For Those Who Understand, No Explanation is Necessary...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For Those Who Understand, No Explanation is Necessary...

I don't expect all readers to resonate, but it cracked me up.

I have been studying the elements of humor for some time, trying to get in all the reading I can. (Ah me... books are soooo long and life is short, even for a quip...)

One of the more interesting books on humor I found is Inside Jokes: Using Humor to Reverse-Engineer the Mind by Matthew M. Hurley, Daniel C. Dennett, and Reginald B. Adams Jr.. I have flipped through this a few times in the bookstore and I think I'm finally going to get it.

I don't agree with Dennett's boneheaded stuff about the aware us not really existing, meaning we are simply a byproduct of what does exist, but he is always informative, intelligent and entertaining. If you're going to chew on bones, at least be a big dog. So even if I disagree with some or all of his theory of humor, it promises to give me good food for thought.

But before making the plunge, I looked at the Amazon reader reviews, especially the people who hated the book. These always interest me, even if I take issue.

One reader, Warren B, objected strongly to the highfalutin language of the authors (see here). He said it was more of a chore to read the book than he anticipated. Then he popped out with this gem:

Sometime in the future, I suppose some epistemic emotion will lead me to self-deprecating Schadenfrude heuristically motivated by an alternative future self... er ... a ... someday, I'll laugh at myself for having endured the book...

I cracked up since my subconscious immediately dredged up some of the discussions I've had online where what should have been arrant Boeotian-level pellucidity turned into risable amphigoric flummery.

Michael

[caroljane]

I can resonate. Loved it. Warren B, come on down! OL is obviously your spiritual home.

Michael, is studying comedy of real use in better using it, in business or in life? I hope not as I never studied anything about comedy or indeed any form of writing, except that |I have read a lot of it. And thank god |I have never been required to teach "creative writing", I imagine it would be like having to teach sex ed to teenage parents.

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

Michael,

In your journey, have you read The Act of Creation by Arthur Koestler?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In your journey, have you read The Act of Creation by Arthur Koestler?

Kyle,

Sure did. Way back in the 70's.

Koestler's theory of intersecting planes that spark humor, scientific discovery and artistic creation influenced me. I also recall that business of a baby smiling to stop suckling. And I smile a lot...

There is truth to these roots, but I don't think they are the whole picture.

Dennett and his coauthors have an interesting theory about humor. They believe it evolved and mixed with pleasure as a way to debug the cognitive apparatus. A way to flush out errors, so to speak. And the accompanying pleasure of laughter was nature's way of ensuring we do it, just like sex for reproduction.

I believe there is truth in that, too, but it's not the whole picture.

There is a huge amount literature about humor from philosophers and psychologists. Ironically, some really good stuff that the eggheads don't cover comes from those who practice it.

Here is a nugget I received from a public speaking expert (Tom Antion). He was talking about humor in stories from your own life. He said humor is disaster separated by space and time. What was once painful is funny on the retelling.

John Truby, a Hollywood script doctor, says that humor in full-length films reduces man to an animal, to a child or to a robot. The animal concerns bathroom and sex humor (for the most obvious examples), the child concerns exaggerations of emotions, especially when they are inappropriate, and the robot makes the person totally clueless to the attitudes of others.

Humor is a much bigger topic than it seems and there are so many conflicting schools and theories, it's almost like a cosmic practical joke played on mankind.

Unfortunately, one of the worst things I have read on humor came from Ayn Rand. She said the fundamental nature of humor is destructive and gave ethical rules where it is proper and where it is "monstrously vicious" (or some phrase like that). In other words, according to her (and I am pretty sure I can back this up with quotes), if you see a person you admire slip on a banana peel and, without knowing how or why, you burst out laughing, this is an indication that you are really screwed up inside and need a moral overhaul. In her world, I don't think you could laugh in such a situation and be concerned for the person at the same time. But if the person who slipped was immoral, laughter would be not only appropriate, it would be moral.

I don't agree with this approach, albeit, there is an element of truth in it for certain contexts.

Michael

[caroljane]

In your journey, have you read The Act of Creation by Arthur Koestler?

Kyle,

Sure did. Way back in the 70's.

Koestler's theory of intersecting planes that spark humor, scientific discovery and artistic creation influenced me. I also recall that business of a baby smiling to stop suckling. And I smile a lot...

There is truth to these roots, but I don't think they are the whole picture.

