EGarrett

Karma: 268

EGarrett Aug 23, 2014, 9:10 AM
0 points
in reply to: Luke_A_Somers’s comment on: A “Holy Grail” Humor Theory in One Page.
...a single line that expresses itself in a broad wide open polydimensional space of ideas and humor. In the second paper we listed 40 examples of different “blooms” from this single seed. There are countless more.

I don’t think this is unprecedented at all. Take the Theory of Evolution. It’s amazing to me (and of course what we’re discussing is even just a small slice of its results). The whole of Evolution is also a single line (variation and selection) that expresses itself in thousands and even millions of ways.

I’ll continue thinking about what you’ve said.

EGarrett Aug 23, 2014, 8:58 AM
−2 points
in reply to: Azathoth123’s comment on: Why Are Individual IQ Differences OK?
It’s not a matter of disputing, it’s a matter of not recognizing and taking it into account.

Of course, saying the “environment is the ultimate cause” is like saying “the big bang is the ultimate cause”, true but not helpful.

You don’t see how a logical thought process that would advocate genocide (removing “bad genes” you believe are responsible for undesirable social characteristics or behavior) over changing short and long term environmental pressures on groups pf people is a bad idea?

Care to define what you mean by “racist thinking”, also preferably with an explanation of why your particular definition is a bad thing?

To quote myself from years ago...

Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

Examples: 1. I waved hello to a sleeping Asian person once, and he did not respond. This taught me that Asian people are rude, and I have never said hello to one since!

EGarrett Aug 23, 2014, 8:49 AM
2 points
in reply to: V_V’s comment on: Why Are Individual IQ Differences OK?
DNA Tests can predict a trait that would cause you to self-identify, but that doesn’t relate to the rest of your gene profile...and that trait (like hair consistency, nose size and shape etc) may have nothing to do with the other result you’re trying to measure. I may self-identify as black because I full lips, but if you then try to measure my athleticism, you may find that’s dictated by genes I received from someone Native American or white in my ancestry.

They recently tested Snoop Dogg and Charles Barkley for a bit on the George Lopez Show. Snoop Dogg has far more stereotypically “black” physical traits,” particularly much darker skin...which would lead you to identify as being more black and having more African Ancestry. It turns out Snoop Dogg was only 70% black, and Charles Barkley’s percentage was higher. If you think Snoop Dogg’s data, is more indicative of “black genes” and what they result in, you’d be wrong. Thus, self-reporting is not objective scientific data about DNA categories.

EGarrett Aug 22, 2014, 9:55 PM
2 points
in reply to: V_V’s comment on: Why Are Individual IQ Differences OK?
If the self-report isn’t actually reflective of their real genetics, then that’s a problem for trying to link traits with self-reported race and then claim or imply that is data about the real genetics.

EGarrett Aug 22, 2014, 8:45 PM
2 points
in reply to: A1987dM’s comment on: Why Are Individual IQ Differences OK?
I’ll correct that. Was probably in the course of typing several replies on different parts of the subject. Bone structure gets detected by environment, but it in itself isn’t.

EGarrett Aug 22, 2014, 8:41 PM
2 points
in reply to: V_V’s comment on: Why Are Individual IQ Differences OK?
Wikipedia adds:

Correspondence between genetic clusters in a population (such as the current US population) and self-identified race or ethnic groups does not mean that such a cluster (or group) corresponds to only one ethnic group. African Americans have an estimated 10–20-percent European genetic admixture; Hispanics have European, Native American and African ancestry.[6] In Brazil there has been extensive admixture between Europeans, Amerindians and Africans, resulting in no clear differences in skin color and relatively weak associations between self-reported race and African ancestry.

EGarrett Aug 22, 2014, 7:46 PM
0 points
in reply to: gjm’s comment on: A “Holy Grail” Humor Theory in One Page.
This is natural reciprocal altruism. If I was bickering a bunch of calling names, I wouldn’t mind receiving it back. But I’m going out of my way not to do so, so I’m less tolerant of receiving it.

