Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Role Of Humour

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Reading Diana Hsieh's comments on this thread got me thinking about the role of humour in romance (if any) and it's proper function (if any). Here are my conclusions on the matter.

First of all, if you think funny, confident guys are necessarily arrogant without good reason to be; or if you think that shy, unassuming men are always harbouring an inner beauty; you should check the origins of your value judgements.

It is true that being funny does not make you intelligent, or moral. Hell, even the unemployed can be funny. And it is also true that some people are funny and confident without any good reason to be - an awful lot of them are (though the "confident" conformists are usually acting, and can be spotted easily). And yes, it is also true that a lot of intelligent men are shy and unassuming. But so what?

Let's ask this: what is the purpose of humour? I think that it is a defensive (it can be used offensively, but few people do and it would be immoral to use it in such a manner) survival mechanism. You can potentially disarm any heated situation with humour. Notice that a thug will rarely launch at somebody with an unprovoked attack just out of the blue, without trying to cow and intimidate their victim first (which they usually do in short order). There is a reason for this; they want to be absolutely sure they are not making a mistake by attacking this person. After all, it can't hurt to be sure, can it? (Note that thugs probably don't think this in their heads, they just "feel" it). Anyway, if someone acts totally unafraid in such a situation, and ignores the most deadly serious threats with a witty jibe, implying in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that "I don't take you or your threats seriously" - it can keep you safe. Alternatively, you could get stabbed to death. But the point is, humour is your best chance at disarming such a threat, just as it can be used to rebuke an insult from somebody and not permit it to affect you. Humour is a defense mechanism that effectively and unmistakably communicates a total lack of respect, and a feeling of amusement and/or contempt towards something.

Here's an example. I was walking through a public riverside park (damn socialism) in the middle of the night and came across a dubious character. He asked me if I had a cigarette. With a nonchalant, slightly curious look on my face I said: "Why do you ask?". In a flash, he went from too casual to very, very aggressive, cursing and calling me names while I thought for sure my ears would curl. Eventually he told me to hand a "fag" (that's a cigarrette in this country, not homosexual) over to him (as if I had any). My face sank into a deeper set of curiosity and I said: "Why on EARTH would I want to do that?". He cursed again (to which I made a remark about him having a potty mouth, and suggested he lower his voice) and walked away.

Actually, none of this actually happened, but it is exactly how I would act (or try to act) in that given situation, because a veneer of confident humour would be my best chance to prevent myself being assaulted. I don't suggest you try the approach above until and unless it feels totally natural, obvious and normal for you to do it, or it will look fake. It needs to look real.

Taking this line of reasoning further: the more it feels wrong or dangerous to say something, the more effectively it will be if you say it (so long as it doesn't sound like you're putting on an act, and can continue to perform evenly if and when given reason to). For instance, belittling someone with humour after they've tried their intimidation skills on you is all well and good, but it's even better to be pre-emptive: E.g., you're walking along and you see a group of potentially dangerous looking men, you could shout over to them "You'd better watch out fella's; there's a lot of dangerous types around here." Get my drift?

How do you acquire a manner of super-confident humour without having to practice among viscious gangs and getting it wrong and getting killed all the time? Well that calls for a different topic. If anyone is interested in hearing my advice, message me.

Now what on earth does this have to do with dating and romance? It's like this. Humour (when elicited by a male) can subtly and quickly reveal a valuable quality to a female. What is that valuable quality? He can keep her safe and protect her. It is the non-physical equivilent of flexing one's muscles; though humour is far more efficient and safe to use than using one's muscles to deal with problems, as well as hintingly betraying other qualities such as intelligence (if he is funny enough).

My conclusion about this (in addressing what originally got my started on the topic), is that if you dismiss a guy out of hand because he's using humour, you may be filtering out the trash, but there is absolutely no necessity about it. It is equivilent to saying: "Any guy who works out in the gym all day, and where's a thin shirt, is arrogant with no good reason to be, or a brute", and no less false. Granted, if humour is all that he relies on, then he is likely to be shallow and arrogant, but it WOULD be ASSUMING of YOU to decide that solely on the basis that he said something humourous.

The trouble with the internet is that the voice-tone and body language employed in the telling of a joke is lost, and therefore, the joke is more likely to fall flat. It's also easier for a woman to chuckle in private and then type off a message in a flat tone "That's not funny." - and also very dishonest of her I might add.

And that, as they say in India, is that.

EDIT: Corrected bad line breaking.

Edited by iouswuoibev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll add this:

I like Gwynplaine, thought not as severe, and not as Ayn Rand once commented of Jimmy Carter, I have a permanent smile. It's always there but it often happens when someone is yelling at me or reproaching me--because as a fact I don't feel guilt and am not guilty, however, people take it as if I am belittling them. In a way I am ... but only because I know I am not guilty ... and often know I am just doing my job or just acting as a rational human being. You should see these people's angry faces and irrelevant comments and intimidations ... hence I "laugh".

