Comedy

[Taem]

If you say that *some* comedy is based on tragedy, I'll agree. […]I'm sure that, with a little thought, you can tie all of them to tragedy. But it is a stretch, you've hit upon a truth and you're turning it into a principle.

I can see what you’re saying and where you are coming from. I can even agree with you when coming at some jokes with a human understanding, which is why I devised a little experiment.

Let’s try this another way: THE ROBOT EXPERIMENT

Let’s pretend for a second that you are part of a team of scientists that just finished creating a humanoid-type robot, complete with a limited, yet complex software based AI (no nero-net devices ala Data via Star Trek TNG). The emotions prove tricky; you cannot just tell the robot to LOVE because it does not value the emotion of love, nor can you program each and every emotion based on its own set of ideals because this would cause wide-range emotional instability. All the emotions need a set of core ethics to be based upon. As a very, very simplistic example of this, to a Self-Efficient robot, LOVE might be the desire to protect “X” because of what “X” does for the robot.

To make the robot understand emotion, your team decides to program its ethics in one of two possible ways:

1) SELF-EFFICIANT: Like all humans, it thinks of itself and its needs first, and all emotions revolve around that. It can still be considerate of its surroundings and of others, but it will understand its emotions based on this basic principle.
2) ALTRUISTIC: The robot thinks about others first, as long as its actions are for the greater good. It will still be considerate of its own mortality and well-being, however it will understand its emotions based on this basic principle.

Baring a possible “god-mode” complex, your team decides its best to go with option #2. From the emotional scale, your team teaches the robot to FEAR – including all emotions on that FEAR scale from the fright all the way to paralyzing fear – LOVE – with the same emotional scale – and ANGER – however on this scale, the highest the emotion can go is ANGER, not up to hatred or loathing. But your first real challenge comes up trying to teach the robot HUMOR. This ALTRUISTIC robot sees every joke and punch line as an attempt to cause pain or misfortune.

How would you teach this robot HUMOR? Lets assume it’s intelligent enough that you can talk to it to explain concepts to it, and it can ask you child-like questions back to better process what it’s being taught. How would you explain to the robot how to understand humor? Go ahead, give it a shot!

*****

I couldn’t do it without conceding that all humor is based on misfortune in one way or another, rather a slight infraction to ones ego, such as Petes Elephant joke, to the more perverse, such as the television show Jack-Ass. And wouldn’t you know it, the more misfortune that befalls the individual, the funnier the skit becomes, so long as it doesn’t go “too” far, at which point it ceases to be humorous. Being Altruistic, the robot was very concerned about the well-being of others, so the first step for me was to teach the robot about “fiction”, i.e. Home Alone-type humor, as opposed to real life; if somebody gets hurt in a fictional setting, its funny when nobody gets seriously injured or violated and the antagonist is having fun doing it. In real life, when someone falls in front of you while attempting a kick-flip on a skateboard, it’s funny so long as they get up and “walk-it-off”, and can even warrant a “dumbass” comment from you, but if they cry in pain, it’s not funny. If you make someone feel slightly stupid with a joke, it’s funny, but when they start to take it personal, it’s no longer funny. I can go on and on, but what it comes down to is this: the robot cannot understand humor without understanding that slight misfortune is what comedy is all about! Does this ring true for humans? Not if we "feel" it does not, but the basic concept remains the same in my opinion.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Let’s try this another way: THE ROBOT EXPERIMENT

I believe that's called begging the question. You propose something that, at first glance, looks to be different from your desired conclusion, but indeed is identical. Should I accept your proposition, then the trap's sprung and I must accept your conclusion. This rat has played the game a bit too long, sorry.

First, people are not robots. The fact that we have not been able to teach robots ingenuity, creativity, independence, and a bunch of other things does not mean those things do not exist. If we cannot teach a robot victim-less humor, then the fault lies in us, not in humor.

My final example:

How do you keep bacon from curling in the pan?













Take away its little brooms.