Similarly, not every reaction someone has is a sign of personal weakness of them. Including “quicker-than-optimal to take offence.” Focus instead on the ideas and not trying to force things into aspersions on others.

EGarrett Aug 22, 2014, 7:39 PM
3 points
in reply to: Azathoth123’s comment on: Why Are Individual IQ Differences OK?
No, that’s not what’s commonly meant, and the lack of acknowledging that environment is the ultimate cause is one of the major sources of confusion that creates racist thinking.

Not realizing this may confuse the issue for you. But I know precisely what I’m saying.

EGarrett Aug 22, 2014, 7:35 PM
3 points
in reply to: Azathoth123’s comment on: Why Are Individual IQ Differences OK?
You said “what on earth,” which implies no awareness at all.

I also don’t necessarily agree that you can discuss statistical correlations with poorly-defined or undefinable categories. Sounds like a recipe for bad science. It may work at first, but as you try to really investigate, it will become awkward.

Oh and by the way, I’ve noticed that the more I talk to you, the more downvotes are starting to appear on my posts here and elsewhere, and it’s begun here, specifically, on my replies to you, with no evidence of anyone else doing it in my conversations with them.

Be aware that the moderators do not take kindly to mass downvoting and you will get banned if that’s what you’re doing.

EGarrett Aug 22, 2014, 7:33 PM
0 points
in reply to: gjm’s comment on: A “Holy Grail” Humor Theory in One Page.
First, regarding puns, yes that’s how I explain them. But puns and misplacements frequently aren’t funny...they usually create humor through 2nd person laughter (at someone else’s bold and forced punnery, showing either their lameness or utter disrespect for people who don’t like puns), or through being layered with something else (misplacement combined with further physical failure)

Misplacement by itself is kind of like a hamburger patty without any salt, bun, lettuce or tomato. If it’s a wrong enough misplacement, it CAN be funny, just like you CAN eat the plain old hamburger patty without preparing it...but it’s pretty uncommon. The “flushed with success” example is a layered pun. It’s not just the patty. The person is pointing out first that they didn’t use puns, implying that it’s lame, obvious, easy or silly, then immediately doing it. This is combined with the misplacement. So you get both him purposefully doing something that he just implied isn’t good humor, AND the sense of misplacement...it’s a hamburger patty combined with some seasoning, which is what we normally see. Plushed with success might still be somewhat funny because he’s failing at punning or still “stooping to it” after mentioning it, but not as funny as “flushed” since that has more pun characteristics.

By the way, I’m well-aware that this is one of the least obvious aspects of the theory, and I’m also well-aware that this is the most ripe for me to focus on and try to put more clearly and speak more about. I’m not proclaiming that this is or was stated perfectly, but I do have a strong feeling that I’ve gotten a handle on what’s going on and just need to trim and organize the thoughts on it well.

In general, this theory seems squarely aimed at humour that could be classified as “laughing at someone” (perhaps one’s hypothetical self, etc.). There is a lot of humour of this kind, but it’s by no means all there is.

At the risk of overgeneralizing (we’re covering a lot of ground here)...I’m essentially saying that yes, all humor is laughing at someone, but it’s done for the purposes of peaceful group organizing, so it’s not as evil or threatening as that might seem...and a lot of laughter is when someone says something or acts something out that we can imagine them saying and would cause us to laugh at them...of which the imagining causes us to laugh.

Also, we usually don’t realize which someone we’re laughing at. Sometimes the “someone” is an unknown person with an average-person expectation...and often our primitive brain will laugh at what it thinks is an error by an unknown person. and we get confused at who the someone is.

