In short, if a characteristic seems to run on Rule of Funny (TVTropes!!!), you can safely assume it is uncorrelated with reality.
I would say instead that things that can qualify for the distinction “Funny” are almost certainly strongly correlated with reality and, indeed, differ from reality (or ‘normality’) to a fairly consistent degree (although that degree varies based on target audience, see Monty Python fans vs Friends fans.)
As you note, it depends substantially on genre. Surreal humor and slapstick humor is anti-correlated with reality. Romantic comedy and the generic sitcom are only uncorrelated.
As you note, it depends substantially on genre. Surreal humor and slapstick humor is anti-correlated with reality. Romantic comedy and the generic sitcom are only uncorrelated.
We seem to use the term correlation and how it applies to reality irrevocably differently. A negative correlation with reality is not something that seems to describe slapstick humor (or anything that humans would be capable of imagining) while the correlation between romantic comedy and reality is merely overwhelming.
Am I being idiosyncratic with my usage? I’ll try to stop that. What I meant:
correlated: high temperatures --> ice cream melting anti-correlated: low temperatures --> ice cream melting uncorrelated: price of tea in China --> number of FAI programmers
The point of my usage was that one would make more errors thinking anti-correlated things are correlated, but knowing things are anti-correlated gives one more information about P(A | B) than knowing they are uncorrelated, where P(A | B) = P(A).
I would say instead that things that can qualify for the distinction “Funny” are almost certainly strongly correlated with reality and, indeed, differ from reality (or ‘normality’) to a fairly consistent degree (although that degree varies based on target audience, see Monty Python fans vs Friends fans.)
As you note, it depends substantially on genre. Surreal humor and slapstick humor is anti-correlated with reality. Romantic comedy and the generic sitcom are only uncorrelated.
We seem to use the term correlation and how it applies to reality irrevocably differently. A negative correlation with reality is not something that seems to describe slapstick humor (or anything that humans would be capable of imagining) while the correlation between romantic comedy and reality is merely overwhelming.
Am I being idiosyncratic with my usage? I’ll try to stop that. What I meant:
correlated: high temperatures --> ice cream melting
anti-correlated: low temperatures --> ice cream melting
uncorrelated: price of tea in China --> number of FAI programmers
The point of my usage was that one would make more errors thinking anti-correlated things are correlated, but knowing things are anti-correlated gives one more information about P(A | B) than knowing they are uncorrelated, where P(A | B) = P(A).