What’s your major?
At my university, every person I meet asks me this question. I often wonder why people care to ask which subject of emphasis I chose to study. How much information could they possibly extract from my answer? Thinking about this further has led me to a realization that might come as surprise to you. The amount of personal information that leaks from your answer is quite frightening.
Allow me to bring a new term to the discussion: “The Major Stereotype”
Like any other stereotype, this one generalizes a group of people in an arbitrary taxonomy. Someone’s major can reveal his or her hobbies, social status, mannerisms, intelligence, virginity status and much more. Of course, these are just generalizations that should be taken with a grain of salt, but what makes them different than other stereotypes? For example, unlike ethnic stereotypes, people choose their major not their ethnicity. This ‘major’ difference sheds some light onto the reason why people choose their majors.
People take into account ‘The Major Stereotype’ in the decision process for their major. After all, picking a major is also picking an identity, the identity that people will assert onto you when answering the question: “What’s your major?” With knowledge of the new stereotype that may loom in your future, you choose the major with the most lucrative stereotype. Similar to how people buy Ferraris because they want to look wealthy. Once the major has been chosen, a new personality is born.
What came first, the major or the personality? Simply put, they affect each other in sort of a feedback loop. Some people choose a major because they want to fit a certain category and some choose it because they like the subject. Playing ‘the major stereotype’ usually occurs in the former situation. In a society that values the ego, it wouldn’t be far-fetched to assume that people choose a major they want to be associated with.
P.S. those who are undeclared have no soul.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The True Cost of War
At any given time throughout history, a war is going on somewhere on this planet. Supposedly, humans are kind, compassionate, and sympathetic, unlike the primitive creatures they evolved from. Human's constant state of war is casting doubt on their ancestral divergence. I have always wondered how such heartless thoughts can be conjured up in the minds of murderous soldiers. How intelligent beings can be so unhesitant to mercilessly kill their fellow man. How sane people can achieve insane tasks.
There have been studies regarding this phenomenon, like the Milgram experiment: A subject who has neither ability nor expertise to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave decision making to the group and its hierarchy. Another interpretation of the experiment’s results is that a person no longer sees himself as responsible for his actions. Both are sound theories, but they fall short of identifying what is explicitly happening – the destruction of empathy.
Soldiers of war are not psychopaths; they are victims of robbery, the robbery of a human quality called empathy. There are many social and political consequences that deter us from committing crimes. Unlawful crime and violence still persists in all societies, therefore, there must be other deterring consequences for those who are still innocent i.e. the reason most of us aren’t murders. The reason, simply put, is that people will feel bad doing onto others what they wouldn’t want onto themselves. Manipulative authorities have the ability to rob people of this basic emotion.
Humans have evolved the emotion of empathy for a very good reason. In the past it allowed people within a society to create interpersonal relationships where both sides benefit without making the other worse off. Societies couldn’t succeed for generations on end if humans weren’t empathetic. Clearly, this is no longer the case; birth rates are higher than death rates and a few wars here and there are no threat to mankind. This fact should not obscure the benefits of empathy.
The interpersonal cost of violence is always greater than any benefits it may bring. Using a negative force may initially get you what you want from someone, but in doing so you have destroyed the positive relationship. The cost of destroying this relationship is always greater than the initial benefit received from using violence.
The use of violence as a force has always been a lucrative one because of instant gratification. The Bush administration believed it could use violence to create a democracy. It is intuitive for them to think that killing Saddam and occupying Iraq will be the most efficient way to get what they want. They didn’t consider one major externality - they dehumanized Americans for Iraqis and vice versa. In order for American soldiers to use violence against another fellow human, there is no room for empathy. Without empathy in the equation, mass murdering may relentlessly ensue. Eventually we are left with a torn human relationship.
