Reddit mentions: The best humor theory books

I will elaborate on lexxvs; our brains have evolved to survive, not to perceive reality.

I personally strive for open-mindedness/flexibility and creativity. Logic/rationality is awesome, but do not get too clingy/fundamental, since it is, after all, a human invention and exceptions has been shown in physics.

• see Robert Anton Wilson explains Quantum Physics
  
  >(...)it [quantum physics] is only puzzling for people who are raised under Aristotelian logic, it's either A or ~A.
  
  
• Also see: Quantum correlations with no causal order
  
  >should we strive to apply evidence-based reasoning in all aspects of our lives, or can we allow some degree of irrationality for certain experiences?
  
  Sure. See reductio ad absudrum. You basically make an unwarranted illogical position, for the sake of proof. Mathematicians use that technique to solve the problem like; there are no largest prime numbers. Also see Edward de Bono on creative thinking.
  
  Humour (probably the most powerful form of creative thinking), also uses the same technique. See: John Allen Paulos, "Mathematics and Humor: A Study of the Logic of Humor"
  
  I normally have a go at things, whatever they are. Like an argument. I will hold a strong position, one way or the other. I do this for two reasons. First, it stimulates both parties to (re-)think. And secondly, it challenges assumptions. If the opposite party shows me wrong, with strong arguments. Then I change my mind. The weaker my confidence, the more flexible I am. But I will always have a go, and am not afraid to be showed wrong. ;)
  
  So to summarise, be:
  
  
• clear
  
• exact
  
• open-minded/flexible
  
• creative
  
• confident; have a go at it!
  
• patience, take your time.
  
• and perhaps most important, look for value.
  
  >"Is", "is." "is"—the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don't know what anything "is"; I only know how it seems to me at this moment.
  
  — Robert Anton Wilson, The Historical Illuminatus, as spoken by Sigismundo Celine
  
  
  
  
  

I’ve been a faithful life long member (60 years). I always struggled with a daily prayer habit for this very reason. Once I realized the amazing power of prayer for blessing my life, I feel it is a privilege to pray. For me, it started with reading this simple, free book on Kindle about the miracles that others of all faiths experienced because of prayer.
https://www.amazon.com/Wonders-Prayer-Authenticated-Wonderful-Answers-ebook/dp/B0084841HS
For the first time in my life my day ends and begins with prayer on my knees - out of gratitude rather than obligation. Prayer is for ME! My opportunity to gratefully request help with faith for my needs rather than an obligation to God. Since then I have watched miracles happen in my own life.

You might appreciate this book. It tries to describe humor in a mathematical sense (although few equations actually appear). Plus, it gives you a short primer on a few fascinating mathematical concepts, e.g., the Incompleteness Theorem.

Ah, so that's what the QI stands for. Cool, thanks for sharing, sounds like a worthwhile show to check out. It's on the BBC?

Still I'd want to see this study before I take it to mean anything in particular... most really rigorous data collecting can't be boiled down to half a sentence without oversimplifying so much that the actual meaning is distorted.

edit: ahh. after some obsessive googling, i think the study referred to comes from here.

I recommend Paulos' Mathematics and Humor if you find this sort of thing interesting and want a bit more of a popular and expanded treatment. http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Humor-Study-Logic/dp/0226650251

Robert Provine states that laughter is strictly human. Other animals make similar sounds, but we are the only species that only laugh while exhaling. This control of breath, he argues, is linked to speech ability.

there's actually a book called Dick for a Day, and they got all kinds of female politicians and celebrities to respond to this question. Found it one day at Barnes and Noble - it was really funny!

edit: link here

I found the same thing when I read P&P the first time. I was so confused why it was so demure.

In Bitch in a Bonnet, Robert Rodi writes about how everyone pegs Austen as a romance author, but she really writes more about society in general.

If you're really looking for some "meat" regarding that second proposal, you can always fall down the prequel/sequel/and "what-if" rabbit hole written by fans of P&P. Quality varies, so make sure you check out reviews first.

Keep everything the same except for the genitals, then relentlessly bone my BF up the bum. He's quite hetero, but he'd enjoy the hell out of it.

Then a quick shower, and, find out what all the blow job excitement is all about.

Somebody compiled a book about this in the 90s...

You should check out Dick for a Day.

And A Rats Tail, though it's more a slang guide.

I'm surprised John Lithgow's character, [Sir. Winston Churchill] (https://www.amazon.ca/Wicked-Wit-Winston-Churchill/dp/1843175657), doesn't have more wit and one-liners as he's known for. I hope the next few seasons (6 seasons at 10 episodes each) include them before they kill off his character.

Start HERE

Once you've read that, perhaps you'll realize how useless your comment is.

> It shows. You should stop thinking so hard, it's just causing you trouble.

A fair bit more intelligent than the likes of you, I'd imagine.

> That is not irony.

Oh?

> The words you have written is confusing plurality.

> You've failed to recognize a joke (and then claimed it's my fault), and you've failed to properly recognize irony.

"If this is a joke, I don't think it works too well." Failure where? I was already quite certain it was a joke, and went on to explain why it was still poorly constructed anyways. I suppose instead of weakening my language to appear more affable to a dimwit like yourself, I should've said, "In attempting to mock beeblez for his poor construction of a sentence, you yourself made an unintentional error. How laughable."

Your utter lack of reading comprehension caused you to miss

> But then you're saying either the words themselves are committing the act of confusing (personification), or they are a type of plurality that is confusing.

You made two errors - one intentional, one unintentional. If you don't know what those words mean, feel free to look them up in a dictionary. Your intentional mistake is easy to spot - the incorrect subject/verb agreement that mirrors beeblez' original mistake. Your unintentional mistake is the nonsensical nature of your sentence - words themselves do not confuse plurality, nor are they a type of plurality that is confusing.

> Is it ironic when someone talks smack in a video game and then loses? Is it ironic when an athlete proclaims to be the best and then loses? Is it ironic when a car manufacturer claims to make the best cars and then issues a recall? Did you fail English this badly as well?

I'll bet my CR or Writing (and, hell, Math too) score on the SAT was better than yours. Unless the SAT wasn't too popular in whatever trash, podunk town you grew up in - perhaps you can best me in a test of hog wranglin'?