Same in romance, and though not as extreme but a nearing reaction.

I guess, some people don't find me funny.

But often when I smile it is serious, and I am suppressing my anger (since they are angry at me), because very few people have seen me fuming angry.

They would probably cry ...

Anyways,

Americo Norman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooook... I am replying to your examples of when to use humor. If a man in a park asked me for a cigarette, I would give him one if I had one, or not if I didnt. It's not that complicated. As for seeing a bunch of people I thought might impose a threat on my person, I would DEFINATELY not call attention to myself, and would probably leave. There is no reason to instigate a bad situation. You never want to give someone a reason to harm you, and patronizing them is definately going to piss them off. They might not even be thinking about you! Just ignore them.

Humor in a relationship is critical. If you can't find someone who can make you laugh, I can almost guarantee you will not be happy in that relationship. You want a relationship that promotes happiness. On my list of things to find in someone, "sense of humor" is definately at the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humor is a not a defense: a weapon is. If someone whips out a knife and you crack a joke, he's going to be even more likely to stab you.

I do have a sense of humor. I like plays on words (I ask people if they are cornfused a lot :)) and generally harmless silliness, like stating the completely obvious as if it were mysterious. But I never mock anything of value in my humor. To do so is to say: "This is not worth valuing".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife pointed out the essence of what I was trying to say.

Ideas are important. Would it be OK to mock Ayn Rand when she said "existence exists"?

Similiarly, values are important because values are derived from ideas. How would you feel if you really valued classical music and someone came along and picked up a violin and strummed it like a heavy metal guitarist? They might think they were funny, but how would you feel watching this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading Diana Hsieh's comments [...] got me thinking about the role of humour in romance (if any) and it's proper function (if any).

What do you mean by "humor"? The concept is undefined here even though it is the center of this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humor is a not a defense: a weapon is.  If someone whips out a knife and you crack a joke, he's going to be even more likely to stab you.

It's a verbal defense. Do I need to clarify further what I mean by this?

What on earth makes you think he is MORE likely to stab you? If he pulls a knife on you, he's certainly capable of doing it regardless. If you act like a pushover that will embolden him into doing it, won't it?

I do have a sense of humor.  I like plays on words (I ask people if they are cornfused a lot :thumbsup:) and generally harmless silliness, like stating the completely obvious as if it were mysterious.  But I never mock anything of value in my humor.  To do so is to say: "This is not worth valuing".

Similiarly, values are important because values are derived from ideas. How would you feel if you really valued classical music and someone came along and picked up a violin and strummed it like a heavy metal guitarist? They might think they were funny, but how would you feel watching this?

You know, you're right, humor DOES say that something is not worth valuing. But that leaves the question open: WHAT is not worth valuing? The object of the mocking isn't necessarily violin/classical music. It might be mocking that he doesn't know how to play it properly, or it might be mocking how crude rock music is. How you receive the joke depends on a] how abstract you are when observing humor, both habitually and in any particular context and B] how benevolent your attitude is towards people in general. (You're more likely to think "This guy is mocking violin music, how dare he" if you are predisposed to judging him negatively).

Because of these two factors involved, it is no wonder that there is so much diversity as to what someone finds funny. You can tell a fair bit about someone by what makes them laugh.

How would I feel about it? I think it's mildly amusing, because it's an OK joke. (And no, I don't dislike classical or find it worthy of mocking).

EDIT: Added missing word. Fixed labelling.

Edited by iouswuoibev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "humor"? The concept is undefined here even though it is the center of this discussion.

I would need to analyse it further to come up with a formal definition. I've given you some of its (semi-essential) attributes, and you probably have enough concrete examples to at least be able to point to something and say "that's humor". As soon as I think of a formal definition I'll post it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What on earth makes you think he is MORE likely to stab you?

He's going to think you're mocking him or his resolve, and then he'll want to prove you wrong or make an example of you in order to get what he's after. We're not talking about Joe Blow street walker here, you already know this is a very malevolent person from the fact that he pulled a knife on you. You can't treat him the same way you would a casual acquaintence at a party who mocks capitalism.

But even in the latter case, I would state the correct ideas as a real defense -- trying to blow him off with a joke would only make me look like a dogmatist, or someone who doesn't care about capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's going to think you're mocking him or his resolve,

Based on my observation of people in general, I can induce that there is a higher probability that he will be intellectually spineless and inequipt to fight someone verbally. For a man to attack a victim physically - after the victim has totally beaten him verbally - is the ultimate confession of his own cowardice and powerlessness. He would have to be severely psychotic to not grasp this implicitly, and it would be very hard for him to ignore the resulting emotion, which would be preventing him from doing physical harm despite how technically easy it is. He can't go ahead and teach you a lesson without shouting out to the world and his soul; "I am totally impotent and useless and cannot deal with reality." Of course, he might already have accepted this and therefore be psychotic. That's the risk you take. He'd probably attack you anyway if he is that predisposed to violence.

