joke Archives - Lisa Colón DeLay

Eps 60: The Science of the Imagination and Fascination

This week Spark My Muse has hit a milestone. 30 episodes of Soul School and 60 regular Episodes! It also marks a big shift for things moving forward. The show will be far more collaborative and listener-driven.

This week, I have posed some specific questions for listeners/supporters to help decide some new and important directions and decisions for the show. More questions will follow in the weeks to come. To participate, co-create, collaborate, give input, make suggestions, and be a part of this new era, put some skin in the game. It only takes $1 and you can make BIG difference.

Decide on guests, events, swag, and a lot more. You make the calls.

Ready? Here’s the link.

This week, I welcome Jim Davies, an associate professor at the Institute of Cognitive Science at Carleton University. He is the Director of the Science of Imagination Laboratory, and the Author of “Riveted: The Science of Why Jokes Make Us Laugh, Movies Make Us Cry, and Religion Makes Us Feel One with the Universe.”

You can share an audio snippet by clicking the red and white clammer logo below.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 39:31 — 54.3MB) | Embed

SHOW NOTES

MIN 1:20
Where do the pictures in our visual imagination come from?

Do blind people have a visual memory?

MIN 6:00
The literal details and the meaning and symbol parts of the brain

Can computers imagine or learn to?

MIN 9:30
3D Environments

Neuro modeling simulation of thoughts and imagination.

MIN 14
Jim’s book called “Riveted”

Rules of art form and folk wisdom are they backed by science?

Cognitive science of religion and why we find anything interesting.

MIN 19
The genetics behind the desire for connecting with something greater.

MIN 22:00
What surprised him most in his research?
60% of religiosity is determined.

MIN 23:00
Groups that have religion outcompete groups that don’t
Moral code so you don’t cheat your neighbors.
Pro-social.

The Kibbutz secular vs religious

Prayer and meditation helps you cope with stress.

MIN 27
Why jokes make us laugh.
Social signals about danger.

MIN 28
about why offensive jokes might be funny

LINK TO SPARK MY MUSE
EPISODE 30 on the Science of humor
WITH NEUROSCIENTIST Dr VINOD GOEL

MIN 30
Our brain doesn’t really sense what is fiction or reality 100%

The “Finding Nemo” story

36:00
Jim’s TEDx talks

37:30
Planning bias and completion times

Thank you for listening today!

Would you leave a tip or one-time gift?

Click here to support the show.

To subscribe pick an option below:

Laughter: The Mini BRAIN SCAN

It’s another installment in the HUMOR SERIES.

If you’re new here or late to the series, get started on these previous articles:

1 Intro: Laughing from birth

2. Step 1: Tickle Rats

3. What makes something funny may surprise you

4. Jokers ARE wild: Subversive Humor

How humor works like a mini BRAIN SCAN

(Secular) Biologist Robert Lynch, who also performs as a comedian, sees humor as an adaptive, learned trait; and one that helps us connect with others who share our values.

His theory about humor?
“You laugh because you believe it is true,” says Lynch, and his experiments seem back up his theory, at least partially.

A joke, in other words, is like a little brain scan: When we laugh, we reveal what’s inside us. -Robert Lynch

In an experiment Lynch conducted, a variety of people were video-recorded while watching an edgy comic who joked about gender inequality. The volunteers were then given a psychological test that measured their unconscious gender attitudes. Those with mid-20th century gender views of women being responsible for home and children and men bread-winning laughed harder at that joke than those with more progressive views.

In another experiment, people Lynch terms “self-deceivers” found much less humor in an entire joke reel, in general.

I’m guessing that because Lynch used this “self-deceivers” language to identify reluctant laughers, he probably laughs at just about everything. Naturally, if scientists are self-deceiving they are doing something wrong. Something unreasonable?

I’m betting that to Lynch “self-deceivers” are “other people”. Otherwise, he would term them “discerning” or “wise” or “judicious” or “pensive” or “still thinking about it” or maybe just “unsure”.

So, I wonder if he’s just a bit off the mark.

Could the phenomenon of less laughs be a combination of a few things he hasn’t accounted for?

• Could less laughter be a result of natural personality or temperament traits?

• Fewer habits of deep introspection?

• Previous experiences that predispose infrequent laughers to think quietly instead of giggle aloud?

• Or a mismatch in values? (What sorts of jokes were told? We don’t know because he doesn’t say.)

The subjectivity of laughter producing humor seems to be at play a bit more than his experiments can account for. And that’s no joke.

I do agree with Lynch on this point:
We can conceal our true opinions, but in the moment of unguarded laughter, we reveal our true preferences.

Lynch says that the trait of a sense of humor is desirable and its presence or lack thereof helps us select a mate: A sense of humor is always listed in the top five traits people look for when mate-hunting.

Plus, humor helps us bond with those in our group, or determine who’s outside our group. This does seem clear.

And lest we forget, (the non self-deceived?) Lynch likes to work the crowd at open mic comedy nights. Does this scientist have a formula?

Yes. Sort of. Basically.

