Hacker News Reader

Comment by Tycho | Hacker News Reader

One theory I read (reported by Ayn Rand but accredited to an acquaintance) is that humour is when somebody's perception of reality is undercut. So for instance, someone walking down the street and slipping on a banana isn't funny, but if the person was walking with great dignity/purpose/ostentation, some sort of VIP, then it's funny. Because their perception of reality and their opinion of themselves is at odds with their swift fall from grace.

I think this might be right. When I make people laugh it's usually by giving the impression that I fundamentally misunderstand some fact of reality (or that I perceive myself differently to others).

When we physically laugh it's like a short circuit of one perception of reality breaking through from another.

View on HN

I think we already have a good idea why humor is funny. In our closest primate relatives, chimps and bonobos, who also laugh (i.e., the chimp equivalent of laughter) when tickled, laughter is essentially a call meaning "non threat."

Jokes are funny because they relate a story of the transition of the object of laughter from potential threat, to non-threat. For example, a high status individual is a potential economic and social adversary and therefore a potential threat.

Consider: If someone slips on a banana peel it is only funny if it is a high status or would-be high status individual. If a handicapped child slipped on a banana peel it would only engender sympathy, not laughter. If a pompous or powerful and aggressive person slips on a banana peel it is funny because that person has instantly gone from the status of potential threat - someone to be reckoned with - to the status of non-threat.

Jokes, especially those with punch lines, follow a narrative thread where some person or persons make a sudden transition from high to low status, from threat to non-threat.

Do we know why jokes are funny? If so, why don't we have an algorithm that can write jokes?

I think you're right that we have some good descriptive models of humor, but we don't have any generative models of humor.

It's not hard to think of counter examples to this. Seeing a rival die isn't that funny. A child walking into a glass wall is pretty funny. The interesting question is how we can understand humor generally and fundamentally.

i would say that's one type of humor, out of many.

for example, things that affirm certain views of reality are also funny. think about humor about relationships, race, culture, etc.

psychology would say that things are funny of they have a hint of truth to them.

blonde jokes (I'm blonde) are funny because you know a dumb blonde person or it would be without context

Are Polish jokes funny because you know a dumb Pole? Unlikely.

I don't think the humor in these jokes has anything to do with truth - they could apply to any group with a reputation for being dumb.

What's interesting is they probably would not be funny if Pole or blonde were just replaced with "idiot," probably because the listener doesn't get to make the logical leap to stupidity themselves. There may also be an element of shame and schadenfreude for picking on a group that adds to the humor.

Jokes don't have to be true... but often hints of truth mixed in with a new lens on the world is very funny. For example:

"Eating rice cakes is like chewing on a foam coffee cup, only less filling."

This joke isn't literally true, but it is true that rice cakes are nasty and not very filling

+1 for blondes! (I'm one, too)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com