I am fairly sure (just from introspection, which is of course rather unreliable) that I sometimes find things funny because they’re much cleverer than they first appear—the exact reverse of your status loss mechanism. (But it fits nicely with Hurley&Dennett’s.) I suppose you could try to cram this into your framework by saying that I am the one whose status is being lowered here, but I don’t think this makes sense in your just-so story. What value would there be in drawing attention in a status-lowering manner to one’s own mistake? Especially a mistake one has made only internally?

Yes, this is a very valid concern that has been brought up. The example I’ve used elsewhere is here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww2d_o0N62w&t=2s

Obviously we can find more examples but just one makes things tidy. The commentator (Isiah Thomas) really clarifies what I’m proposing because he laughs after the HIGHER STATUS display by Jordan, but says “Excuse me! I’m sorry!” which I think underlines the idea that this display is making him laugh at his own expectation or claim (in this case that Jordan was losing his athleticism in his mid-30′s) being proven so starkly wrong.

The question of WHY we would laugh at ourselves is also a very good one to ask and I’ve thought about it. I think that 1) There’s a “fail-safe” switch for ruining your own status in that having anxiety about it would counteract the reflex, so it doesn’t happen in situations that would totally kill your status. And 2) We view people who can laugh at themselves as being likable and socially desirable. This fits with the idea that they accept their own errors being noticed and peacefully placing them wherever they may be in the status order.

You also asked why we would laugh when we’re alone. I think laughter is an unconscious reaction, like smiling, that happens whether we’re alone or not. We also, for example, sometimes unconsciously talk to ourselves out loud when we’re alone.

Typographical errors are not usually funny, even when their validty and wrongness are both comparable to those in a pun. For instance, in the foregoing sentence there happens to be a missing letter. Maybe you noticed it, maybe not; these things are eminently missable.

As you said yourself, the noticeability on that error is very low. It’s also not necessarily a display below expected quality. I make typos all the time, I see them all the time. They don’t surprise me. So the difference between “Qe” and “Qd” as well as the “N” (noticeability) are both very low or 0 in the equation.

It seems to me that someone who starts out with visibly low status shouldn’t be able to generate humour by doing silly things. (This is about the “expectation” term in your equation.) I think clowns (and probably court jesters) are counterexamples, and I still think so having read what you write about them in your papers. Perhaps in some cases (as you propose) one can explain a jester as mocking the king or courtiers and hence abruptly lowering their status, but I don’t think that’s the whole of what a jester would do and it certainly doesn’t apply to a lot of what a clown does.

People with visibly low status can’t generate humor AS EASILY as people with high status. They have to find new ways to mess up or sink to new lows. I think clowns dress the way they do because it earns an initial laugh from kids (adults realize that it’s an act, but kids wouldn’t recognize high status as well as adults if the clown dressed more normally, so the outfit works better there), but they do all other kinds of things and jokes to keep the laughter going. If it was JUST the outfit, that would get a laugh or two, then people would stop. As you said, the same is true of court jesters, they could probably use their outfits to get an initial laugh, then use their low status to get extra laughter out of mocking others, but you’re right, they did other things to be entertaining as well, like maybe juggling or magic. These weren’t necessarily funny though.

I can summarize a lot of what I find unsatisfactory in your theory as follows: your theory locates humour in “sudden stupidity”, but it seems to me that “sudden cleverness” is approximately equally important and it appears to be entirely neglected in your theory.

I think this is similar to the above points on first-person laughter. Note that sudden cleverness can also be someone telling a clever joke, too.

I also think you exaggerate its novelty. Your theory isn’t far from the “superiority theory”, for instance. My memory (which is not very reliable) says that Hurley&Dennett’s description of this theory lays more stress on the object’s inferiority than on the laugher’s superiority, at which point the differences look very minor.

I don’t know if I’m as focused on “novelty” as I am on elegance, utility and consistency with evidence. Those would be the things I really am more excited about and that I think are most important. Having said that, yes, this theory definitely has things in common with Superiority Theory AND Incongruity Theory and probably some others. What I like is that I think it connects the claims of both in a manner that’s logical and (at least at the core) is simple enough to be explained to a child.

