Re: Humor as a communication technique

[David Girardot <dmgirard -at- CORNETLTD -dot- COM>]

>[snip] ... humor is a powerful persuasive device.
> [snip] .... Let's face it, documentaries can be
> interesting, but they rarely move you or make you really think
> about things.

I have to disagree with you there.  The best documentaries I've seen try to
get involved with the subjects, to the point that the audience can really
empathize with them.  They also dramatize things -- I've always thought,
considered, pondered documentaries afterwards.  I'll grant you there are
boring documentaries, but IMHO a boring documentary is probably a bad
documentary.

Consider that a traditional use for humor is to present "dangerous" or new
ideas in a way that is still acceptable.  People will accept certain topics
in humor (i.e. a joke) that they would not accept in regular conversation.

I think if you analysed the successful texts that used humor you might find
that what distinguishes them is not the humor per se, but in fact that the
writer(s) wrote to their audience and spent time organizing the information
to make it easier to digest.

One problem use of humor can have concerns translations.  It's often
difficult to translate idiom and puns into another language.

> [snip] .... However, wouldn't it be fun to
> pick up a user manual that actually made you giggle once or twice.

It might.  But I read a user manual to find out information.  If I can find
it quick, AND it's more enjoyable then so be it.  But even if it has tons of
smarmy jokes I couldn't care less until I find the information I'm looking
for.  I think the key is less humor, and more organization of the
information and writing to the audience.

-- David

P.S. I think some readers react better to humor than others.  The dry humor
in Programming Perl was very successful with its core audience (i.e. young
programmers) -- but I'm not sure it would work as well with other audiences.