Let’s scrutinize a more controversial war, the Israel vs. Palestine conflict. Which side is the right one? Who is the victim and who is the aggressor? If you choose Palestine as the victim, you are wrong. Similarly, you would be wrong if you choose Israel as the victim! This war was lost the moment the positive relationship between the two human populations has been broken. Violence and hatred is used on both sides and both are constantly distancing themselves from a positive relationship. The war would be over once Palestinians cared for Israelis like they did for their own people, the same is true for Israelis. Some would argue that a negative force for self-defense is sometimes necessary. In the short-run, this is true and instant gratification would kick in. In the long run, a deep wound would emerge in the relationship and the negative force would be reciprocated back.
With the wars that are going on in present day, it’s difficult to come to a resolution. Should we continue to reach short-term goals with violence, or settle the problem in the long run with non-violence? If non-violence is used, there might be a short-term jump in the death tolls, but that would be the cost of fixing the problem in the long run. A non-violence movement is the only way to bring empathy back and restore a broken human relationship.
There have been studies regarding this phenomenon, like the Milgram experiment: A subject who has neither ability nor expertise to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave decision making to the group and its hierarchy. Another interpretation of the experiment’s results is that a person no longer sees himself as responsible for his actions. Both are sound theories, but they fall short of identifying what is explicitly happening – the destruction of empathy.
Soldiers of war are not psychopaths; they are victims of robbery, the robbery of a human quality called empathy. There are many social and political consequences that deter us from committing crimes. Unlawful crime and violence still persists in all societies, therefore, there must be other deterring consequences for those who are still innocent i.e. the reason most of us aren’t murders. The reason, simply put, is that people will feel bad doing onto others what they wouldn’t want onto themselves. Manipulative authorities have the ability to rob people of this basic emotion.
Humans have evolved the emotion of empathy for a very good reason. In the past it allowed people within a society to create interpersonal relationships where both sides benefit without making the other worse off. Societies couldn’t succeed for generations on end if humans weren’t empathetic. Clearly, this is no longer the case; birth rates are higher than death rates and a few wars here and there are no threat to mankind. This fact should not obscure the benefits of empathy.
The interpersonal cost of violence is always greater than any benefits it may bring. Using a negative force may initially get you what you want from someone, but in doing so you have destroyed the positive relationship. The cost of destroying this relationship is always greater than the initial benefit received from using violence.
The use of violence as a force has always been a lucrative one because of instant gratification. The Bush administration believed it could use violence to create a democracy. It is intuitive for them to think that killing Saddam and occupying Iraq will be the most efficient way to get what they want. They didn’t consider one major externality - they dehumanized Americans for Iraqis and vice versa. In order for American soldiers to use violence against another fellow human, there is no room for empathy. Without empathy in the equation, mass murdering may relentlessly ensue. Eventually we are left with a torn human relationship.
Let’s scrutinize a more controversial war, the Israel vs. Palestine conflict. Which side is the right one? Who is the victim and who is the aggressor? If you choose Palestine as the victim, you are wrong. Similarly, you would be wrong if you choose Israel as the victim! This war was lost the moment the positive relationship between the two human populations has been broken. Violence and hatred is used on both sides and both are constantly distancing themselves from a positive relationship. The war would be over once Palestinians cared for Israelis like they did for their own people, the same is true for Israelis. Some would argue that a negative force for self-defense is sometimes necessary. In the short-run, this is true and instant gratification would kick in. In the long run, a deep wound would emerge in the relationship and the negative force would be reciprocated back.
With the wars that are going on in present day, it’s difficult to come to a resolution. Should we continue to reach short-term goals with violence, or settle the problem in the long run with non-violence? If non-violence is used, there might be a short-term jump in the death tolls, but that would be the cost of fixing the problem in the long run. A non-violence movement is the only way to bring empathy back and restore a broken human relationship.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Why we aren't all Hung Like a Horse
There you are in front of your mirror looking at your reflection in utter disappointment. Regardless of being a man or woman you realize how un-sexy you are, unfortunately, odds are you’re right. But don’t blame your dad’s big-nose gene, blame society’s ridiculous high standards for sexuality. These standards are no longer a woman’s burden; nowadays a man too must struggle to be a sexual stallion. His penis needs to be at least the size of a super burrito and his abs as hard as limestone. Sadly, this total package won’t suffice - he must also be an orgasm-giving machine. He should be able to make the woman squeal for hours on end as she has orgasms upon orgasms. He knows the women will gossip about his inadequacies if he ‘falls short’ of the standards.
