I’ve been working on this idea that what gets interpreted as humor in our brains is a collision of two conflicting ideas.
I once heard in a documentary that the best joke in the world is this:
Two fish are in a tank. One says to the other, “do you know how to drive this thing?”
Initially, the thread of logic assumes that the fish are ordinary fish in a fish tank. The next sentence, however, offers a different interpretation of the first sentence – the two fish are in a vehicle called a tank. Not only that, but they can talk. The two conclusions are at odds with each other, creating an impasse, and the result in our brains is humor.
When you dissect jokes like this, you find an interesting formula.
The setup – one thread of logic. “Two fish are in a tank.”
The twist – a conflicting thread of logic. “Do you know how to drive this thing?”
But it would also follow that formula if the second sentence was nonsensical. It just wouldn’t be funny.
Two fish are in a tank. One says to the other, “aardvark rolls pontiac graggle.”
It’s unexpected, but the first sentence does nothing to inform the second. In order for it to work, the second thread of logic has to interpret the first in a different way. It has to be unexpected, but not random.
So for me at least, the formula works best when the setup creates expectations that the twist subverts. Let’s move on to another joke, this one by Groucho Marx.
“Last night, I shot an elephant in my pajamas. What he was doing in my pajamas I’ll never know.”
The first sentence gives you the expectation that the shooter was wearing pajamas. It’s a natural assumption, seeing how the shooting took place at night. The second sentence subverts these expectations by revealing that it was the elephant in the pajamas, not the shooter.
But it’s not the mere confusion of two different threads of thought that make it funny. Both jokes depend on the audience to be prepared for the mundane but then interpret the mundane into something ridiculous. The thought of an elephant wearing a person’s pajamas or two fish driving a tank is not normal, but when juxtaposed with easily imaginable scenarios – an elephant being shot, fish in a fish tank – they do something in your brain.
You ever hear the expression, “it’s funny because it’s true?”
That expression is a lie. Things aren’t funny because they’re true. 1+1=2 is true, that doesn’t make it funny. Funny happens when something is wrong. Something you expect is wrong, and your brain interprets it as humor.
Here’s another joke, this one by Jim Gaffigan.
“…[T]here are adults without children who go to Disney, and they are called weirdos. Very nice people. Absolutely crazy.”
At its heart, the joke is exaggeration. Another way to say this joke is: “People who go to Disney Land without children are unusual.” It’s the exact same joke, but it isn’t funny. The funny part comes with the parts that are wrong. People who go to Disney Land without children aren’t simply unusual, they’re weirdos. Crazy, even.
The initial thread of logic is mundane. “There are adults without children that go to Disney.”
The twist is following that same logic, but exaggerating it to a ridiculous degree.
“…[A]nd they are called weirdos.”
Now, not only are people who go to Disney Land unusual, they’re so mentally unwell they could be classified as insane. The next two parts of the joke: “Very nice people. Absolutely crazy.” serve to support the joke. It would work fine without them, but they illustrate the point even further. They might be nice, but they’re also crazy.
I’m not sure this works with all jokes, or just the ones I can think of. Think about your favorite jokes and funny stories – find out where the formula works in them. The setup which establishes an ordinary thought process, and then the twist which introduces a second and more unusual thought process.
– The Madness
JStiver.com 