Here’s how he does it:

He finds common ground and builds on it. First he works at locating something held in common. Then, he points out a shared opinion or value, and underscores something that rings true to listeners.

It might start with some simple commonality like the geographical location of the place, a sports team preference, or the clientele in attendance.

He’s also snarky. If you like that style you might be amused.

“It’s great to be in New York City again. The coral reef created by sinking subway cars off Manhattan has a 58% higher rate of stabbings than a natural reef.” (or something like that. blah blah blah…you can watch the video on his theory here.)

If I’m writing a joke, often what I do is I look at things that I think are true, that people tend not to admit to, or maybe reluctant to admit to, including myself. -Lynch

Of course, I don’t hold the similar belief that the reason for laughter happened ad hoc and by chance, as Robert Lynch contends. That idea seems more like a punchline to me.

“Why did the cave man laugh? I’ll tell you in ten million years…”

(yes that was mine)

Sure, we adapt using humor, and we always well, but I doubt the source of humor was landed on by sheer mistake or mutation + time. HA-but that’s a good one. You almost had me, Lynch!

What may be the case is something that isn’t so stupefyingly accidental or self-deceiving. Something reasonable.

Namely, that One beyond our comprehension designed and equipped us purposefully with a sense of humor and in a way that we can better socially bond in positive ways…because we inherently need each other.

In a future post, I will go a bit further and pose a kind of theory for the purpose of humor and the reason for laughter based on some work from different researchers and my own educational background.

The takeaway:
If you want to know what someone is really like and what they really think, pay attention to what and whom they laugh at. Laughter is a kind of brain scan.

And examine what makes you laugh.

Dig deeper and find out more about yourself and what needs improving.

I hope you’ve liked this series.

Tell me which has been your favorite post so far.

Come back for “funny friday” and the rest of the series!

-Lisa

For the latest info on my humor related projects sign up here.

Humor Series: Funny to Whom?

funny-old-lady-smoking

Have you heard this one?

Three Humor Science researchers walk into a bar. ….um. Wait. That won’t work. Let me start over.

Get a scientist to talk about humor studies and you get a quick reminder of how science can squeeze the life out of anything.

Dissection is destructive. But no more!

It’s time to find out in a better way:

1. What do people find funny and why?

2. How can YOU become more humorously winsome?

3. How can science and an understanding of human nature and spirituality help us find out?

That’s what this series will be about, and I promise that it won’t be as dull as it’s been when scientists have the mic.

If it’s successful, a long form project will go a lot further and get a lot funnier. That’s up to you.

Here’s the story of how it all started:

A friend of mine asked me to speak at a senior residential home on the topic of community. No problem. I speak at plenty of places on plenty of topics. I wrote my bullet points and picked out an outfit…and then things went bad.

The problem?
I didn’t know she was billing me as “hilarious”.

I found that part out only a few days beforehand. I went into a quiet panic. The kind where your hands get clammy and your sweat smells like bad coffee. You run out of TUMS at times like this.

I’d planned on being friendly and informative, not uproarious. I was going to present material and involve them in cute bonding activities, not split their sides in gales of laughter. My friend had been walking around assuring residents that I was the funniest thing going.

Now what?

Maybe, I could stick a joke in there somewhere:

“Have you ever peed your pants laughing? What a silly question–you’re old people. You peed your pants getting out of bed today. Is bladder incontinence a laughing matter? …Depends.”

Depends is right. This wasn’t going to work.

What if they hated me? Some of them are in chronic pain. Some are grouchy. Some have little patience for sassy youngsters. These people carry canes and some smell like pee.

I could get the beating of my life! And I would deserve it.

The terror of bombing at the place drove me to research the topic of humor scientifically.

My purpose was to help these folks have a good time, not offend them.

What resulted was a quest and many discoveries. I had to find out if funniness can be learned, if public speaking can be improved with a formula, if laughter can be predicted, and if old people laugh at jokes about physical deterioration and, if so, under what conditions.

Well, it turns out the last bit is sort of tricky. More on that in future material.

On getting funnier

My research dug up a very good find and it might help you too:

One of the ways almost anyone can get funnier to more people is to appear harmless more broadly.

Does that seem counter-intuitive?
Yes, there are foul-mouthed, raunchy comics aplenty and seem to get lots of laughs, but they are not typically funny to the greatest numbers of people compared to plenty of other things (pies in the face, mistaken identity antics, prat falls, kittens jumping in surprise), and there is a scientific reason why.

What more people (on average) actually find funny hinges on giving them something that is funny at a further comedic distance. This explains why Jay Leno, Jerry Seinfeld, and Bill Cosby (before all that drugging women stuff was found out) have huge followings and continued success, and Roseanne Barr gets more annoying as time goes by.

What is Comedic Distance?

Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die.

-Mel Brooks

In this quote, Mel Brooks underscores what humor researchers are finding empirically true. Distance matters a lot.

If your child falls off the playground slide and bangs himself up, it’s scary. If some man in a cowboy hat suddenly gets kicked in the crotch by an aggressive llama, it’s laughable.