Some might accuse me for spewing out gender stereotypes with no proof to back it up. Well, the proof is so abundant it is self-evident to any member of society. In 2004 the drugs bought most often online were Lipitor and Viagra, one to lower cholesterol and one to help with erectile dysfunction. It is hard to believe that erectile dysfunction is more common than other symptom such as, oh I don't know... pain! You might have not known that premature ejaculation is more common than erectile dysfunction, but you won’t see a premature ejaculation pill as a best seller. That just doesn’t sound as lucrative as a six-hour erection.
Men are so obsessed with their size that they are willing to spend money pretending to have a foot-long. 90% of men measure between 5 to 7 inches; anything beyond or below that is exceptionally rare. Why do they have Magnum XXL condoms when a normal one can cover a grapefruit? Why don’t they offer Pee-wee XXS condoms for the unfortunate bottom tenth percent of men? Next we can examine porn and observe what people prefer to watch. You won’t find a professional male porn star with a penis smaller than 7 inches; anything less won’t satisfy society's penis obsession.
If women really did prefer men with larger beef missiles, shouldn’t we have evolved larger penises throughout time? After all, it would be a physical trait that would determine reproductive success. Unfortunately, we aren’t all hung like horses; therefore there must be something wrong with this hypothesis. It could be that larger size was and is never preferred by women. This would be difficult to prove; some women say they prefer it larger and some are indifferent to size. The answer to this conundrum may be more obvious than you think.
Only in the past century has there been a paradigm shift on what it means to have sex. In the past, sex was never about satisfying the woman and her preferences were not considered. Globally, women were suppose to repress themselves sexually and were used only for reproduction. In the medieval era, the Christian code said that sex was to be avoided like the plague, except for the bare minimum necessary to keep the race in existence. Only recently did the western world evolve its sexual morality and behavior such as changes documented in the sexual revolution.
No wonder the majority of men are sexually inadequate, they just weren’t trying for thousands of years!
Some might accuse me for spewing out gender stereotypes with no proof to back it up. Well, the proof is so abundant it is self-evident to any member of society. In 2004 the drugs bought most often online were Lipitor and Viagra, one to lower cholesterol and one to help with erectile dysfunction. It is hard to believe that erectile dysfunction is more common than other symptom such as, oh I don't know... pain! You might have not known that premature ejaculation is more common than erectile dysfunction, but you won’t see a premature ejaculation pill as a best seller. That just doesn’t sound as lucrative as a six-hour erection.
Men are so obsessed with their size that they are willing to spend money pretending to have a foot-long. 90% of men measure between 5 to 7 inches; anything beyond or below that is exceptionally rare. Why do they have Magnum XXL condoms when a normal one can cover a grapefruit? Why don’t they offer Pee-wee XXS condoms for the unfortunate bottom tenth percent of men? Next we can examine porn and observe what people prefer to watch. You won’t find a professional male porn star with a penis smaller than 7 inches; anything less won’t satisfy society's penis obsession.
If women really did prefer men with larger beef missiles, shouldn’t we have evolved larger penises throughout time? After all, it would be a physical trait that would determine reproductive success. Unfortunately, we aren’t all hung like horses; therefore there must be something wrong with this hypothesis. It could be that larger size was and is never preferred by women. This would be difficult to prove; some women say they prefer it larger and some are indifferent to size. The answer to this conundrum may be more obvious than you think.
Only in the past century has there been a paradigm shift on what it means to have sex. In the past, sex was never about satisfying the woman and her preferences were not considered. Globally, women were suppose to repress themselves sexually and were used only for reproduction. In the medieval era, the Christian code said that sex was to be avoided like the plague, except for the bare minimum necessary to keep the race in existence. Only recently did the western world evolve its sexual morality and behavior such as changes documented in the sexual revolution.
