The Spark Gap Theory

 

This note explains why people find some jokes to be funnier than others, why a joke seems funnier to one person than to others, and why a joke isn't as funny the second time it is heard.  It all has to do with ego and the sense of self-satisfaction.  We start with a model to quantify the funniness of jokes and then generalize it to the Spark Gap Theory.  This theory can be widely applied to other fields, like education and public speaking.

First, some background.  According to high school physics, a Spark Gap consists of two conductors separated by a short distance.  A high voltage potential is applied to the two conductors.  If the voltage is high enough, then the air in the gap between the conductors ionizes and a current flows through the gap.  This causes a spark similar to lightning.  Some characteristics of this phenomenon are:

OK, here is the basic model and some definitions:

That is all there is to it.  Now let's see how the model works.  When a person hears a joke, they apply their "Available Voltage" (intelligence & knowledge) to it.  When the person says "that was funny", they are really congratulating themselves for being clever enough to get the joke.  The joke's funniness is proportional to how hard they had to think to "get" it.  The harder they had to work, the greater the self-satisfaction of "getting" the joke.  It's is like they are saying, "Wow, that was hard to figure out, but I did it, and so I must be clever" and then they feel good.  Hence, a joke that does not require much of the recipient’s intelligence is deemed to be lame and not that funny.  A joke that requires 90% of the recipient’s “Excess Voltage” will seem funnier than a joke that requires only 20% of their excess voltage.  In other words, the funniness is proportional to the effort made to understand it.

Let's visualize this graphically.  Say that we have a joke and a group of people.  Say that we have somehow estimated the "Threshold Voltage" of the joke and the "Available Voltage" associated with each person in the group.  We will present the joke to the group and ask them to score it for “funniness”.  If we plot the joke’s score on the Y-axis against the "Available Voltage" for the people in the group, we would get a curve as shown below.  The thin vertical line indicates the "Threshold Voltage" of the joke.  People whose "Available Voltage" is less than the "Threshold Voltage" will not get the joke and will score it low.  Hence the curve starts low to the left.  The curve rises rapidly as the intelligence matches the threshold voltage, and then tapers down.  This joke would be best appreciated by those with an "available voltage" that is only slightly higher than the threshold, i.e., the zone shaded blue.  People with a higher “Excess Voltage” would get the joke but may not appreciate it as much. 

That explains why the same joke isn't as funny to one person as it is to another; different people have different Available Intelligence Voltages.  It also explains why kids or "unsophisticated" people find simple jokes funny; they have low available voltages and have to apply a greater fraction of their "excess voltage".  When a person hears the same joke again, it is not as hard to re-make the connection, and the joke’s threshold voltage is lower.  Hence it is not that funny.  And if the person doesn't get the joke quickly enough, their ego is insulted and they walk away in a huff mumbling something like "dumb joke."

The model works for jokes that are puns, stories with punch lines, etc.  But it does not include jokes where bad things happen to people that we don't like (like mother-in-law jokes.)  A different set of gratifications is used for those jokes.  Also, several other variables are not addressed, like the way a joke is delivered.  Different people rendering the same joke would get different responses; the adept comedians would get guffaws while others would get shoes flung at them. 

To make things more complicated, a joke could cover different subject areas.  There can be nerdy electrical engineering jokes or jokes that deal with law, cookery, etc...  The recipient’s knowledge and experience in that subject area would clearly be important.  So someone who doesn't know much about science would have to strain harder to get a science joke and thus would laugh harder, while a science major might sneer at the same joke.  A joke could also span multiple subject areas and require the recipient to have some knowledge in those areas.  People have varying levels of knowledge in different subject areas.  For each joke, we would have to estimate the “Threshold Voltage” value for each of its subject areas, and we would have to estimate each recipient’s knowledge in that area.  The "Available Voltage" would be a function of the person's associative intelligence and knowledge in each of the applicable subject areas.  In this note, intelligence refers to a person’s capacity to associate concepts in their mind.  The term “emotional intelligence” is an oxymoron that is used by people who lack real intelligence. 

To put this model to work, we need to estimate numerical values for people’s Intelligence voltages and also the threshold voltages for jokes.  Say that we want to build a service that delivers a stream of jokes that are personalized and curated for each subscribing recipient.  Here is a suggestion for how to proceed.  We will use a “bootstrapping” technique to get started and “crowd-sourcing” to sustain the process:

1.     Initially, assemble a set of jokes and classify them into a few subjects.  We could automate this step to scan each joke for words or phrases and derive a set of "subjects" related to each joke. 