The logic to turn that into tragedy will have to be Gordian, indeed.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I couldn’t do it without conceding that all humor is based on misfortune in one way or another, rather a slight infraction to ones ego, such as Petes Elephant joke, to the more perverse, such as the television show Jack-Ass.

Which only reveals the limitations of you, and your understanding. I'm not meaning that in a mean way, but your concept of AI, or a robot is limited. In fact, no one yet has created or conceived of any artificial "brain" that comes close to the computing/chemical complexity of a human brain except through science fiction. We are probably to the point where we understand our own limitations in being able to create an artificial brain. What you propose is a very elaborate straw man, which in this case is actually a robot man.

Then again, speaking as a computer scientist, one who studies artificial intelligence, it would be the simplest thing in the world to emulate given certain preconditions. It's the preconditions which we are finding difficult to artificially produce. A primary one being, "consciousness". But, some other items our AI brain needs to attain are, "self awareness", "understanding", "learning", and "relative value". Then, you want to introduce "emotions" which for us are a complex set of chemicals which are intricately wired to our instincts for fight or flight, for courtship and mating, for nurturing, and for many, many other things. Things like "Love" and "Hatred" are very complex, and probably limited to only the most complicated organisms in the animal kingdom. I took an entire semester philosophy course just studying "Love", and another just studying "Beauty".

I would say then, once our AI brain, has these preconditions, it would be fairly simple to code in situations which induce "Humor" and "Laughter".

The first joke I would teach it would be; "Treat your passwords, like your underwear. Don't leave them laying around, and change them often." But, in order for the AI brain to understand the humor, it must "know" some information about underwear, and their use by humans. So, another requirement for humor is a fair amount of knowledge. A computer has no use for underwear, and so just as a some indigenous Polynesian tribe, may not have a context for understanding our culture, where we wear underwear. Also, of course, they would need to understand enough about computer to know about passwords. The humor is in drawing the parallel between the two.

This same issue arises with my young sons, where I need to explain why the joke is funny. They missed many jokes, because their life experience (knowledge) isn't sufficient to allow them to understand the humor. But, my oldest son began laughing at everything in his life well before he could walk. He had the most prodigious belly laugh by six months of age. And still, he and his brother spend most of their time getting each other to laugh. Like feisty kittens sparing... They do that too, then laugh!

For example, in Monsters vs Aliens, the sea monster gets off the transport ship experiencing the outside for the first time in 20 years, and he says, "Is the planet getting warmer? Because, that would be a convenient truth, if it were." That joke, as well as a hundred other ones which rely on life experience go right over his head.

Here is a Gedanken Experiment for you; Consider an isolated tribe of very sensitive, peaceful people living in the deepest parts of the Amazon. Would you think they have jokes? Would it be impossible for their humor to be entirely based on only the most pleasant, and non-deprecating forms? For example, throughout Lakota culture, Heyoka was a character who often did things contrary, and it was funny.

---

The logic to turn that into tragedy will have to be Gordian, indeed.

AHHHH!!! Shredded hogs flesh!!!! The horror!

[Taem]

Hi,

Let’s try this another way: THE ROBOT EXPERIMENT

I believe that's called begging the question. You propose something that, at first glance, looks to be different from your desired conclusion, but indeed is identical. Should I accept your proposition, then the trap's sprung and I must accept your conclusion.

Indeed. This was an experiment one my computer science teachers taught us in college: how to make a robot make a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich. In theory, it seems so simplistic, but when you realize what's involved in programming its arms to move, how to teach it what a correct "brush" of the jelly covered knife is and how far from the bread it must be before applying it, you really begin to realize how how much input a robot needs to function properly. I used this diagram for my question, but I suppose it is also a trap because it's limited in scope, forcing you to answer my questions using my logic, the same way the college instructor used the question to drive home a point to us.

I suppose we can just agree to disagree.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I suppose we can just agree to disagree.

Of course. However, I never thought the objective of a discussion like this was to come to an agreement, but rather to examine an issue from different points of view. That way, everybody learns something, and everybody is right.