No wonder the majority of men are sexually inadequate, they just weren’t trying for thousands of years!
Sunday, December 2, 2007
5 Tips on How to Be More Creative
Everyone would agree that creativity is an important quality to have in order to succeed in any profession. Not only that, creative individuals can benefit the whole world, as did Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison. There is no doubt that creativity indirectly benefits mankind, but is this popular notion intuitively correct? How could writing poetry or doodling cartoons benefit Albert Einstein in his discovery of the atom bomb? Clearly, it wouldn’t help him in any significant way. There is a certain creative process that needs to be exercised in order to translate meaningless ideas into useful ones.
Here are 5 tips to being more creative in a meaningful way:
1. Make analogies and connections
You need to constantly make analogies and connections with everything. Doing this exercise will not only help you better understand complicated concepts, but also make you more creative! Connecting two concepts together can inspire innovative ideas. For example, letting your friends borrow money is analogous to a human ATM machine. Lets take that a step further - what if it was possible to be an actual human ATM machine. Now imagine if they had wallets that double as an ATM machine. If someone owes you money, they could just swipe your wallet. And with just that analogy I came with a startup idea.
2. Philosophize
Philosophizing is creative thinking with a logical foundation. Use this rigorous foundation to ponder the mysteries in your domain of study. Many scientific theories have been inspired by philosophy. A popular scientific philosophy is String Theory. A sense of wonder wasn’t the only thing that gave rise to String Theory. The logical nature of philosophy guides the mathematicians and scientists in the right direction.
3. Consider the exact opposite
Being critical of everything is an excellent way to jump-start your brain. Have you ever had someone critically scrutinize your opinion and ended up having a stronger stance than what you began with? Seeing both sides of an argument gives you the motivation to think. Take conventional wisdom and try to argue in the complete opposite direction. This simple thought exercise will surprise you as to how much you will learn.
4. Say the obvious
There has been many times where a new invention or new website pops up and we say, “Why didn’t I think of that?” Ironically, the most obvious is also the most looked over. When you have time to ponder, observe your surroundings and literally say the obvious. Let your inner captain obvious shine through and say whatever you observe(you might want to keep it to yourself for social reasons). This exercise won’t make you creative on its on merit; it should be used as a way to spark new ideas, you shouldn’t take a passive role.
5. Always ask why, and then answer it.
Don’t be like the children who always ask why, because they can’t answer on their own. The trick is to let your own mind do the thinking to come at your own conclusion. This will get you accustomed to the different ways of solving problems. Keep trying to answer 'why' until you come up with an answer that is hard to refute. After much practice, you will find yourself answering 'why' faster and faster. Learning all sorts of different methods for solving problems will equip you with the mental tools for creatively solving harder problems in the future.
Here are 5 tips to being more creative in a meaningful way:
1. Make analogies and connections
You need to constantly make analogies and connections with everything. Doing this exercise will not only help you better understand complicated concepts, but also make you more creative! Connecting two concepts together can inspire innovative ideas. For example, letting your friends borrow money is analogous to a human ATM machine. Lets take that a step further - what if it was possible to be an actual human ATM machine. Now imagine if they had wallets that double as an ATM machine. If someone owes you money, they could just swipe your wallet. And with just that analogy I came with a startup idea.
2. Philosophize
Philosophizing is creative thinking with a logical foundation. Use this rigorous foundation to ponder the mysteries in your domain of study. Many scientific theories have been inspired by philosophy. A popular scientific philosophy is String Theory. A sense of wonder wasn’t the only thing that gave rise to String Theory. The logical nature of philosophy guides the mathematicians and scientists in the right direction.
3. Consider the exact opposite
Being critical of everything is an excellent way to jump-start your brain. Have you ever had someone critically scrutinize your opinion and ended up having a stronger stance than what you began with? Seeing both sides of an argument gives you the motivation to think. Take conventional wisdom and try to argue in the complete opposite direction. This simple thought exercise will surprise you as to how much you will learn.