Dennett and his coauthors have an interesting theory about humor. They believe it evolved and mixed with pleasure as a way to debug the cognitive apparatus. A way to flush out errors, so to speak. And the accompanying pleasure of laughter was nature's way of ensuring we do it, just like sex for reproduction.

I believe there is truth in that, too, but it's not the whole picture.

There is a huge amount literature about humor from philosophers and psychologists. Ironically, some really good stuff that the eggheads don't cover comes from those who practice it.

Here is a nugget I received from a public speaking expert (Tom Antion). He was talking about humor in stories from your own life. He said humor is disaster separated by space and time. What was once painful is funny on the retelling.

John Truby, a Hollywood script doctor, says that humor in full-length films reduces man to an animal, to a child or to a robot. The animal concerns bathroom and sex humor (for the most obvious examples), the child concerns exaggerations of emotions, especially when they are inappropriate, and the robot makes the person totally clueless to the attitudes of others.

Humor is a much bigger topic than it seems and there are so many conflicting schools and theories, it's almost like a cosmic practical joke played on mankind.

Unfortunately, one of the worst things I have read on humor came from Ayn Rand. She said the fundamental nature of humor is destructive and gave ethical rules where it is proper and where it is "monstrously vicious" (or some phrase like that). In other words, according to her (and I am pretty sure I can back this up with quotes), if you see a person you admire slip on a banana peel and, without knowing how or why, you burst out laughing, this is an indication that you are really screwed up inside and need a moral overhaul. In her world, I don't think you could laugh in such a situation and be concerned for the person at the same time. But if the person who slipped was immoral, laughter would be not only appropriate, it would be moral.

I don't agree with this approach, albeit, there is an element of truth in it for certain contexts.

Michael

Oh yes, Rand and the banana peel. I think her image was of an elegant lady in furs and jewels slipping on it. Elegant , untouchable in fine clothing, the person Rand idealized in her hungry days, and held like a light before her, and indeed became.

I know Rand sometimes laughed at herself (about her accent for instance) and I am not aware that she was ever mocked or laughed at in her youngest most sensitive years. But her odd pronouncement on what is proper to be amused by, seems not to come from rational thought but from somewhere deeper.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol,

There might be something psychological. I have noticed that people with a high degree of a Nietzschean-like personality have difficulty with normal humor. You see it in the subculture at times. It's almost autistic-like indifference and perplexity when everyone else is laughing.

But Rand also developed this idea conceptually from grounding ethics in reason (and arriving at the infamous "death premise" evaluation for those she condemned), so I believe she forced herself into it willingly as a form of molding her subconscious, too.

When she was younger, I get the impression she had a much better sense of humor. She wrote a playful short story in the style of O. Henry, for example (I think it is called "Good Copy"). Also, a character in a play, Think Twice, has a quirky way of a foreigner talking that didn't really reflect on his villainy. It was cutely funny and not at all typical of her later work. (I'm going on memory, so I don't remember the exact phrasing.) I could probably come up with several more examples if I thought about it.

As she got older, her humor became more and more mocking or it took the tone of sage-like irony, which could get quite funny when she delivered a speech. For example, in defending abortion against the charge that an embryo was a potential human being, she once said something to the effect that we all carry potential human beings inside of us, so using that standard, we are guilty of mass murder every moment we are not in the bedroom trying to procreate. I can't remember the exact words right now, but that was the gist of it. Delivered in that static paused delivery of hers with a thick Russian accent, it just cracked up everyone.

Her target in these later times was always someone or something she was criticizing, generally in moral tones.

I don't recall Rand ever laughing about her accent or about herself. The closest I can remember is when she would say something like such-and-such (I can't remember what it was right now) required the skills of a journalist, and a journalist was the last thing she knew how to be. But, while mildly self-deprecating, it was not humorous.

Michael

[anthony]

Carol, I'm sure humour could yet be shown to mean something to Objectivists. ;)

It's to do with re-framing things a different way, showing a new perspective, providing an objective flavour (I think).

Maybe, we'll find that tickling the funny bone improves concept-formation, or somesuch.

[caroljane]

Carol, I'm sure humour could yet be shown to mean something to Objectivists. ;)

It's to do with re-framing things a different way, showing a new perspective, providing an objective flavour (I think).

Maybe, we'll find that tickling the funny bone improves concept-formation, or somesuch.