--Pete

[Taem]

The "correct" answer is never what you think. The humor is in showing the reader how ignorant he is because of how "obvious" the answer is. If the reader already knew the answers to these jokes, they would fail to amuse.

Many of these types of jokes (word play, or misdirection) are funny because the listener wouldn't know the right answer, or didn't think about it in the way the comic presents it. It's not an ignorance or buffoon thing.

Comic say, "Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."

Lets analyze this for a moment. This statement, while a truism, still implies that you wont receive the experience that could potentially be beneficial to you until after the objective has passed, meaning without this "experience", you didn't have what you "need[ed]". Why is it funny? Using your reference to AI in your other post, it's because the joke reminds us of times where we were inexperienced at something and failed in one way or another, and that everybody must "experience" situations to fully understand them. Again, the joke merely points to ones disabilities.

or, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."

A clever play on words. In its most obvious and non-humorous state, this joke is not a joke at all, but merely a statement of fact. The joke takes aim at human logic, that being the readers assumption that being "part of the solution" implies action, not a substance. The joke is in the misunderstanding, or the way the brain processes information, because every time I read it, it brings a smile to my face, yet I know how and why the joke is mean to work. The "misfortune" I keep referring too is in the misunderstanding, and that is what makes the joke "funny".

Another example, "Success took me to her bosom like a maternal boa constrictor. "

We visualize the a poor individual being hugged extremely tightly, but what is funny is its use in describing success.

Yes, the visualization is funny of someone taking to another in a desperate love embrace and being compared to a boa constrictor in the process, but the comedy in it is seeing how desperately this individual is willing to go to score, and being able to relate to that desire from our own experiences. But is this misfortune? I'll have to give it more thought. You may be on to something.

---

I don't have a lot of time to respond right now, but I would like to comment:

*********
EDIT: This comment is to your other post about robots, but it got combined with this one which would be alright if I had quoted you, but I didn't.
*********

Are you implying humor is an evolutionary, learned process? I suppose this could be proven scientifically when comparing us to animals, however I don't think its as easy to teach as you deem it too be (more on this later). Anyways, I'm intrigued by how the human brain can learn to adapt, and evolve, and your postulation that we simply "made-up" humor as we developed, but why? What purpose did it serve? Can you tell me in all sincerity that our evolved humor was not at the misfortune of others for our own benefit, an almost survival mechanism that perhaps turned into what it is today? Damn... times up (will add more later).

[kandrathe]

Comic says, "Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."

Lets analyze this for a moment. This statement, while a truism, still implies that you wont receive the experience that could potentially be beneficial to you until after the objective has passed, meaning without this "experience", you didn't have what you "need[ed]".

More of a chicken and egg dilemma, actually. The truism exists that you will encounter situations where skill is required, but the only means of getting the skill is through experience.

Why is it funny? Using your reference to AI in your other post, it's because the joke reminds us of times where we were inexperienced at something and failed in one way or another, and that everybody must "experience" situations to fully understand them. Again, the joke merely points to ones disabilities.

Not disabilities. There is no mention of failure. And, it doesn't describe any incident. It is a quip. It's an observation about the catch-22 of inexperience. If it's a tragedy, then life's experience is a tragedy as everyone of us encounter new situations every day where we need to wing it, thus gaining experience. I think you are trying too hard. Every breath we take contributes to the tragedy of atmospheric oxygen depletion.

Mostly, I feel comedy is an extension of "play", which we use to amuse and distract ourselves from the tragedy of a life filled with death and decay. That there is no true altruism may or may not be true, but comedy need not be bound by reality and therefore, comedy doesn't need to be made at the expense of others. In a real sense, even to make a joke at the expense of a fictional character (e.g. the storied clown), costs no actual person anything. When Ben Grimm says, "It's clobbering time!", or some other joke... No super villains are actually hurt in the making of the comic.

But, I agree with your observation that comedy often is at someone's expense, when is is pointed at real people, and classes of people. That just say more about our culture, than it does about comedy.

[Hammerskjold]

Again, the joke merely points to ones disabilities.