4. Say the obvious
There has been many times where a new invention or new website pops up and we say, “Why didn’t I think of that?” Ironically, the most obvious is also the most looked over. When you have time to ponder, observe your surroundings and literally say the obvious. Let your inner captain obvious shine through and say whatever you observe(you might want to keep it to yourself for social reasons). This exercise won’t make you creative on its on merit; it should be used as a way to spark new ideas, you shouldn’t take a passive role.
5. Always ask why, and then answer it.
Don’t be like the children who always ask why, because they can’t answer on their own. The trick is to let your own mind do the thinking to come at your own conclusion. This will get you accustomed to the different ways of solving problems. Keep trying to answer 'why' until you come up with an answer that is hard to refute. After much practice, you will find yourself answering 'why' faster and faster. Learning all sorts of different methods for solving problems will equip you with the mental tools for creatively solving harder problems in the future.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Girl Jokes That Aren't Funny Anymore
Girl Joke #1: "Haha, You fail at life"
One common format for a punch line is to use a word that is unexpected. How many times have you heard girls say this joke? Twice? Three times? They completely shatter the unpredictable element of the joke. The punch line is so predictable that it’s the same as if it were a normal statement and that’s just depressing.
Girl Joke #2: "Good point! Want a cookie?"
This Joke usually occurs after pointing out the girl’s stupidity in a condensing fashion e.g. after pointing out that she shouldn’t be wearing a mini-skirt in freezing whether. Saying this joke should oblige the girl to literally bake a batch of cookies and give them to funny people.
Girl Joke #3: "Oops! Jay Kay!"
Great, she just said something mind-numbingly dumb and covers it up with an even dumber joke. I bet this joke wasn’t even thought up; it was just a knee-jerk reaction due to the constant usage of the acronym in her online conversations.
Girl Joke #4: "Ah, my bad, no biscuit for me."
Yea, no biscuit for you bitch.
Girl Joke #5: "Sucks to be you"
The only thing separating this sentence from being a rude thing to say is the bitchy tone. The girl is at a lose-lose situation; either way she says this joke, she is bound to be ostracized. This joke has the unique quality of applying itself to the joke teller.
Girl Joke #6: "Awk ward Teeheehee"
There is a comedic pause between the two syllables in the word awkward… genius! Next time a girl says this make sure to say, “you’re fat,” then pause for ten seconds and follow up with “Awk ward.”
Girl Joke #7:"Hahaha, not funny"
This phrase is so ubiquitous amongst girls that it has absolutely no element of surprise. Merely mouthing the phrase, with the appropriate facial expressions, will suffice in delivering the same message.
One common format for a punch line is to use a word that is unexpected. How many times have you heard girls say this joke? Twice? Three times? They completely shatter the unpredictable element of the joke. The punch line is so predictable that it’s the same as if it were a normal statement and that’s just depressing.
Girl Joke #2: "Good point! Want a cookie?"
This Joke usually occurs after pointing out the girl’s stupidity in a condensing fashion e.g. after pointing out that she shouldn’t be wearing a mini-skirt in freezing whether. Saying this joke should oblige the girl to literally bake a batch of cookies and give them to funny people.
Girl Joke #3: "Oops! Jay Kay!"
Great, she just said something mind-numbingly dumb and covers it up with an even dumber joke. I bet this joke wasn’t even thought up; it was just a knee-jerk reaction due to the constant usage of the acronym in her online conversations.
Girl Joke #4: "Ah, my bad, no biscuit for me."
Yea, no biscuit for you bitch.
Girl Joke #5: "Sucks to be you"
The only thing separating this sentence from being a rude thing to say is the bitchy tone. The girl is at a lose-lose situation; either way she says this joke, she is bound to be ostracized. This joke has the unique quality of applying itself to the joke teller.
Girl Joke #6: "Awk ward Teeheehee"
There is a comedic pause between the two syllables in the word awkward… genius! Next time a girl says this make sure to say, “you’re fat,” then pause for ten seconds and follow up with “Awk ward.”
