Tag Archives: Jokes

Outcrop.

Rock-solid geology puns that will have you erupting in laughter

Outcrop.

Some of these rocks are also the schist.
Image via Pixabay.

Ahhhh, geology. The noble art of hiking to rock, hitting rock with hammer, and then establishing its particular rockiness.

It’s quite the fun career, if occasionally physically-intensive, but it’s peppered with long stretches where not much happens. Whether you’re hiking to an outcrop or hitching a ride to a nice formation, you have to pass the time somehow. Drinks are therefore much appreciated in the field of geology, but puns are a close second — especially when you need to stay productive.

I’m also a big fan of puns. So, today, I invite you to join in on the fun with a few geology puns that I find quite funny. Audible groaning and eye-rolling aren’t only acceptable, they’re encouraged. Just give me a minute to dig some good ones up. I’ll make sure they’re all clastics.

To begin with:

Let’s whet your apatite

Apatite.

Calcium ions give apatite a blue hue. The yellowish mineral is calcite.
Image credits Géry Parent / Flickr.

Apatite is a group of minerals rich in phosphorus and ions of other compounds and elements, such as fluorine, chlorine, or hydrogen-oxygen. While it can be very pretty, most apatites end up being crushed and processed into fertilizers. Sad.

One really geeky reason I love this pun is that apatite itself is a bit of a meta-pun. Apatite crystals aren’t particularly distinctive, so the mineral gets confused for other geological species quite frequently. In fact, its very name comes from ‘apatein’, an ancient Greek for ‘deceive’ or ‘dupe’.

Moving on swiftly, let’s talk about what motivates us to study geology in the first place:

We come for the cleavage and stay for the joints

So it’s pretty much like college!

Joints.

Don’t get excited too fast. These are the joints we’re talking about.
Image via Wikimedia.

Unlike college (again, sad), ‘cleavage’ refers either to features in rock generated by pressure and heat if you’re a geologist, or to the tendency of crystals to split across certain planes if you’re more of a mineralogist. ‘Joints’ are fractures in rock, separating blocks that move relative to one another. They tend to form under tensile, rather than shearing, stress.

However, some of us never get into geology. And I get it. It may appear like there’s no need for new students, for new ideas, because

So many geologists are out standing in the field

Ehehehehe. Maybe they’re really busy with

Thrusting in orogenous zones

Thrust faults are tears in rock formations whereby older strata are pushed above more recent ones. Orogenies, being mountain-building events, will definitely create such faults.

But not everything is borne of orogeny; sometimes

Igneous is bliss

Volcanic rock.

A volcanic rock.
Image credits Angela Thomas.

I love my job.

Igneous rocks form from the cooling of magma deep inside the earth. They’re also known as magmatic or volcanic rocks (if they form from magma oozing out of a volcano). Still,

Studying volcanoes can be tuff

Tuff is basically rock-ified volcanic ash. Volcanoes spew out a lot of volcanic ash (and burning magma)!

Always name your WiFi “Yellowstone”

Because it’s a hotspot.

Puns — they’ll always be there when you hit rock bottom. Some people won’t like them, and they’ll smack you over the head if you try to make puns. They’re what geologists call karst holes.

If you know any good geology puns, don’t be afraid to share in the comments below.

Humor done right helps in the classroom, 99% of students report. Bad humor hurts

When in doubt, crack open a funny one.

Shadow joke.

Image credits Hans Braxmeier.

Science classrooms stand to benefit from humor, new research suggests. This first-of-its-kind study revealed that humor can have a positive impact on students’ ability to learn, but also a negative one if wielded improperly. Luckily, the team also identified which kind of jokes go over smoothly and which risk offending students.

The ‘Ha-ha’ factor

Humor can help lighten the mood and help students establish rapport with their instructors. The study, penned by researchers from the Arizona State University’s School of Life Sciences, found that students appreciate when instructors tell jokes in science class. Female and male students, however, differ on what topics they find funny or offensive.

The team surveyed students from 25 college science courses on their perceptions of instructor humor. Out of the total of 1,637 respondents, 99% said they appreciate instructor humor and feel it improves the overall experience of college. Many also said it helps decrease stress, enhance the relationship between students and the instructor, and remind them what was taught in class.

It came as a surprise, the team admits.

“I went into [this study] thinking that maybe we shouldn’t be joking in the classroom, but I left the study thinking that instructors should use humor as a way to better connect with students,” said Sara Brownell, associate professor in the school and senior author of the paper.

“But, as might seem obvious, we need to be careful with what we’re joking about because we found the topics that instructors are joking about can have different effects on different students.”

With great humor, however, also comes great chance to offend somebody.

The good news is that lukewarm jokes — those that students don’t actually find funny — won’t do any damage; such jokes don’t change the students’ attention to course content or their relationship with the instructor, the team reports. The bad news is that if an instructor tells a joke that students find both unfunny and offensive, they can seem less relatable and make students pay less attention, according to over 40% of respondents. The effect seems to be more pronounced on female students, the team adds.

As a group, male and female students will also laugh at different jokes — and they’ll be offended by different jokes, too. In the survey, science students were presented with a list of hypothetical topics that a professor could joke about and asked to rate how they feel about each.

Male students were more likely to find jokes told by the instructor about gender, sexual orientation, religious identity, and race funny. Female students were more likely to find these same hypotheticals offensive. Both, however, found jokes about science, college, and television to be palatable.