Tony, I am sure you are right here. \The Objectivist I knew best had a delightful sense of humour and the ridiculous. |But I have to say that the other ones I met, did not seem to have any at all.In fact I do not remember any ot them laughing or even smiling, except, you know "scornfully"-- it was very unnerving to me, everybody just thought about things all the time and were never spontaneous.

[ginny]

"scornfully" - OMG, does that take me back to the NY lectures. Picture being in a room with 400 "scornfully" smiling people (hate to say it, but it was mostly the guys). It must have taken months of daily mirror practice of getting it just so. Then, of course, there'd always be two alphas trying to outdo each other. Star Wars meets the tooth fairy in the Gulch. A colgate nightmare.

[Selene]

"scornfully" - OMG, does that take me back to the NY lectures. Picture being in a room with 400 "scornfully" smiling people (hate to say it, but it was mostly the guys). It must have taken months of daily mirror practice of getting it just so. Then, of course, there'd always be two alphas trying to outdo each other. Star Wars meets the tooth fairy in the Gulch. A colgate nightmare.

Excellent description Ginny...

I knew we were totally screwed as a movement when I saw the white shirted acolytes with the deer in the headlights look and the plastic pen holders in their vest pockets.

Additionally, from almost every woman that I networked with, they all were awful in bed. Contrary to Roark, Francisco, Hank, et al.

A...

[ginny]

Ahem - I assume you mean the men were awful lovers, not the women. The ladies were fabulous. Actually, it was so bad that Peikoff, in his sex lecture, referred to the fact that a few, just a few, men may be, perhaps, a tiny bit conservative in bed. Of course, Peikoff gave a good reason for that - namely that these fine men (and ahem, he's speaking from experience) were so busy with all that rational thinking, sometimes they just felt awkward in bed. Dear god.

My favorite story is when a guy (he was in therapy) I was dating told me he could not have sex until he turned into the equivalent of John Galt. His explanation included this as the reason he was unable to hold hands. God, I miss those days!!!!

[Selene]

Ahem - I assume you mean the men were awful lovers, not the women. The ladies were fabulous. Actually, it was so bad that Peikoff, in his sex lecture, referred to the fact that a few, just a few, men may be, perhaps, a tiny bit conservative in bed. Of course, Peikoff gave a good reason for that - namely that these fine men (and ahem, he's speaking from experience) were so busy with all that rational thinking, sometimes they just felt awkward in bed. Dear god.

My favorite story is when a guy (he was in therapy) I was dating told me he could not have sex until he turned into the equivalent of John Galt. His explanation included this as the reason he was unable to hold hands. God, I miss those days!!!!

Ginny:

I should have been clearer. I was referring to the alleged "men."

And your testimonial replicates what the women told me also. I was, and still am, astounded about that aspect of the movement.

A...

[ginny]

Why surprised? Look at their role models. Except for Dagny and Frisco as kids, every relationship starts without the people talking or getting to know each other. Dagny was hot for John the second she sees him. Reardon, when he thinks about his marriage, remembers how he'd shown Lillian his company with such pride, She didn't say anything, so he felt everything that was needed had alread been said. Leo and Kira saw each other two times before running away.

To these people, great sex happens miraculously. There's no getting to know each other and learning the other person's likes or dislikes. That has to be intimidating to men.

[Selene]

To these people, great sex happens miraculously. There's no getting to know each other and learning the other person's likes or dislikes. That has to be intimidating to men.

Depends on the man wouldn't you agree?

Novels vs. reality

[caroljane]

Good grievances, what a perfect storm of novels v reality.

Men have always known that it is a bad idea idea to sleep with a woman crazier than them. but they usually want to try it anyway.

Dagny and Dominique are pretty much sociopaths, never mind the men they are most attracted to, and who cares?

[ginny]

But to those those gents, the novels WERE the reality. Another scenario with the guy who wanted to morph into Galt was when we went to the Metropolitan Museum. It's quite a place with some fabulous artifacts. But there's no painting there that Rand has approved of, and none of her fictional characters wasted time at a museum. We were leaving, passing the lions, when Mr. Wonderful looked totally anxious. "We have to stop this. We need to do something important."

Do you really thinks they differentiated between fiction and life?

[Selene]

Do you really thinks they differentiated between fiction and life?

Nope.

They had no ego. They had no self esteem.

Ayn's concept of "approved art" was repulsive to me.

