= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Open Thread: February 2010, part 2 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (857)
I believe that humor requires harmless surprise, Harmlessness and surprise are both highly contextual, so what people find funny can vary quite a bit.
One category of humor (or possibly an element for building humor) is things which are obviously members of a class, but which are very far from the prototype. Thus, an ostrich is funny while a robin isn't. This may not apply if you live in ostrich country-- see above about context.
It varies even more based on personality. There are darker forms of humor for which harmlessness and surprise are both dampeners.
Now that I think about it, there's humor that's based on repetition-- the catch phrase that gets funnier each time you hear it.
I'm pretty sure about harmlessness-- the lack of harm may only apply to the person who's laughing.
What sort of humor are you thinking of?
Endless YouTube nutshot videos, Anonymous hacking an epilepsy support forum with flashing GIFs, the infamous banana peel on the sidewalk... Not particularly high-brow humour but many people find such things amusing.
"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die."
- Mel Brooks
There was a sinister touch of amusement buried under my experience of outrage when I read that.
The harmless surprise hypothesis fits my data pretty well. But are you sure repetition-based humor isn't just conditioning people to laugh at a certain thing (catch-phrase or a situation)?
On the other hand, butt-of-a-joke hypothesis also sounds plausible.