But also, I think Superiority Theory focuses on laughter being (as quoted in paper one) sudden joy arising from one’s own superiority. This goes much further then that, saying that laughter is not just happiness, but a DISTINCT reflex all its own that has its own physical characteristic (diaphragm spasm), and includes a pleasure chemical and a smile for a clear, logical and specific reason (peaceful social ordering etc). We also introduce a logical basis for anxiety lowering humor and so on.

Obviously, I haven’t read all 100+ humor theories so I’m not comfortable proclaiming something is “brand new” and would feel silly doing it. But, I do think it’s not true to say that this doesn’t have different ideas (or more advanced and logical ideas) than Superiority Theory.

All the best and if you want to focus on anything specific I’ve said, just let me know. I want to address all the points but I don’t want to bury people in mountains of text either. Long or short replies asking about specific issues are both welcome.

EGarrett Aug 22, 2014, 6:59 PM
0 points
in reply to: gjm’s comment on: A “Holy Grail” Humor Theory in One Page.
Not worth talking to, not addressing their opinions...I’d put those under the same umbrella.

My replies aren’t in the vein of gainsaying other people or baldly declaring that I’m right. I’ve developed this theory for quite a few months now (after being a writer and working professionally as a story analyst for years)...and I’ve had conversations with a lot of people about various aspects of it. My responses here aren’t “Nope, I’m right.” They’re more along the lines of...”Yes, that is a valid concern that I’ve heard before. Here’s what I determined about it, or why I think the theory can explain that.”

Keep in mind also, I’m not a perfect communicator. There’s no way I can know how other people view what I’m saying or what makes sense or doesn’t make sense to others...so I need to see people’s replies to know what I should expand on from the theory or put my energy into clarifying.

I’m also not going to get into a discussion where I’m being called names. If “crankish” is someone who presents a theory based on over 10-years of work in a field they’ve studied obsessively, writes over 30 pages of papers attempting to clearly show how the theory works in as many cases as they can imagine...presents it with enthusiasm, and politely tries to clarify the idea, address concerns and discuss it...then I’m happy to be a crank, and I think a whole lot of other people should be “cranks” in that way.

I’m not going to discuss anything else related to name-calling. I’m going to address the substantive points in a friendly and respectful way. If you want to do the same, I hope you will stay, if you want to focus on names, this isn’t the thread for you.

EGarrett Aug 22, 2014, 6:49 PM
0 points
in reply to: Luke_A_Somers’s comment on: A “Holy Grail” Humor Theory in One Page.
OH, okay I think I get it. You’re saying that we might expect to find A, but instead find B in its place, and be may not actually be a bad thing, therefore it’s not necessarily a sign of low-quality and this seems odd given the theory? Since “kets” isn’t necessarily a stupid thing in and of itself?

In that case, the act of misplacement can be an error even if the thing that’s incorrectly there isn’t a foolish thing. Like for example, let’s say someone signs up for a speech by John Edward, thinking it’s the psychic medium, and he wants to investigate. Instead when he gets there, it turns out to be the ex-presidential candidate John Edwards.

In this case, John Edwards, the presidential candidate, is more respectable (IMO) then John Edward, but you still might laugh at the error, simply because it was still you not ending up where you intended to be.

Now, if this is the issue (it may not be, if I misunderstood please clarify), I think the reason is that misplacement, including puns, are often found in “layered humor,” where you can detect other signs of error or foolishness or low-quality by the people involved, along WITH the misplacement. You see this a lot in jokes and humor because it’s extra funny.

For example, someone might mistake one button for another on the elevator in a way that’s funny...and AS A RESULT have the elevator close on their foot while they’re trying to leave and make them fall. This is a layered misplacement joke that leads to further physical failure.

You’ll see that MUCH more often, because misplacement by itself isn’t as funny...BUT a simple misplacement can still be funny. It’s like hamburger patty. You can eat it without the bun and the lettuce and tomato...but you don’t see that happening very often.

