Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Exaggeration Jokes Work

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 74 posts

Re: Why Exaggeration Jokes Work

#61

Post by matthewowen »

dandellion wrote: post #48
CPLX wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been how storytelling has been done for centuries, it’s a a mark of thoughtful feature writing. The Atlantic is over 100 years old and extremely prestigious, it’s resonable to assume that at least from a technical writing standpoint they know what they are doing and do it on purpose. It’s not writing intended for a textbook or academic paper. It’s a story. You’re supposed to read it and get introduced to thi…

As someone who's first language is not English it comes off more as a mark of pedant writing. Some folks might enjoy the "storytelling", but it's really annoying when the author goes in circles and gets nowhere until you've read more than half of the text. Like that joke that goes on forever and ends without a punchline, that some people tell when they just want to pull your leg. And whether it's done by the centurie…

A lot of writing in english is designed for people who _are_ comfortable reading it.

Re: Why Exaggeration Jokes Work

#62

Post by hirundo »

So jokes share much with sex even when they're not sex jokes. An instinct to focus on supernormal stimuli would also help explain the fascination with over sized and contrasting genitalia, makeup to exaggerate signals of arousal, various modes of sexual harassment, etc. They're variations on Tinbergen’s stickleback mandible spots.

Re: Why Exaggeration Jokes Work

#63

Post by rayalez »

ncr100 wrote: post #19
gnicholas wrote: post #7

I felt like this article over-promised and under-delivered. There was a lot of ink spilled on the animal kingdom, and a weak/unconvincing analogy to human humor.

In my understanding, humor is surprise. The article talks about wit because the article is an excerpt from a book on wit. Maybe that section was not fit to be an article with such a specific title?

Why are new insightful ideas, scientific inventions, plot twists, jump-scares, shocking news aren't funny?

Re: Why Exaggeration Jokes Work

#64

Post by dpark »

TaupeRanger wrote: post #49
dpark wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For god's sake, we don't even know why/how Ibuprofen works... I bet physicists also assert that bumblebees cannot possibly fly, right? For God’s sake... “ NSAIDs such as ibuprofen work by inhibiting the cyclooxygenase (COX) enzymes, which convert arachidonic acid to prostaglandin H2 (PGH2). PGH2, in turn, is converted by other enzymes to several other prostaglandins (which are mediators of pain, inflammation, and f…

You just explained my point for me by giving a perfect example. We have no idea why any of these correlations hold or why they would lead to any particular change in pain experiences. For god's sake indeed. This explanation of "why" ibuprofen works is as good as the article's explanation of "why" exaggeration jokes work. It's so unfortunate that otherwise rational people have been made incurious by modern education,…

You defend your claim that “we don't even know why/how Ibuprofen works” by pretending that Wikipedia’s incomplete description of COX mechanics are proof that we “have no idea” how any of this works. You’re not pointing out meaningful gaps in our knowledge. You’re passionately arguing that incomplete knowledge is equivalent to complete ignorance.

Boo. This is lazy and anti-intellectual, akin to “debunking” climate change by claiming that since we don’t know everything that influences climate, we don’t know anything at all. Someone who complains of “incuriousity” should do better than this.

Re: Why Exaggeration Jokes Work

#65

Post by labster »

rayalez wrote: post #63
ncr100 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my understanding, humor is surprise. The article talks about wit because the article is an excerpt from a book on wit. Maybe that section was not fit to be an article with such a specific title?

Why are new insightful ideas, scientific inventions, plot twists, jump-scares, shocking news aren't funny?

Surprise is only one element. Humor is about the inherent conflict between our expectations and reality, the conflict is only intensified when we don't expect it.

There are a lot of jokes I see coming a mile away, but there's a grade of execution for comedians too. If the timing is tight, even the most expected joke can still earn a laugh.

Re: Why Exaggeration Jokes Work

#66

Post by labster »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #34
ryanmarsh wrote: post #8

For just once could we not downvote jokes here? The topic is humor. One HN thread of jokes won’t turn this place into reddit.

That's what they all say. You let one joke in, and the next day you have to scroll through thousands of pictures of Pepe the Frog on a bloated app that tracks your every scroll. If you want to avoid that, you have to nuke all humor from orbit. That's the only way to be sure.

Don't worry, if Pepe shows up, I'll call in Gritty to take him down a peg or two.

Re: Why Exaggeration Jokes Work

#68

Post by hexane360 »

torstenvl wrote: post #41
CPLX wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been how storytelling has been done for centuries, it’s a a mark of thoughtful feature writing. The Atlantic is over 100 years old and extremely prestigious, it’s resonable to assume that at least from a technical writing standpoint they know what they are doing and do it on purpose. It’s not writing intended for a textbook or academic paper. It’s a story. You’re supposed to read it and get introduced to thi…

I believe you're thinking of an attention step, an immersion into a human interest aspect of the story before the formulaic structure of a traditional introduction. I have no problem with an attention step. I'm using one right now in a paper I hope to have published. What I object to is an article ostensibly on Topic A that spends the first 60% completely ignoring Topic A in favor of Topic B, only to draw the most fl…

>spends the first 60% completely ignoring [biology]

Only if you ignore the literal second paragraph:

>Even neurons are formed by habit. When continuously exposed to a fixed stimulus, neurons become steadily less sensitive to that stimulus—until they eventually stop responding to it altogether.

Re: Why Exaggeration Jokes Work

#69

Post by Klover »

hannasanarion wrote: post #60
yason wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not writing intended for a textbook or academic paper. It’s a story. You’re supposed to read it and get introduced to things and discover the themes of the story gradually. I didn't discover crap. Lost my attention way before I skimmed over to the near-end where they started making the connection to exaggeration. Not because my attention span is that low but, rather, 99% of newspaper articles and columns are wit…

So you're saying that all stories, no matter their natural size or content, should be padded out to novel length and published as a book? If you want short form bare facts soulless prose, you shouldn't leave twitter

Why are you putting words in their mouth? That’s rude. So is the recommendation that someone should only read Twitter if they thought this article under delivered. Wikipedia is a great example of high information density and easy navigation to the matter you’re interested in.

Re: Why Exaggeration Jokes Work

#70

Post by southerndrift »

dpark wrote: post #64
TaupeRanger wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just explained my point for me by giving a perfect example. We have no idea why any of these correlations hold or why they would lead to any particular change in pain experiences. For god's sake indeed. This explanation of "why" ibuprofen works is as good as the article's explanation of "why" exaggeration jokes work. It's so unfortunate that otherwise rational people have been made incurious by modern education,…

You defend your claim that “we don't even know why/how Ibuprofen works” by pretending that Wikipedia’s incomplete description of COX mechanics are proof that we “have no idea” how any of this works. You’re not pointing out meaningful gaps in our knowledge. You’re passionately arguing that incomplete knowledge is equivalent to complete ignorance. Boo. This is lazy and anti-intellectual, akin to “debunking” climate cha…

I guess they mean that there is still the gap between molecules and perception. There is no concept for pain and thus no explanation of how Ibuprofen changes the perception of pain. That said, how do you exactly point out that an explanation is not sufficient? It's like describing a hole, you can only point at the borders.
Post reply on HN