Girl Joke #7:"Hahaha, not funny"
This phrase is so ubiquitous amongst girls that it has absolutely no element of surprise. Merely mouthing the phrase, with the appropriate facial expressions, will suffice in delivering the same message.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
We are Ignorant Philanthropists
Have you ever been called a moron for not giving money to the most starving child? Ever been ridiculed for buying orphans new toys instead of funding a food drive for sick children in Africa? Of course you haven’t, it is a rather taboo subject to bring up in the first place. How do we know if the resources we budget for charity are being allocated in the most efficient way possible? Americans gave nearly $300 billion to charitable causes last year; what if half of that could have been allotted more efficiently?
Have you ever had your dad scream at you for tampering with the thermostat? Ever been ridiculed for buying overpriced shoes? It is clear that our society values economic efficiency. Don’t get this confused with ‘being cheap,’ because you can be cheap and inefficient simultaneously. Efficient resource allocation is important for the rational consumer. This is why we strive to close the information gap between the seller and the buyer. With consumer reports, reviews, and evaluations, we can make better-informed decisions on our purchases. Being rational consumers, we will only choose to buy what has more ‘bang for its buck,’ the layman’s term for utility maximization. This diffusion of product information translates to an economically efficient future. What about charity? Are we informed philanthropist?
More specifically, what does it mean to have more ‘bang for you buck’ in regard to charity? Does it have to do with which recipient benefits the most out of your X dollar amount donation? Examining the behavior of charitable donations, we find out that this isn’t the case. When it comes to charity, people are not informed consumers.
Which person would you rather give your spare change to; assuming it is less than a dollar?
Starving African Kids Witty Homeless guy
If you did not pick the witty homeless guy, have ever given a homeless guy your spare change? If the answer is no, at least you know someone who has and that is sufficient enough for me to make my point. Now, there are certain reasons you or someone you know gave their change to the homeless guy instead of poor African children. For one, the homeless guy was conveniently there to take your money. Also, you might catch a glimpse of glee in his face as he takes your generous donation. In my opinion, these reasons are excuses for not having the information to donate where you will optimize your ‘bang for your buck.’
You shouldn’t feel guilty if you have these excuses for not donating to the ‘right’ people. Unlike the consumer markets, the charity market is saturated with false information and manipulation. There are a plethora of lobbyists out there that trick people into putting their charity budget in the wrong place. Similarly, there are plenty of religious institutions that do just the same. Your efforts to do your own research might be at too high of a cost.
Even some of the most benevolent deeds, like working at the local food shelter, could be a misallocation of time and money. It all depends on the supply and demand of charitable donations. The food shelter could be substantially lacking staff and your help will have a huge marginal benefit. On the other hand, suppose the food shelter was over staffed, but you decide to help out anyway. Your marginal benefit wouldn’t be worth your effort. This misallocation of charity will continue to be a problem as long as it’s taboo to bring up the topic. There needs to be some sort of way to have objective charitable information readily available for the public.
Have you ever had your dad scream at you for tampering with the thermostat? Ever been ridiculed for buying overpriced shoes? It is clear that our society values economic efficiency. Don’t get this confused with ‘being cheap,’ because you can be cheap and inefficient simultaneously. Efficient resource allocation is important for the rational consumer. This is why we strive to close the information gap between the seller and the buyer. With consumer reports, reviews, and evaluations, we can make better-informed decisions on our purchases. Being rational consumers, we will only choose to buy what has more ‘bang for its buck,’ the layman’s term for utility maximization. This diffusion of product information translates to an economically efficient future. What about charity? Are we informed philanthropist?
More specifically, what does it mean to have more ‘bang for you buck’ in regard to charity? Does it have to do with which recipient benefits the most out of your X dollar amount donation? Examining the behavior of charitable donations, we find out that this isn’t the case. When it comes to charity, people are not informed consumers.
