was identifying herself with the greater whole and not reacting competitively.

A competitive impluse is the root of the laughter, but she's cooperating with the winning side which laughs. So in a sense, the winning side is more important than herself - so in that sense it's self-depreciation.

Shahrazad wrote:

Sher wrote: we don't laugh at people that have already accepted they are weak.

cory wrote:Well, this isn't always the case.

Can you please specify which part you are disagreeing with? I understood your examples, I just don't see how they invalidate what I said.

Thinking on it a bit more, I guess my main problem Sher is this.

It seems we laugh at people precisely because they admit that what they did or said was weak. Like Jesus for instance. Because he wouldnt accept that he was in the wrong, they dourly killed him, and it was an event of great seriousness.

If Jesus, instead of sticking to his guns, changed his mind and apologized, admiting he made a mistake and was being weak, then there would have eventually been some collective laughter about the event.

But he refused to admit he was wrong.

We laugh at people's mistakes only when 1) they admit to us that what they did was weak, and 2) it becomes clear that their mistakes are not going to cause any reprucussions to the winning side who are the observers.

If my psychology lecturer did not laugh at her mistake and instead kept making the mistake - then people would soon get very irritated. But she showed the audience that she was admiting it was wrong and that gave the sense that the audience was right and that the lecturers mistake wasnt going to lead to any serious reprucussions.

Cory,

It seems we laugh at people precisely because they admit that what they did or said was weak.

What we do is we laugh with them, not at them. Laughing at someone is more malicious.

If Jesus, instead of sticking to his guns, changed his mind and apologized, admiting he made a mistake and was being weak, then there would have eventually been some collective laughter about the event.

But they would have laughed with him, not at him.

.

Shahrazad wrote:Cory,

It seems we laugh at people precisely because they admit that what they did or said was weak.

What we do is we laugh with them, not at them. Laughing at someone is more malicious.

Yes, it may be more malicious if the person who struggled doesnt find himself funny - BUT - even if he laughs at himself with the observers, it is still malice nonetheless.

When a group laughs with each other, they are still laughing at someones behavior. They laugh with an easier conscience if the person they are laughing at masochistically laughs at himself too.

But I agree, it's more malicious if the object of laughter is upset and not laughing. And this quality of malice is quite common in the world of course.

Sher wrote:

cory wrote:If Jesus, instead of sticking to his guns, changed his mind and apologized, admiting he made a mistake and was being weak, then there would have eventually been some collective laughter about the event.

But they would have laughed with him, not at him.

They would be laughing at what he did, and Jesus would be laughing at what he did as well. So, yes, they are laughing with eachother, but the object of laughter is still Jesus nonetheless. There is still malice. Jesus and his friends, are laughing at Jesus's behavior. Jesus is able to laugh at his own behavior because he masochistically identifies more with the ideals and achievements of the group than he does with that absurd little phase he went through in his twenties & early thirties.

Actually, despite Jesus masochistically laughs whenever his friends start sadistically reminding him about his younger days, he is perhaps secretly a little pained and shamed by the memory. After the laughter is over and his friends have gone home, he falls into despair and wishes he would have went through with the crucifixion.

Jesus the masochist mumbles to himself wearily....."I hate my friends...I hate my life"

He then finishes his whiskey in depression and stumbles foggily into the bedroom to further escape from his problems through sex. But his wife swats him away, scorning him for always being 'a drunk useless fool'.

Who is it that loves the far-fetched hypotheticals?

Cory, I like your imagination.

Oh, yeah, on me you thought I liked far-fetched hypotheticals too much, but once you realized they're coming from Cory's mind, you like his imagination.

Well, Cory just made up an alternate Jesus story. I enjoyed it. I would even watch the movie made based on the story.

The difference between me and you Eliz is that I use hypotheticals to reveal basic principles that can be found everywhere. You on the other hand have used hypotheticals to argue for highly unlikely realities.

I'm using the Jesus hypothetical to create a metaphor that runs paralel with the psychology lecturers situation(where she stuttered) - and I'm doing this to illustrate how humans will laugh at people who are boomarangs, pushing things to the point of distress and then returning to the norm. If you don't return, then you arent funny. But if you feel the same way about the distressing moment as your audience does, then there is laughter.

Jesus might have been laughable in some way if he took back what he said, admited he was a fool and proceed to try fitting in with society. But he pushed things beyond laughter.

That's why they made parodies mocking socrates and Kierkegaard: Since Socrates and Kierkegaard were pushing things to a distressing level and showing no signs of return - then the people who were distressed by Soc and K had to imagine paraodies in order to make things laughable. It was a way of releasing hatred, as parody tends to be.

They imposed their imaginations upon Soc and K in order to give a comical sensation of Soc and K coming back down to earth, as fools. So basically, my use of hypotheticals has been to argue for the same principles that i've been arguing for for the past 3 pages on this thread. And they are common everyday principles that are very obvious. My problem with you E, is that you have used hypotheticals to argue for absurdly unlikely scenarios. I'm not arguing for the Jesus scenario - - I'm simply using it as a metaphor to confirm a very generic and common phenomena. Taking things too far(causing distress), and then coming back to everyones relief and laughter.

Like slipping, falling down, but then getting up. It wouldnt be funny if the person was bleeding unconscious. But as we can see with Americas funniest home videos, people falling down is funny for the herd.

But Elizabeth, that scenario where the guy who is obsessed with getting the perfect girl, but then flip-flops and marries the amputee.......that hypothetical, as unlikely as it is, does actually support my argument very well. And oddly it seems to conform to Newtons law.

So kudos to you for that.