Your epiphany can use a dash of levity. All comedies are tragedies in the same way a rose is a flower and therefore all flowers are roses.

Unless they're flour. In which case all flour rises. Those that don't, are not real flour. They're un-enlightened flour. Which is to say they should lighten up.

In any case, here's Chewbacca on a giant squirrel fighting Nazis.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/monsieurfred/che...irrel-1p6k

It's based on a tragic period of WW2, but no Wookie or Squirrels were harmed in the making of the picture. As for the Nazis getting hurt....who the frock cares if they get hurt, they're fakking Nazis. Everytime a Nazi gets shot, God spares a kitten from drowning. Everytime I laugh when a Nazi gets shot, God spares 2 kittens from drowning.

[DeeBye]

In any case, here's Chewbacca on a giant squirrel fighting Nazis.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/monsieurfred/che...irrel-1p6k

It's based on a tragic period of WW2, but no Wookie or Squirrels were harmed in the making of the picture. As for the Nazis getting hurt....who the frock cares if they get hurt, they're fakking Nazis. Everytime a Nazi gets shot, God spares a kitten from drowning. Everytime I laugh when a Nazi gets shot, God spares 2 kittens from drowning.

What do you make of Stormtroopers versus Nazis?

(warning, huge image)

[kandrathe]

What do you make of Stormtroopers versus Nazis?

I'm not into genre f-ing. Seems like the bad guys versus the bad guys. I think Palpatine and Hitler might be BFF.

[LennyLen]

The "misfortune" I keep referring too is in the misunderstanding, and that is what makes the joke "funny".

I think the problem here is that you're changing the definition of misfortune so that it fits your theory.

[kandrathe]

The "misfortune" I keep referring too is in the misunderstanding, and that is what makes the joke "funny".

I think the problem here is that you're changing the definition of misfortune so that it fits your theory.

Two atoms are walking down the street one day, and one of them says to the other:

"Hey, wait up a second. I think I lost an electron"

The first atom replied, "Are you sure?"

The second atom exclaimed, "Yes, I'm positive!"

[Jester]

What do you make of Stormtroopers versus Nazis?

I'm not into genre f-ing. Seems like the bad guys versus the bad guys. I think Palpatine and Hitler might be BFF.

If I recall correctly, Hitler actually did share the earth with one of history's other Big Bads. They didn't get along famously. It turns out when you're a megalomaniacal dictator, there's really only room for one.

-Jester

[Taem]

Here's some food for thought. I was looking for some scientific backing on how and when humor evolved in humans, as I have my own theories. I came across a few interesting sites; this first one almost changed my mind on the original concept of humor I posted.

The Evolution of Humor concludes that we laugh due to pattern repetition, or better put, unexpected changes in the pattern. As we grow older, our tastes mature so those games of peek-a-boo aren't as enticing as they were when we were babies .

This second site, Evolution of Humor, concluded through testing that males are more aggressive than females (duh!), however are also more likely to make comedic remarks or innuendos based on how much testosterone they have, and that the majority of their remarks, while an attempt to be humorous, was largely in the negative. For me, this supports my theory of how humor evolved:

Mankind, as we evolved from monkeys to humans, were and still are always trying to outdo one-another and in this quest for supremacy, someone has to fail. I'm suggesting that in early humans when situations arose in which two or more humans (probably male) were competing for the same goal, and one of the humans could not complete the objective due to something unexpected - such as falling down or getting hit over the head - the remaining humans primitive brains realized their goal was now much easier to attain, thus provoking good feelings. Natural Selection choose the winners of these repetitive tasks, thus these impulses evolved to help us survive. Over time, these impulses slowly turned into laughter, jokes were made, and the basis of what we now know as humor was formed.

I have not heard of monkeys playing peek-a-boo to make their offspring laugh, but humans do it all the time. Why do I say this? To clear up that I'm positive humor is an evolved trait, and when human babies laugh at peek-a-boo, its the primitive instincts from our evolutionary process to react to the unexpected patterns in that repetitive task! So what does this mean? That humor originated from - and is still largely due in part to - the misfortune of others, as I've been saying all along.

