What is humor?

Originally published on Feb 10, 2023

Two dogs are hanging out.

Dog 1 says to the other: hey dawg, would you like to hear a joke?

Dog 2: yeah of course!

Dog 1: knock knock!

Then they both started barking.

Humor exists everywhere in our lives. In our conversations, it is like a lubricant that can smooth out awkwardness and kickstart the interaction. In times of struggle, it is a powerful source of support that offers temporary relief and a different perspective. Mastery of humor will most certainly enhance your people skills and bring about better opportunities. Humor seems to be that magic potion that can appeal to just about anyone.

But what is humor? This is a question that I have long wondered. As much as I admired and desired humor, I was never a funny person growing up. I often took things literally and, unfortunately, quite seriously. Almost like a computer, I read situations with no consideration for the nuances that exist in human association. Recent years, however, I’ve been trying to “learn” humor and I wondered whether humor is a skill to be learned or a talent one can only acquire through the blessings of God. I’m happy to say that, after consistent practice, I’ve made some progress. It is no easy feat, of course. Unlike other skills that is learnt through memorization, understanding humor requires a shift in how we read situations and a remolding of the way we observe situations.

Something that greatly helped me throughout this process is understanding what humor is at its core. For those that are not naturally humorous, a more structured understanding can help us contrive our attempts at humor. Here, I will look at scientific understanding of what humor is, then looking at how Jimmy Carr, an established British comedian, understands humor.

Peter McGraw of University of Colorado is the head of the university’s Humor Research Lab. In his TED talk, “What makes things funny”, he introduced his benign-violation theory, which argues that humor only occurs under three conditions. First, a situation is a violation. Second, the situation is benign. Third, both conditions occur simultaneously.

A violation is anything that disagrees with our understanding of how the world works — such as social norms, moral codes. There are three ways that a violation can be made benign: if the violator appears not to be strongly committed to the violation; if the violation is psychologically distance, such as happened to someone else, happened long ago, or doesn’t seem real; there exist an alternative explanation that makes the violation okay.

Tickle attacks incur laughs in all primates because we all know that the violation is not serious and that the violator is close to us. Walking down the stair is not a violation — not funny. Falling down the stairs and injuring ourselves is a malign violation — not funny. Falling down the stairs without getting hurt or seeing our friend fall down the stair are both benign violation — very funny.

British comedian, Jimmy Carr, who is known for his dark one-liners, share similar views: “a joke is like two stories. The first story makes you make an assumption. The second part of the joke, often known as the punchline, the assumption of the first part is made erroneous, suddenly revealing what was previously concealed.”

Comedy, as it seems, is about the refutation of our assumptions. As we go about life, we learn our environments to maximize our survivability and interests. Along the way, we accumulate a set of understanding of how the world works: if a deal sounds too good to be true, then it probably is; it gets cold during winter seasons; and, in the case of the opening “knock knock” joke, the dog is supposed to say a phrase, instead of barking.

Another aspect of humor that was not mentioned by McGraw or Carr is that a benign violation, which is the same as a refutation of assumptions, also amuses us by connecting two seemingly unrelated things. On the most fundamental level, words come together and sentences are formed to connect ideas. If a normal situation is idea A connecting with idea B, then an assumption is violated when idea A is instead connected with idea C. Puns, for example, are amusing because they are a benign violation of linguistic norms that connect two seemingly unrelated things. In our opening joke, I connected the “knock knock” joke format to, not a phrase, but the nature of dogs.

A very simple principle comes out of this understanding: the more assumptions a situation requires to proceed normally, the more potential there is for humor. A sober person washing dishes hardly has any comedic value; however, an intoxicated person trying to wash dishes creates a lot more potential, because a lot more assumptions need to be made. For that person to wash dishes successfully, we need to assume he can hold dishes safely, he doesn’t spray water everywhere, and he knows which bottle is the soap. These assumptions existed when the person is sober, but it only becomes open to challenge when the person is intoxicated — in other words, a lot more things can go wrong.

So, a place to practice humor is to look for assumptions in our daily interaction and violate it in a benign manner. In conversation, look for implied messages and, in situations, look for things that could go wrong.

In recent decades, however, comedy seems to have been under siege. There no longer seems to be a strong general agreement on what is funny or what you can laugh at. The identity of the person making the joke, the target of the joke, and even what is mentioned in the joke becomes scrutinized by social standards. A joke, no longer seems to be just a joke. As a result, comedians and entertainers have not only faced significant backlash for their jokes, but some have had to apologize for comments made years ago. These conflicts emerge out of the evolution of social morals, where newly emerging social morals are challenging traditional understanding.

In response, there seems to be three attitudes in comedy: those that avoid any contentious social topics, those that disregard social comments, and those that actively rebel against new morals. But, be it a joke on religion or politics, or a decade old joke or one made today, how should we understand jokes that seem to violates certain social morals?

If we follow the understanding that comedy is a refutation of the expected, then any joke that desires an audience is playing with and inherently contingent on what the audience is expecting — or, in other words, the social norm, morals, and expectations of the audience. A joke on Indian food, for example, will only land in an audience that has had Indian food. From a third perspective (that is neither the audience nor the entertainer) a joke is a reflection, observation, and summary on the social understanding of the time when the joke was made. Such social understanding is then contingent on the social structure, economic circumstances, cultural elements, and other environmental conditions. If we expect these conditions to be evolving, then we should expect the appropriateness or acceptability of a joke to be evolving alongside.

To entertainers, this is not the death of comedy. We should recognize that the vibrancy of comedy is neither subject to nor dependent on current social norms. To consumers, comedy is, in a vastly different form, it is a history book — and a unique one as well. It records what academia and government cannot record: the ups and downs, the daily delights and trites, and the uncensored reaction and true sentiments of the people. Not only is deleting something utterly useless, but it also punishes those that were the observers and entertainers of yesterday, at the cost of history.