2.     Select a group of test recipients to view and rate jokes.  They would be given a quiz to quantify their relative intelligence and knowledge in a few subject areas.  This sounds iffy, but fortunately, this group will not be needed after the initial "training" period when the process is well established.  Subsequent recipients will not need to be be tested.

3.     Now, we present the jokes to the testers.  Each tester would report a “funniness” score for each joke.  Say it is a number in the range 0 to 5.  Given that we have estimated each tester’s Intelligence voltage for the associated subject, we should be able to use the graph above to estimate a "threshold voltage" for each joke.  Jokes that are not really funny would get a low score from everyone and would be assigned a very high threshold voltage, i.e. it is too hard to understand.

4.     At this point we no longer need the testers.  We have a set of jokes that have been scored.  New jokes and new recipients can be added and the following steps will be repeated.

5.       New recipients are sent scored jokes that have already been assigned a "threshold voltage" and "subject area" values.  They will be asked to score the jokes.  The scores they return will be used to derive the recipient's "available voltage" and "subject knowledge" values.  These values are associated with the recipient. 

6.       New jokes added to the stream will first be scanned and a set of subject areas will be associated with it.  Then they will be sent to existing recipients who have already been assigned an "available voltage" and "subject knowledge" values.  The “funniness” scores they return will be used to derive the joke’s "threshold voltage".

7.     The values associated with existing recipients and jokes will be constantly updated.  When an existing recipient scores a joke that has been scored by others, then the returned score could refine both the recipient’s available voltage and the joke’s threshold voltage.  This allows the values to be iteratively fine-tuned.  They will average out and settle down.

8.     A new, unscored joke will never be presented to a new recipient.

This strategy is similar to how ETS adds new test questions to SAT and GRE.  Steps 5 through 8 would be repeated continuously.  There is a bit more to it, but it isn't rocket science.  The threshold calculation has to be done for each subject area and the maximum value is used.  All this shall be further detailed in the patent filing (just kidding).

The key aspect of the Spark Gap theory is the claim that people feel good when they induce the spark and "get" the connection.  This can be applied to other areas where people have to make connections, like Education.  Learning can be made fun if one applies this theory.  Educational material will have to be "tuned" for each student so that each lesson is broken into steps, and each step can generate a satisfying "spark" of instant gratification.  This would require an automated system that would interactively deal with each individual student and guide them through the steps.  Every student gets the same educational material in the current method.  Instead, this system would slice and deliver material specifically adjusted for each student.  The system would recognize each student’s capabilities and match them to the lessons.  It also allows for tricks like, for high achievers, removing a few explanations from the lessons to make it harder to "get", so they don't get bored.

If jokes can increase people's ego and self-esteem, we could use it in hospitals or when people are depressed.  One can also use this technique while making presentations to a tough audience, like senior management.  The information presented should be stepped so that the audience makes the first couple of connections.  That would fluff their egos sufficiently and they would then be in a better mood to agree to whatever is being requested of them.  

Though this theory is best used in interactive situations where the spark gap can be dynamically adjusted, it can also be applied to static media like text books, novels and movies.  For example, an incongruous statement can be inserted into a passage in a book.  The statement should be somewhat relevant to the passage, but it should be notable in some way so that it strikes a chord and forces the reader to think about it.  Not every reader will “get” it, but those that do will find the book more enjoyable.  For example, a snippet of the lyrics of a song could be inserted.  If the reader catches it and remembers the source, they will feel a flash of pride. 

Finally, if you got this far, here is a joke as your reward:  A reporter visits a mental asylum.  As he watches the patients, one of them stands up and shouts "Forty-two".  All the other patients laugh.  Then another patient shouts out "Sixty three", and again all the other patients laugh.  The warden explains to the reporter that the patients have told each other the same set of jokes over and over again, and they have devised a short-hand way of telling jokes.  The reporter asks if he can try telling them a joke.  He shouts out "Forty-two".  No one laughs.  The warden explains to the reporter that he didn't deliver the joke well and blew the punch line.  The reporter asks if he can try again.  He shouts out "Forty-three".  After a brief moment, everyone laughs uproariously, including the warden.  The reporter asks the warden "Did I do better this time?"  The warden wipes his eyes and replies "No, but you told them a joke that they hadn't heard before."

All in fun...

Reference:

Other people have had similar thoughts:

[]         https://thedilettantesdilemma.com/2016/08/24/an-inadequate-joke/

[]         https://www.inc.com/james-sudakow/the-science-behind-being-funny-this-is-no-joke.html

(c)  Jan 2018  Raj