Having said all this, does the fact that we've evolved to the point we are now dictate we have a higher understanding of humor, and can appreciate it in different ways than our primitive ancestors did? Yes, of course, and I failed to recognize that in my initial post. As Pete pointed out, I came at concept and tried to turn it into a principle , however I've seen enough jokes since I brought this up that simply cannot be attributed to acts of misfortune for anyone. This does not change that the majority of the humor I've seen and heard (I'd wager close to 90% of it) is negative in some way or another, and I believe this is because of our nature as humans to like, enjoy, or even want to see others fail in some way. But alas, all comedy is not tragedy, and I was wrong. We have evolved, and so have I in this thread. Yay for forums !

[Jester]

The Evolution of Humor concludes that we laugh due to pattern repetition, or better put, unexpected changes in the pattern.

And old jazz man once told me that humour was about confounding expectations. Of course, he was talking about how to insert humour into the language of improvisation, but the logic is the same. You set up something that looks obvious, some kind of cliche, and the subvert it with something clever. Or, less subtly, you can do it backwards, creating the expectation of something complex or profound, and then delivering something unexpectedly simple, or even obvious.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Humans are not the only animals who exhibit humor.

--Pete

[Vandiablo]

MY THEORY ON HOW HUMOR EVOLVED -- Mankind, as we evolved from monkeys to humans, were and still are always trying to outdo one-another and in this quest for supremacy, someone has to fail. I'm suggesting that in early humans when situations arose in which two or more humans (probably male) were competing for the same goal, and one of the humans could not complete the objective due to something unexpected - such as falling down or getting hit over the head - the remaining humans primitive brains realized their goal was now much easier to attain, thus provoking good feelings. Natural Selection choose the winners of these repetitive tasks, thus these impulses evolved to help us survive. Over time, these impulses slowly turned into laughter, jokes were made, and the basis of what we now know as humor was formed.

That's some good shit. Here, "good" means "pure".

Ha.

So what does this mean? That humor originated from - and is still largely due in part to - the misfortune of others, as I've been saying all along.

I might concur that your logic is comical, but unfortunately it is not amusing.

This does not change that the majority of the humor I've seen and heard (I'd wager close to 90% of it) is negative in some way or another

There it is. It's your worldview based on your experiences. You may have been exposed to other forms of humor, but failed to recognize them. There are many forms of humor, and some portion would fit your criteria: slapstick, ethnic "jokes", insult humor (many varieties). But not all.

and I believe this is because of our nature as humans to like, enjoy, or even want to see others fail in some way.

One of my sons fits that bill. At age six, he is already working on being the world's best insult comic. His twin brother does not. They have the same parents. The insulting behavior contributes to a higher, not lower, chance of meeting an unfortunate early demise.

I have unfortunately been exposed to many ethnic jokes through the years, and in that case, it's not a "misfortune" thing, it's a "superiority of us over them" thing.

Consider this joke:
Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
.
.
A: That's not funny.

Even though every other "joke" in this category is not funny, this particular one is dear to me, though I have trouble figuring out why. I guess it's because it's not really about feminists, it's about people who are overly self-righteous (a subset of just about all groups of people), and the punchline pre-empts the self-righteousness, without actually delivering anything offensive (except the notion that feminists are more self-righteous than other groups). (I'm an unread feminist myself, so it's okay.)

Note that the question was not "How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?" Unfortunately, I have used up my naughty talk allotment on this post, so I can't answer that question.

But alas, all comedy is not tragedy,

Alas? Alackaday? Woe is me!

Comedy, tragedy, I don't think any story should be classified as either. A good story has elements of both.

If I ever put on a show that had Oedipus as a character, I would have to, I would HAVE to, feature someone asking "Say, Oedipus, have you ever returned to where you were born?" Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk as one of the slapstick gods would say. That one would indeed be at O's expense.

and I was wrong.

You are a big man. (---insert riposte here---)

We have evolved, and so have I in this thread. Yay for forums !

Nobody evolved during this thread. Not in the naturalist sense, anyway.