But even in the latter case, I would state the correct ideas as a real defense -- trying to blow him off with a joke would only make me look like a dogmatist, or someone who doesn't care about capitalism.

Can you give me an example of a joke in this scenario, that would make you look like you don't care about Capitalism? I personally can't think of one.

EDIT: Fixed grammar. Changed "mindlessness" to "powerlessness".

EDIT: Fixed typo.

Edited by iouswuoibev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "humor"? The concept is undefined here even though it is the center of this discussion.

Humor is anything that makes one laugh. To be humorous is to have the capability of making one laugh.

Genus=Anything (indicating humor's connection to a wider group of existent's)

Differentia=Making one laugh (distinguishing it from all other existents)

Now THAT's a humorous definition! :ninja:

*runs away laughing while Burgess gives him a reprimanding look*

Honestly though, after some minutes of thinking, that's the best I can come up with for a definition--although "anything" should probably be switched with "an emotional response."

It is true that being funny does not make you intelligent...

To a certain extent. If a person is consistently funny--that is to say, if I hang out with him and he makes me laugh or chuckle a few times in a time frame of twenty minutes, then I must call him intelligent.

Now, as to the purpose of humor--it's simply to ellicit an emotional response of laughter. The next logical question is, "What's the purpose of laughter?" That one I'm not sure I'm ready to tackle; however, we do know that people voluntarily go out and seek laughter (as in the case of watching a comedian), so there must be a purpose behind this.

The purpose, I will presume, is psychological release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not offering a definition here, but here are my thoughts on what the essential characteristic of humour might be.

I think that humor (or perhaps, just one particular kind of humor) is about contradicting an established context. I am not sure whether contradiction is the essential attribute of humor, but it certainly plays a significant role as I keep observing its reappearence. This established context may be implicit or explicit.

An implicit context is one that hasn't been explained beforehand and is assumed to be true by both the teller and/or tellee(s) of the joke. An explicit context is one where it is deliberately and clearly explained beforehand (as in the case of one-liners). Or to put it another way, implicit humor is where the context is assumed, explicit is where it is spelled out and "unmistakable". Humor with implicit/explicit context is implicit/explicit humor.

I don't think either implicit or explicit humor are necessarily more effective at making people laugh, but with the implicit humor you take a risk. If a person wants to see whether you're really funny and can keep up the same line of reasoning, they can contradict you by acting as if they didn't understand the joke. Or they may even just not understand the joke, in which case it was either poor judgement on your part or poor awareness on part of the recipient. It requires a certain way of thinking and considering things in order to produce a joke (except those which happen "by accident" which are rare) and it doesn't come easily to most people.

Here is an example of contradiction in humor. The following is implicit humor.

"A man walks into a bar. Ouch."

Here the established context is that the man is walking into a bar [to buy drinks], and the contradiction is that he in fact walking into a METAL BAR. This is implied, and relies on the fact that people are used to hearing bar jokes where it is assumed to be the other sort of bar. The joke would not be nearly as effective and might not work at all on someone who had never heard such jokes before.

Now here's another example of humor. You've just made passionate love to your girlfriend/wife and she is gazing adoringly into your eyes, and you can tell it was one of the highest points in her life.

You say matter-of-factly: "Rubbish, wasn't it?"

Here again, the humor is implicit, because you are counting on the fact that she did enjoy the sex (EDIT: and that she assumes that you are refering mainly to her experience, not yours). And you can be pretty certain of whether that is true, but it is implicit because you didn't (verbally) create the situation yourself, and so you lack some of the control in how the recipient takes the situation to be.

Humor is HIGHLY context dependant. If I used that same line after sex with a woman of low self-esteem who is clearly showing a feeling of guilt, she might burst into tears. If I used it while out shopping on my own, it wouldn't make any sense.

Some humor is very subtle. For example, someone tells you "Don't be a jerk." You reply with "Would you believe me if I told you I wasn't a jerk?" Here you are contradicting something very implicit. You are not contradicting the words "Don't be a jerk" but the reasoning behind them, by treating it as if the words were meant in a completely different sense. In "Don't be a jerk" he was really saying "You are a jerk, and I don't like it, so please stop it." And when you respond with "Would you believe me to be..." you have shown the assumption that he in fact isn't convinced you are a jerk. That's where the contradiction lies.

Thoughts anyone?

Edited by iouswuoibev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He can't go ahead and teach you a lesson without shouting out to the world and his soul; "I am totally impotent and useless and cannot deal with reality."