[Dglgmut]

Dagny and Dominique are pretty much sociopaths, never mind the men they are most attracted to, and who cares?

I think people have been stretching the definition of this word too much. They use it to ridicule, when an actual sociopath would not be offended--because they know they are a sociopath (whether they know the proper term for what they are or not).

This is typical moral high-ground bullshit.

Who cares if some women are attracted to men based on how much of a "winner" they are, in their mind? I'm sure you could do a hell of a lot worse than John Galt no matter what your preferences are.

Us vs them, it never gets old.

Anyway, I bought Inside Jokes a while ago, after Michael first referenced it. It is good, but I doubt I'll finish it. It's loaded with jargon and gets into computer science. The jokes are sometimes funny though.

This one killed me:

There are two rednecks in a field:

Bobby Joe: Wanna play 20 Questions?

Billy Bob: Sure. Lemme thinka somethin'.

Bobby Joe: Got it?

Billy Bob: Yeah, got it. Ask me.

Bobby Joe: Is it a thing?

Billy Bob: Yeah.

Bobby Joe: Can you fuck it?

Billy Bob: Yeah.

Bobby Joe: Is it a goat?

Billy Bob: Yeah.

[ginny]

Dagny and Dominique are pretty much sociopaths, never mind the men they are most attracted to, and who cares?

I'm sure you could do a hell of a lot worse than John Galt no matter what your preferences are.

c

Nope, I don't think we could do much worse than a two-dimentional, cold, non-communicative guy. I mean, I have done worse, but am not about to repeat it.

However, I wish you the best with Dominique.

[Darrell Hougen]

For Those Who Understand, No Explanation is Necessary...

...

I cracked up since my subconscious immediately dredged up some of the discussions I've had online where what should have been arrant Boeotian-level pellucidity turned into risable amphigoric flummery.

Michael

For me, it was necessary to visit the dictionary several times.

I'm not surprized about Dennett's theory but I can't say I agree. To me, there seems to be a much more obvious explanation --- getting along in a social situation.

If you look at dating websites, at least half and perhaps approaching 90% of the middle age women say they "like to laugh." In other words, they're looking for a guy that can make them laugh. Why? Maybe guys with a sense of humor are less threatening or more fun to be around.

Of course, there are a lot of social situations beyond dating: Talking with a small group of friends. Giving a speech. Meeting someone new. Writing a book. Yes, writing a book is a social situation. Perhaps, readers will be more likely to buy another book from an author whose book made them smile. Or, perhaps they'll recommend it to a friend.

If you're meeting someone new, a little humor can put the other person at ease. When giving a speech, a little humor can help engage the audience. With a small group of friends, humor may make a person more popular.

Of course, that begs the question, why do people like humor? Which further begs the question, what is it?

I'm hardly an expert on the subject, but way back in college I first noticed that most humor involves pointing out some sort of contradiction or inconsistency. Or, it may involve doing something or pointing out something that runs counter to our expectations. By laughing, the listener is acknowledging the fact that he/she "gets it"; that his expectations have been violated; that he sees the contradiction or inconsistency.

Ayn Rand got some things wrong, but she also got some things right. As she has pointed out, the words we use exist not merely as social conventions, but because they refer to things that exist. So, if I were studying humor, the first thing I would probably do is go to the Thesaurus and look up synonyms for words like "humor" and "joke" and see what comes back. Then attempt to figure out how such words refer to social situations and how they violate normal expectations for consistency and proper behavior.

Or, you may find that I'm totally out in left field.

Darrell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If you look at dating websites, at least half and perhaps approaching 90% of the middle age women say they "like to laugh." In other words, they're looking for a guy that can make them laugh.

Darrell,

Great to see you!

One of the things Dennett highlights is the difference between laughter and humor. I bet you if all guys did was tickle women to make them laugh (for one non-humor example), the charm would go right out of it.

Anyway, not everyone can be a Roger Rabbit who gets the sexy babe because she says, "He makes me laugh."

Sometimes the girls are laughing at a dude out of mockery, not because of his humor,

But I'm an optimist. Anyone can have his moments.

Lame-ass nerds of the world, unite!

Michael

[Darrell Hougen]

If you look at dating websites, at least half and perhaps approaching 90% of the middle age women say they "like to laugh." In other words, they're looking for a guy that can make them laugh.

Darrell,

Great to see you!