I have come across the "All humor is malicious" before. It always seems to be made by people who grew up with cruel older brothers, or people who were forced to remain in the company of those "aggressive joking" males. Yes, there are many, many people who frequently or constantly use derision to belittle those around them, but it is a stretch to apply the psyche of these bullies to all humor. Here is where the "all sex is rape" comparison applies -- if all you know about sex is that you've been raped for years, you could honestly believe that all sex is rape. And yes, so far, it's unfortunately true for your own life -- but that doesn't make it true for the world, does it? Okay, that's a harsh comparison -- maybe I should change it to "all poetry is torture" ... hmmm ....

-V

[Taem]

Well, Van, I suppose I should be discouraged after that post of yours. Was that not your intention, to drive home a point by calling my logic unamusing, pure shit? I’m sure you knew this would of course only serve to make me feel bad, but instead of arguing the content, you decided to attack my point of view; lovely. I hope it does a great disservice to your works for you to know it does not actually bother me in the least that you consider my point of view pure shit. I’m actually sitting back here at work trying to hold back a smile, because in the depths of my heart, I know it bothered you enough to write that, and it’s giving me a good feeling inside knowing you got all worked up about something you consider shit, and the more I think about it and how I’m feeling, the more it reminds me of my initial post and the funnier it becomes! I’m almost in glee here now Van, thank-you! You made my day. Of course, I'm sure this all fits into your theory that it’s the "type" of people who laugh at these types of situations, not the act itself, I mean, it is I’m the one laughing here, so it must be my worldview causing me to find this humorous, right? Here’s what I think Van, you are an intelligent person with some strong theories of your own, but if you are unwilling to show me some respect (call me ignorant of the facts and pop up some links if you like), then there is no need to communicate further – you’ve chosen the “malicious” approach – fine. But you were right about one thing, your malice was indeed comical, bringing your feminist and rape jokes to the table – so fitting to contrast these against what I said. How far will you go for a laugh? Because you got me in stitches now!

[kandrathe]

Humans are not the only animals who exhibit humor.

A mushroom walks into a bar and the bartender says "We don't serve your kind here." and the mushroom says - "Why not? I'm a fungi."

My cat has a sense of humor... Her expression of humor is to attack my feet while I sleep. She loves to sleep at the foot of my side of the bed, and we usually get along fine. But, if I inadvertently encroach on her territory she reminds my feet, as a mother cat might discipline her kitten. Shocking to me, and hilarious for the cat. I wake up with a start, look at her, she looks at me, and then she begins purring contentedly at me with her cat smile.

For Meat: I like the sexual selection direction. Women actually do respond amorously to a good sense of humor. "The basic difference is that males tend to use humor to compete with other men, while women tend to use humor to bond with others. Studies show that men more often use humor to jockey for position with other males when they are in the company of women." So, men must use "bonding" humor for attracting women, to show them they are socially cohesive, but may also use it to belittle, or dominate other men.

It wouldn't shock me to learn that throughout history, top breeding honors went to the best hunter, and the best Jester. Hey!

[--Pete]

Hi,

A mushroom walks into a bar and the bartender says "We don't serve your kind here." and the mushroom says - "Why not? I'm a fungi."

OK, I pondered and search and I still don't get it. Besides, shouldn't that be 'fungus'? As in: A Roman walks into the bar and asks for a martinus. The bartender says, "Do you mean a martini?" The Roman replies, "When I want the second, I'll tell you."

Latin humor, almost as bad as chemistry humor.

My cat has a sense of humor... Her expression of humor is to attack my feet while I sleep. She loves to sleep at the foot of my side of the bed, and we usually get along fine. But, if I inadvertently encroach on her territory she reminds my feet, as a mother cat might discipline her kitten. Shocking to me, and hilarious for the cat. I wake up with a start, look at her, she looks at me, and then she begins purring contentedly at me with her cat smile.

That's not humor, that's just satisfaction for a job well done. Cats were made to train people. They get extra points for getting you to open a door which they then don't go through.

--Pete