“There were 23 subjects that males were more likely than females to report that they might find funny, including all 14 subjects related to social identities,” the paper reads. “However, there was only one subject, food puns, that females were more likely than males to report that they might find funny

“More and more studies are starting to paint a picture that the classroom environment is really important for student learning,” Brownell explains. “Science classrooms and the instructors teaching the science are typically described by students as boring, unapproachable and difficult. So, science instructors who try to be funny can create better learning environments, as long as they are not offensive.”

The authors suggest that instructors weave humor into their course, but that they pay attention to what kind of jokes they crack. “Is it a joke about cute animals? Probably OK.”, says co-author Katelyn Cooper”.A pun about science? Probably OK.”

The study is the product of a collaboration between the team and 16 students (graduate and undergraduates) enrolled in a class focusing on biology education research. The entire class worked on the project for one semester, acting as investigators — formulating the initial research idea, collecting and analyzing data, and editing the final manuscript.

The paper “To be funny or not to be funny: Gender differences in student perceptions of instructor humor in college science courses” has been published in the journal PLOS ONE.

Quantum mechanics may explain why some jokes are funny — and others, not so much

Quantum physics could help scientists get to the bottom of an age-old question: why do we find some things funny? A team from the University of British Columbia, Canada, has developed a mathematical model of humor which they hope can predict whether a joke will be funny or not.

Image credits White House / Pete Souza.

We all love a good sense of humor, but so far scientists don’t actually know what makes or breaks one. More accurately, we don’t know what happens in our brains to make them (us) perceive one joke or pun as being hilarious, and another as dry and boring. We know when we get the joke, but we don’t get how our brain gets it.

But the funniness of a joke can be predicted using quantum theory, say Liane Gabora from the University of British Columbia’s Department of Psychology and her colleague Kristy Kitto from the Department of Mathematical Sciences at the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane Australia. This novel take on the issue may provide a more nuanced model of the cognitive process underpinning humor than current models and eventually lead to a formal framework of humor rooted in quantum theory.

What makes a joke

The prevailing view is that the funny element in jokes can be explained by words’ ability to hold two meanings at the same time (bisociation), and from the multiple but incompatible ways a statement or situation can be interpreted (incongruity). To quote my highschool literature teacher, comedy relies on the dissociation of semblance and essence — In simpler terms, jokes are funny because what you see is not what you get. A joke’s set-up nudges you to expect a certain outcome. Then the punch line turns the situation on its head by using alternative meanings or context to the one you were relying on — and that shift creates the comical effect. For example:

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

The duo, however, believes that it’s not just the shift in meaning which makes a pun or a joke funny — it’s our ability to perceive both meanings at the same time that does it. This would make a quantum approach much more adept at accounting for all the complexities of humor than previous models.

“Quantum formalisms are highly useful for describing cognitive states that entail this form of ambiguity,” said Liane Gabora. “This paper will propose that the quantum approach enables us to naturally represent the process of ‘getting a joke’.”

 

They tested this initial model in an experiment where 85 first year undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory psychology course at the University of British Columbia were asked to rate the funniness of puns, as well as the funny factor of parts of the jokes on their own (just the set-up or the punchline, for example.) The team deconstructed the joke, shifted the elements around, and even put new ones in to see what makes people tick.

Breaking it down

The unaltered joke, eg. “Why was 6 afraid of 7? Because 789,” proved to be the funniest (mean funniness of 2.70), followed by those the team intentionally constructed to be funny — Incongruent set-up jokes, eg “Why was 6 afraid of 7? Because 7 was a six offender” and Incongruent Punchline jokes with a mean funniness of 2.37 and 2.12, respectively. Next came the jokes where the incongruency, the main source of humor, was eliminated, with Congruent Setup and Congruent Punchline achieving a mean funniness of 1.41 and 1.47 respectively. The setup or punchlines alone were considered the least funny, both achieving a funniness of 1.22.

The authors note that while their data supports incongruence/bisociation as a source of humor, it shows that there’s something more at play here. They note that a joke’s “mean funniness […] should be equal to the sum of its funniness as judged under all possible semantic interpretations,” but with the jokes deconstructed into parts and rated by the students they find that “that there is no way in which to chose semantic probabilities that will satisfy” this equation.

This is a great example of incongruency which isn’t that funny on its own.
Image credits Steve Buissinne / Pixabay.

This would suggest that the brain adds something to the information (the joke) it receives, that there is a cognitive process which makes the fully assembled joke funny, even if its individual elements aren’t — a phenomenon which would make a quantum approach ideally suited to the study of humor.

“Funniness is not a pre-existing “element of reality” that can be measured; it emerges from an interaction between the underlying nature of the joke, the cognitive state of the listener, and other social and environmental factors,” the team writes in their paper.

“This makes the quantum formalism an excellent candidate for modeling humor, as this interaction is well described by the concept of a vector state embedded in a space which is represented using basis states that can be reoriented according to the framing of the joke.”

The team says that their model isn’t meant as a unifying theory of humor, but only as an explanation for its cognitive aspects. They also say the model is “still rudimentary, and more research is needed to determine to what extent it is consistent with empirical data.”

The full paper “Toward a Quantum Theory of Humor” has been published in the journal Frontiers in Physics.