If this isn’t the issue you’re bringing up, I apologize and maybe you can clarify for me.

EGarrett Aug 21, 2014, 9:10 PM
1 point
in reply to: Nornagest’s comment on: Why Are Individual IQ Differences OK?
There are many other factors like bone structure (which is also dictated ultimately by environment) and the year-round warm weather that seem quite clearly to contribute, but it would be a digression and wouldn’t really be necessary to illustrate the point.

EGarrett Aug 21, 2014, 4:39 PM
0 points
in reply to: Luke_A_Somers’s comment on: A “Holy Grail” Humor Theory in One Page.
I’m pretty sure I agree with what you’re saying, but I don’t know exactly what you’re referring to with this paragraph.

EGarrett Aug 21, 2014, 11:37 AM
2 points
in reply to: Jiro’s comment on: Why Are Individual IQ Differences OK?
Not every reply is automatically disagreement, some are expanding on or clarifying ideas. I want to clarify and focus on the idea that the actual issue is in the way people phrase things, and show specifically how the phrasing should be changed.

If there is an aspect where I might be disagreeing though, it’s in the claim that race should be included at all in these statements. Given how people get confused on this and how dangerous it’s proven to be in the past, it’s probably better not to use race at all when making these statements about tendencies caused by environment...especially since race itself has no causal relationship.

EGarrett Aug 21, 2014, 10:33 AM
0 points
in reply to: gjm’s comment on: A “Holy Grail” Humor Theory in One Page.
Can we clear up one thing before we start?

You said I’m “replying dismissively.” This would imply that I’m acting as though other people aren’t worth talking to. I’m posting this exactly BECAUSE I want to talk to other people about it, and I’m going to great lengths to try explain my idea. I also don’t see myself insulting anyone...the worst I’ve said is that I don’t care as much for certain other theories because they aren’t clear enough, don’t reflect the evidence that I think is important, and aren’t as simple as I suspect the answer in this case should be. These aren’t insults towards other people.

To say I’m talking “dismissively” (or bring up “fools” or “cranks,” I don’t see a fool or crank anywhere) is starting on the wrong foot, I’m not here to engage in insults or slapfights with other people. My enthusiasm is for the ideas, and yes, certainly, for my first thread, I’ve chosen something that I think could be an important idea and that I’m excited to share.

As long as we are starting with this understanding, I can happily talk about the substantial things you’ve brought up? Fair enough?

EGarrett Aug 21, 2014, 10:27 AM
0 points
in reply to: erratio’s comment on: A “Holy Grail” Humor Theory in One Page.
Well, firstly, this isn’t a big deal, but I’ll describe it because you asked. In terms of clarity, Dennett has a habit of using unnecessarily complex language, as well as burying his leads and dancing around his points. The end result is that most people don’t bother and so he doesn’t communicate what may at its core be an interesting thought. A lot of the same happens when people describe his ideas (you don’t need to say “coterminous” when you can just say “humor is not the same as laughter,” for one example, and be more specific about how they aren’t the same if or when it becomes necessary.) Specificity where it isn’t needed is a common problem in academic writing. (rather than tell someone that it’s “time to go,” you could show them a multi-decimal readout from an atomic clock that would accomplish nothing additional).

I find it inelegant because it doesn’t fit neatly with our common experiences of humor. For example in the book abstract, it’s stated essentially that humor rewards us for fixing our mental models. I agree that we have mechanisms that reward us for that, as I’ve stated in the past that there’s a pleasure chemical released in the brain when we make a new connection. But we don’t laugh in all those circumstances. (the classic example being “Eureka!” That’s that, but not a laugh).

What’s important is that the new discovery not match your expectation. If it was just about updating your model, it would seem clearly that you’d laugh in the “Eureka” situation too. But we don’t. The theory I’m proposing draws a clear distinction between those two moments of mental connection, and offers a (hopefully) logical reason WHY that distinction is there, including other traits associated with laughter, like why we laugh in a way that other people can hear and so on.