If he has in fact pulled a knife on you, then he's already done that. Doing it again will mean nothing to him.

Can you give me an example of a joke in this scenario, that would make you look like you don't care about Capitalism?

Humor that is non-sequitor, i.e. mocking his dress or his hair style because he dislikes capitalism. Almost everyone implicitly understands this kind of fallacy.

But more than that: in general, making light of something that's important is to say "this isn't really that important, so lets just mock it instead" -- UNLESS you are certain that all parties to the joke already know what is important and what the truth is.

Why do you think sometimes people don't "get" jokes? What is the most common cause of people getting the intent of a joke, but not thinking its funny?

Edited by TomL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he has in fact pulled a knife on you, then he's already done that.

I don't think between his confession of impotence and pulling a knife on you is quite as obvious as that of actually attacking you.

Anyway, I don't claim that humor will necessarily keep you safe. I am claiming that it can sway a persons confidence. With humor, you can communicate that you are not afraid of them. If you don't seem afraid (because you are able to joke about their threats), it will confuse the hell out of them and plant doubts in their head. Even if they do decide to eventually attack, it will take more a mental effort to do so, and will likely even put fear into them that confuses them. This is particularly to your advantage if they are not armed and you are good with self-defense.

I also want to clarify that by humor I don't mean cracking jokes, but rather the humor is in failing to observe the danger they are trying to represent themselves as. They might begin to believe that you should not be messed with, even if they can't rationally explain why based on anything except your demenour.

If this sounds far fetched, I would say it is far fetched that most people could achieve the kind of attitude that would allow them to act in this way, but I think it is perfectly possible.

if anyone wants an example of what I mean, and happens to own the book "Temple of the Winds" by Terry Goodkind, they can read Chapter 21-22 and compare the characters of Nathan and the Abbott.

Humor that is non-sequitor, i.e. mocking his dress or his hair style because he dislikes capitalism.  Almost everyone implicitly understands this kind of fallacy.
Ok, but I was thinking of humor that is actually clever and funny. Saying "Capitalism isn't bad like you say it is because you have a crap hairdo" is just sad.

But more than that: in general, making light of something that's important is to say "this isn't really that important, so lets just mock it instead" -- UNLESS you are certain that all parties to the joke already know what is important and what the truth is.

But as I said before, it depends on WHAT you are making light of and mocking. In the violin example, the object of mockery is not necessarily classical music.

Why do you think sometimes people don't "get" jokes?  What is the most common cause of people getting the intent of a joke, but not thinking its funny?

I already accept that humor involves regarding something as unimportant (at least in a lot of cases). If they don't think its funny whilst grasping the intent (providing they really did grasp the true intent), then its as you've already suggested: they are spitting on what is good. I don't think I ever disagreed with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

India.

I ask because I come from India, and I don't recall this phrase having originated in my home country, or being something very popularly used. Well, it is used frequently among the English speaking population but I was among the impression it was american or european in origin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One day I was sitting in my room watching an episode of the Family Guy. And this is what transpired in that episode (I Never Met the Dead Man)

“Lois is trying to feed Stewie (pretending the fork is an airplane)

Stewie says, "Damn the brocoli, damn you and damn the WRIGHT BROTHERS!

I laughed out loud at this and then I stopped and started to think and I asked myself, why was that funny? And more generally speaking what do you need to do to make things funny?

And this is my answer, I think the “ingredients” for making something funny are to introduce something completely unexpected to the particular situation you are in, BUT that is still somehow indirectly related to the situation. Just analyze the scene:

Mother using fork to feed baby -->Fork Airplane -->Airplane--> Wright brothers

They are all connected

But If I were to come up to you and show you a picture of a mother feeding a baby and then a picture of the Wright brothers and then I asked you, what do they have to do with each other? You probably would not be able to find any relation between the two.

After seeing this I started to watch and listen to all the things I and other people were laughing at, (Simpson’s-Friends-Comedy central-Howard Stern Show- Seinfeld-Interactions between people around me, Anything) and I kept seeing the same thing happen again and again. Somebody would introduce something unexpected to the conversation or situation, BUT it was still related to the situation.

One of my conclusions is that that mental integration is essential for humor, finding connections between seemingly unrelated things and then introducing them to the situation or conversations you are in make people laugh.

You can see if my conclusion is right or wrong by just sitting down and watching your favorite comedy.

Edited by Al Kufr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my conclusions is that that mental integration is essential for humor, finding connections between seemingly unrelated things and then introducing them to the situation or conversations you are in make people laugh.

You can see if my conclusion is right or wrong by just sitting down and watching your favorite comedy.

Yes. You might be interested to know that Arthur Koestler drew a similar conclusion in the chapter, "The Logic of Laughter," from his book, The Act of Creation. I highly recommend his astute and well illustrated analysis of humor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...