punch line. All it needed was for the listener to âjump the gunâ regarding what Colbert was actually saying.
Not surprisingly, the brain region responsible for catching these false starts is the anterior cingulate. We know this from studies like the one conducted by biologist Karli Watson of the California Institute of Technology, who wanted to see if any particular brain region was especially important for surprise. To do that, she showed subjects cartoons while they were monitored using an MRI scanner, and (as in previous studies) she made sure that some cartoons were funny whereas others were not. As an additional manipulation, she varied the nature of the cartoons so that some relied on sight gags whereas others depended on captions and language. Variations like this can have big impacts on how the brain responds, since visual centers are very different from language onesâso she expected the jokes to enlist entirely different regions. But were any regions activated in common?
The answer, of course, was yes. Both the dopamine centers and the anterior cingulate were active for each kind of joke. Not only that, but the funnier the jokes, the more engaged was each subjectâs anterior cingulate.
Studies like this provide a great example of reckoning because they show that what elicits laughter isnât the content of the joke but theway our brain works through the conflict the joke elicits. This can be seen in Colbertâs quip as well as in Leclairâs violin sonata and Courtonneâs Hôtel Matignon. We take joy in recognizing our mistakes. Though we often think of punch lines as involving misdirection, itâs actually our anxious brains that supply the false interpretations. There were no dissonant notes in Leclairâs sonata, just as there was no actual contradiction in Colbertâs one-liner. The enjoyment of both comes solely from overriding a false expectation created within ourselves. In this way, reckoning builds on constructing by forcing us to reexamine false expectations.
To see how all this eventually turns into a joke, letâs finally explore the concept of resolving.
Resolving with Scripts
              A large woman sits down at a lunch counter and orders a whole fruitcake. âShall I cut it into four or eight pieces?â asks the waitress.
              âDonât cut it,â replies the woman. âIâm on a diet.â
Is this joke funny? Unless you have a special affinity for fruitcake humor, your answer is probably no. But at first glance it seems like it should be, because the womanâs response is definitely surprising. Itâs so surprising that it makes no sense at all. Consider, then, this alternate ending:
              A large woman sits down at a lunch counter and orders a whole fruitcake. âShall I cut it into four or eight pieces?â asks the waitress.
              âFour,â replies the woman. âIâm on a diet.â
Now is it funny? Again, you probably didnât laugh out loud, but I bet you at least found it funnier than the first version. The reason is that this second version provides an explanation for the sudden shift in perspective. It isnât enough just to introduce surprise in a joke; we must also provide a shift in perspective. I call this third stage of the humor process resolving.
When studying humor, we need a way to characterize the expected and actual outcomes of a joke. For our fruitcake story, we see there are several words signaling an expectation of gluttony. Thereâs the fact that the woman orders a whole fruitcake, not just a slice. Sheâs also described as large. All this background suggests that sheâs really looking forward to the cake. When she asks for four slices instead of eight, one
Not surprisingly, the brain region responsible for catching these false starts is the anterior cingulate. We know this from studies like the one conducted by biologist Karli Watson of the California Institute of Technology, who wanted to see if any particular brain region was especially important for surprise. To do that, she showed subjects cartoons while they were monitored using an MRI scanner, and (as in previous studies) she made sure that some cartoons were funny whereas others were not. As an additional manipulation, she varied the nature of the cartoons so that some relied on sight gags whereas others depended on captions and language. Variations like this can have big impacts on how the brain responds, since visual centers are very different from language onesâso she expected the jokes to enlist entirely different regions. But were any regions activated in common?
The answer, of course, was yes. Both the dopamine centers and the anterior cingulate were active for each kind of joke. Not only that, but the funnier the jokes, the more engaged was each subjectâs anterior cingulate.
Studies like this provide a great example of reckoning because they show that what elicits laughter isnât the content of the joke but theway our brain works through the conflict the joke elicits. This can be seen in Colbertâs quip as well as in Leclairâs violin sonata and Courtonneâs Hôtel Matignon. We take joy in recognizing our mistakes. Though we often think of punch lines as involving misdirection, itâs actually our anxious brains that supply the false interpretations. There were no dissonant notes in Leclairâs sonata, just as there was no actual contradiction in Colbertâs one-liner. The enjoyment of both comes solely from overriding a false expectation created within ourselves. In this way, reckoning builds on constructing by forcing us to reexamine false expectations.
To see how all this eventually turns into a joke, letâs finally explore the concept of resolving.
Resolving with Scripts
              A large woman sits down at a lunch counter and orders a whole fruitcake. âShall I cut it into four or eight pieces?â asks the waitress.
              âDonât cut it,â replies the woman. âIâm on a diet.â
Is this joke funny? Unless you have a special affinity for fruitcake humor, your answer is probably no. But at first glance it seems like it should be, because the womanâs response is definitely surprising. Itâs so surprising that it makes no sense at all. Consider, then, this alternate ending:
              A large woman sits down at a lunch counter and orders a whole fruitcake. âShall I cut it into four or eight pieces?â asks the waitress.
              âFour,â replies the woman. âIâm on a diet.â
Now is it funny? Again, you probably didnât laugh out loud, but I bet you at least found it funnier than the first version. The reason is that this second version provides an explanation for the sudden shift in perspective. It isnât enough just to introduce surprise in a joke; we must also provide a shift in perspective. I call this third stage of the humor process resolving.
When studying humor, we need a way to characterize the expected and actual outcomes of a joke. For our fruitcake story, we see there are several words signaling an expectation of gluttony. Thereâs the fact that the woman orders a whole fruitcake, not just a slice. Sheâs also described as large. All this background suggests that sheâs really looking forward to the cake. When she asks for four slices instead of eight, one
Similar Books
