Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by lupusreal 631 days ago
Is there a theory of humor which explains why theories of humor are invariably hilariously inadaquate?
4 comments

Some activities are highly theoretical: you learn the principles of operation, and maybe how they break down into elements, practice briefly, and then execute at a high level.

Other activities are highly practical: you can learn the theory via a brief rundown, but executing at a high level takes years to decades of practice.

My theory of theory of humour is that humour is in the latter category.

Most likely humor is just not one thing but many and seeking a unifying theory about something that isn't a unity won't yield anything.
This is the most useful comment in the whole thread.
It's kinda like music theory - if you're already a talented composer, music theory helps clarify a few technical mysteries and sheds light on other composers' work. But it tells you nothing about creating interesting music, and it's typically apparent when a composer writes according to theory rather than according to their own ears.

Likewise I think some sophisticated humorists would benefit from reading philosophies of satire, psychology of slapstick, etc, to help hone their craft. But those are not how-to guides.

> Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process
No, any consist theory of humor cannot explain all humor. Gerbils' Incompleteness Theorem.
I googled that to see if it was an original joke and Google helpfully corrected me.

Did you mean: goebbels incompleteness theorem

I guess it's AI read the same article.

That went straight to Godwin's Law. Wowza.