Which person would you rather give your spare change to; assuming it is less than a dollar?
Starving African Kids Witty Homeless guy
If you did not pick the witty homeless guy, have ever given a homeless guy your spare change? If the answer is no, at least you know someone who has and that is sufficient enough for me to make my point. Now, there are certain reasons you or someone you know gave their change to the homeless guy instead of poor African children. For one, the homeless guy was conveniently there to take your money. Also, you might catch a glimpse of glee in his face as he takes your generous donation. In my opinion, these reasons are excuses for not having the information to donate where you will optimize your ‘bang for your buck.’
You shouldn’t feel guilty if you have these excuses for not donating to the ‘right’ people. Unlike the consumer markets, the charity market is saturated with false information and manipulation. There are a plethora of lobbyists out there that trick people into putting their charity budget in the wrong place. Similarly, there are plenty of religious institutions that do just the same. Your efforts to do your own research might be at too high of a cost.
Even some of the most benevolent deeds, like working at the local food shelter, could be a misallocation of time and money. It all depends on the supply and demand of charitable donations. The food shelter could be substantially lacking staff and your help will have a huge marginal benefit. On the other hand, suppose the food shelter was over staffed, but you decide to help out anyway. Your marginal benefit wouldn’t be worth your effort. This misallocation of charity will continue to be a problem as long as it’s taboo to bring up the topic. There needs to be some sort of way to have objective charitable information readily available for the public.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Learn How to be an Internet Comedian
The Internet has revolutionized the culture of comedy. Now a day anyone with an Internet Connection can publicize their comedic creations. The difficulty, however, comes with the creativity block that most of us face. The secret is to work within the parameters of the Internet fads. It’s hard to identify what these fads are, fortunately for you, I have come up with four fads to help structure your comedic art. I have also made examples to demonstrate the potential humor of working in the bounds of various fads.
Fad #1: Take a one-dimensional character and give them a new life.
What do LOL Cats and Chuck Norris facts have in common? They both take something none human and give it a new life. “But Chuck Norris is human!” He might be a human, but he has many inhuman characteristics like the ability to cure cancer with his tears. But seriously, his TV character is as one-dimensional as a newborn baby. Giving a new life to any of these primitive figures is sure to land you a hit on the Internet.
Example: “Murderous Urkel”
Fad #2:Combine a well-known joke with something creative
Some of us aren’t creative enough to come up with our own joke, but creative enough to embellish an existing one. For example, Chuck Norris facts evolved to Jack Bauer facts - not as creative as the original, but enough to give birth to anther joke.
Example: “Destination Shit.”
Fad #3: Make something emotional that people can build rapport with.
Humans are equipped with the mental capacity to experience empathy. When watching a sad movie, humans can imagine themselves as the characters in the movie. This ability is so powerful that it can cause real physiological reactions like laughing and crying. One thing to remember when creating your comedy is to have a human express a powerful emotion.
Example: “You Are a Pussy”
Fad #1: Take a one-dimensional character and give them a new life.
What do LOL Cats and Chuck Norris facts have in common? They both take something none human and give it a new life. “But Chuck Norris is human!” He might be a human, but he has many inhuman characteristics like the ability to cure cancer with his tears. But seriously, his TV character is as one-dimensional as a newborn baby. Giving a new life to any of these primitive figures is sure to land you a hit on the Internet.
Example: “Murderous Urkel”
Fad #2:Combine a well-known joke with something creative
Some of us aren’t creative enough to come up with our own joke, but creative enough to embellish an existing one. For example, Chuck Norris facts evolved to Jack Bauer facts - not as creative as the original, but enough to give birth to anther joke.
Example: “Destination Shit.”
Fad #3: Make something emotional that people can build rapport with.
Humans are equipped with the mental capacity to experience empathy. When watching a sad movie, humans can imagine themselves as the characters in the movie. This ability is so powerful that it can cause real physiological reactions like laughing and crying. One thing to remember when creating your comedy is to have a human express a powerful emotion.
Example: “You Are a Pussy”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