One of the things Dennett highlights is the difference between laughter and humor. I bet you if all guys did was tickle women to make them laugh (for one non-humor example), the charm would go right out of it.

Anyway, not everyone can be a Roger Rabbit who gets the sexy babe because she says, "He makes me laugh."

Sometimes the girls are laughing at a dude out of mockery, not because of his humor,

But I'm an optimist. Anyone can have his moments.

Lame-ass nerds of the world, unite!

Michael

Yes. I'm guessing most women mean they want a guy that can make them laugh by being funny, witty and humorous, not by tickling them.

Anyway, hopefully I'll have more time to spend on here.

Darrell

[Brant Gaede]

For Those Who Understand, No Explanation is Necessary...

...

I cracked up since my subconscious immediately dredged up some of the discussions I've had online where what should have been arrant Boeotian-level pellucidity turned into risable amphigoric flummery.

Michael

For me, it was necessary to visit the dictionary several times.

I'm not surprized about Dennett's theory but I can't say I agree. To me, there seems to be a much more obvious explanation --- getting along in a social situation.

If you look at dating websites, at least half and perhaps approaching 90% of the middle age women say they "like to laugh." In other words, they're looking for a guy that can make them laugh. Why? Maybe guys with a sense of humor are less threatening or more fun to be around.

Of course, there are a lot of social situations beyond dating: Talking with a small group of friends. Giving a speech. Meeting someone new. Writing a book. Yes, writing a book is a social situation. Perhaps, readers will be more likely to buy another book from an author whose book made them smile. Or, perhaps they'll recommend it to a friend.

If you're meeting someone new, a little humor can put the other person at ease. When giving a speech, a little humor can help engage the audience. With a small group of friends, humor may make a person more popular.

Of course, that begs the question, why do people like humor? Which further begs the question, what is it?

I'm hardly an expert on the subject, but way back in college I first noticed that most humor involves pointing out some sort of contradiction or inconsistency. Or, it may involve doing something or pointing out something that runs counter to our expectations. By laughing, the listener is acknowledging the fact that he/she "gets it"; that his expectations have been violated; that he sees the contradiction or inconsistency.

Ayn Rand got some things wrong, but she also got some things right. As she has pointed out, the words we use exist not merely as social conventions, but because they refer to things that exist. So, if I were studying humor, the first thing I would probably do is go to the Thesaurus and look up synonyms for words like "humor" and "joke" and see what comes back. Then attempt to figure out how such words refer to social situations and how they violate normal expectations for consistency and proper behavior.

Or, you may find that I'm totally out in left field.

Darrell

The first thing you'd do studying humor is introspect.

--Brant

[caroljane]

Ahem - I assume you mean the men were awful lovers, not the women. The ladies were fabulous. Actually, it was so bad that Peikoff, in his sex lecture, referred to the fact that a few, just a few, men may be, perhaps, a tiny bit conservative in bed. Of course, Peikoff gave a good reason for that - namely that these fine men (and ahem, he's speaking from experience) were so busy with all that rational thinking, sometimes they just felt awkward in bed. Dear god.

My favorite story is when a guy (he was in therapy) I was dating told me he could not have sex until he turned into the equivalent of John Galt. His explanation included this as the reason he was unable to hold hands. God, I miss those days!!!!

Ginny:

I should have been clearer. I was referring to the alleged "men."

And your testimonial replicates what the women told me also. I was, and still am, astounded about that aspect of the movement.

A...

Adam/Ginny, this is amazing. I thought my own recollections may have been biased or distorted by time - but do you remember Phil's story of his "therapy\" and his overthinking of his girlfriend's slightest word, while just getting up and leaving after sex without even a backward look? I am glad Ottawa was so far from NY, and though often invited the bf never wanted to go there!

It is hard not to think that an unintended consequence of ardent Objectivism was a lot of sexual problems for otherwise normal healthy young men.

[Selene]

Adam/Ginny, this is amazing. I thought my own recollections may have been biased or distorted by time - but do you remember Phil's story of his "therapy\" and his overthinking of his girlfriend's slightest word, while just getting up and leaving after sex without even a backward look? I am glad Ottawa was so far from NY, and though often invited the bf never wanted to go there!

It is hard not to think that an unintended consequence of ardent Objectivism was a lot of sexual problems for otherwise normal healthy young men.

I think Ginny and I should put this to a test.