Lastly, regarding things being reducible to status. Let me be clear that that’s the purpose of it, but the instinct triggers in its own way. Similar to how men might be attracted to large breasts for reasons that are reducible to reproductive ability in the woman, but that instinct is triggered in its own way, solely by breast size/shape etc, which means in modern times, there are situations where it’s triggered without the intended purpose being fulfilled (like with breast implants).

I hope this is clear. If not I apologize and will try to use different terms.

EGarrett Aug 21, 2014, 10:08 AM
5 points
in reply to: Jiro’s comment on: Why Are Individual IQ Differences OK?
Jiro,

The problems are that people speak in terms that assign causation to the race factor. Such as “White Men Can’t Jump,” and that even if you say “A White Man is less likely to be able to jump than a Black Man,” you are still assigning cause based on race instead of environment. Environment is what dictates these likelihoods.

For example, people whose ancestry is in Kenya happen to be more likely to be great distance runners essentially because they live in a higher elevation with less oxygen. But to say “Kenyans are more likely to be great distance runners” is less accurate than saying “People whose ancestors spent uncommonly large amounts of time at great elevation with less oxygen.”

Thus, when you really look at it, speaking in terms of race is a mistake in categorization and thinking.

EGarrett Aug 21, 2014, 9:53 AM
2 points
in reply to: A1987dM’s comment on: Why Are Individual IQ Differences OK?
To be clear, I stated that there’s difficulty in defining the categories (and gave the search suggestion to show Azathoth what I’m talking about). I didn’t make any assertion about whether or not you ultimately could, and my actual argument is separate from that issue.

EGarrett Aug 21, 2014, 9:47 AM
0 points
in reply to: Luke_A_Somers’s comment on: A “Holy Grail” Humor Theory in One Page.
Ah, got it. By the way, I like the “low in search order” concept you mentioned above. This is similar to something I just noticed about this theory, which is that puns that are closer to what we already think (like for example, seeing “ass” in the word Association), are less effective than ones that are further down. I think this has to do with what we label as a joke being “too easy” and thus not as funny. Or I guess a pun being too easy.

Anyway...the third joke.

This “kets” joke is a bit more difficult for me to analyze since, as a non-physicist, I don’t know the terms...so I don’t have access to my own instinct to test the reaction. I can analyze why I DON’T laugh much easier than why I would. However, I think I can say a couple things from what I think would be funny if I did get it.

I think you’re right, first of all, that we KNOW a joke is coming (though I think we agree that in most cases it’s more effective when we don’t know it’s coming). But we know it’s coming and I think for people who know the terms it will still have humor.

In this case, I think that what’s important is that we don’t know WHAT the joke will be, even when we know it’s coming. Like being in the dark and fighting, you may KNOW a punch is coming, but if you don’t know from where, it can still catch you off-guard.

Now, I think this is a “layered effect”, but almost superficially. I mean it takes the form of presenting an imaginable scenario of someone doing something very wrong (burning her ket). But that image doesn’t immediately spring to mind for me. Maybe if I knew the term though, it would. Is a bracket/ket printed on a piece of paper? I think that would make it more imaginable (valid by the topic theory) and funnier.

But beyond that, I think it’s also largely a pun. Just as you COULD potentially picture the girl’s error, the joke-teller is making an error themselves by putting a word where it’s not supposed to be.

This is a minor error of course, so it’s a situation where I’d like to have it be a joke where I myself laugh so I can see just how hard I laugh at it. I would think it would be a small chuckle. In the theory though, there are ways to make puns more and less funny, but I don’t want to swamp you with too much text.

Is that enough of an explanation? Should we look for spots where the theories might disagree? Like applying them to conventional sayings? I feel like that’s one of the strengths of this topic theory.