The Kitten vs. Stern Proof

This is why videos of kittens doing silly things trump in spades the popularity of Howard Stern and his radio show antics. The hoards of memes, shares, and overall fans of funny kitten videos means that invariably, kittens kick Howard’s butt. Big time. Kittens won’t squash your dearly held values. Kittens won’t say something gross about bodily fluids. (Kittens are not funny to everyone, but they are funnier on the whole than a raunchy DJ or vulgar comedian. No contest.)

The difference between kittens and Howard Stern is this: Something “dangerous” isn’t personally threatening when kittens are involved.

Comedic distance (whether physical, chronological, or emotional) creates an amusing incident. The surprise pays off and people are thusly amused. If not, that you can get booed.

For me, I played off that my normal Thursday afternoons are spend with prison inmates and that I was REALLY happy for the upgrade.

I was then heckled by a woman who said,

“Don’t be so sure.” (She has it in for a few of her neighbors. It’s been ugly.)

To which I replied, “Well, you are all much better dressed.”

Resounding laughter. A win!

So, see if you can figure out why the photo above is funny (to most people)?

Answer:
The woman has made it to 100 years old and she’s done it her way.
Sure, smoking is dangerous, but apparently not much, in her case.

Having fun?

I hope you are enjoying this series.

Do you have questions about humor theory or getting funnier?
Let me know.

-Lisa

Here are the previous articles in this series:

1. Finding things funny…from birth

2. Humor Studies: Step 1 – Tickle Rats

For the latest info on my humor related projects sign up here.

Names for Women (or how language is oppressing us)

How do you spell oppression? …maybe E-I-E-I-O. Today it almost looks like we’re down on the farm!

Let’s look at some names, shall we?

HEIFER/COW – connotation towards female: “a fat woman”

(actual meaning: a female cow who has not borne a calf/female cow)

VIXEN – connotation toward females (according to the dictionary) “a spiteful and querrelsome women” (but a google search turns up very racy photos indeed)

(actual meaning: a female fox)

SOW -connotation toward females: “a female police officer, or a degrading name for a woman”

(actual meaning: a female pig)

NANNY– connotation toward females: “a female caretaker of children”

(actual meaning: a female goat)

HEN-connotation toward females: “a gossiping woman”

(actual meaning: a female fowl)

QUEEN – common connotation: “a man behaving unmanly and defectively as a woman” (as in flamboyant homosexual male) Also used for a female monarch.

(actual meaning: a female cat)

TOM -common connotation toward females: “tomboy” a female who does not behave as expected.

(actual meaning: a male cat)

BITCH – connotation toward females: “an annoying or whining female, a disparaging name for a woman, or a person who is dominated”

(actual meaning: a female dog)

SIRE – a respectful and formal name for male royalty, such as a king.

(a male dog, or other male animal parent suitable for pure breeding)

COUGAR– connotation toward females “a sexually aggressive woman”

(actual meaning: a large wild feline)

NITTANY LION – a pedophile named Jerry Sandusky (okay that one is just a joke I heard)

MADAM: connotation toward female: “a woman in charge of prostituting women”

(actual meaning: a formal way to address a women in respect)

SIR: A polite way to refer to a man.

MISS: An unmarried woman

MISTRESS: connotation toward females: “A woman having an illicit sexual relationship”

(actual meaning: The prefix of a formal name referring to a married woman or the female head of a household. Abbreviated as Mrs.)

MISTER: A formal way of referring to a man, and sometimes used humorously. Abbreviated as Mr.

(And finally, my least favorite. Scientific studies show that this word is also typically the one men most dread being called. Seriously.)

By now, you probably have noticed some commonalities. And maybe you can even think of further examples I left out.

What surprised you most?

To me, it doesn’t seem that language favors women. Not the English one anyway.

It also seems that if a man is degraded or thought of an less than, a woman serves as a reference point of that inferiority. This is male privilege in action–every. single. day.

The standard of male as apex not only supports male dominance and heralds masculinity as the preferred societal and ontological ideal, but also works to continually degrade women as inferior. Since language is spoken everyday, every day we learn and re-learn the expectations and norms.

With many names women are highlighted as having defective qualities sexually, morally, physically and are routinely animalized (reduced to sub-man/sub-human) in a hugely disproportionate ways as compared with males. Yes?

Our language reinforces power structures and privilege, and sustains oppression. We should be honest about this. We should be aware.

People will refer to a women as a “girl” but rarely to a man as a “boy”. Plenty of other examples or preference exist.

So, now what can we do to make things better?

…how do we turn this around? I’m taking your suggestions.

Oh, and what’s with all the cat comparisons anyway, right?

# # #

Michael Hyatt says he features the “Best Leaders” (Men) Click http://wp.me/p1g2iA-3bK

Harvest Dance and Veterans Day MASHUP

Happy Veterans Day. To those serving and who have served, I thank you. You have my loyalty, because we have had yours. What you have sacrificed means so much.

This was me and my date, in high school, at a dance (that was -obviously- held on Veterans Day). I was really patriotic (perhaps in a bad way) in the 1980s, and I’ve since been put on medication.

Ya like, it?

USA! USA! USA!