In my debating days, using Analogies to make our points was maybe the most popular technique. This is the technique of comparing something to something else in the hope that you’ll see the similarities and accept that what’s true of our compared example is also a truth about the thing we were originally talking about. It’s an inductive form of reasoning.
It’s so effective you hear it all the time in everyday life. When someone says they’re not getting married because “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?” they’re using this technique. Forrest Gump is doing it when he says that life is like a box of chocolates. People talk about brains in the same way they talk about computers. When we refer to hostile ideas as poisonous, we’re doing the Analogy thing.
Someone can describe running government like a business. Religious folk invoke the craft of watchmaking to make their case for Intelligent Design. Scientists experiment on rodents with the expectation that the results will also apply to humans. When Socrates described a society like a human body and it’s leader like a physician, he was doing creating of analogy that would be the basis of a whole book. Ever heard someone say they like their coffee like their women?
If you pay attention, you’ll see that everyone does analogies all the time.
There are reasons for this, the main one being that it speaks to how human brains work. Pattern recognition and compare/contrast are the deepest and strongest algorithms our minds run, something that’s been keeping our species alive for the entire time we’ve been stumbling around on this planet.
But there’s also a second reason – Analogies are a really easy way to sneak bullshit past people’s Reason filters.
In the world of formal debate analogies are actually regarded as a bit of a dishonest and dirty trick, a technique designed to persuade instead of prove. If I can invoke one myself, I’d say that people use analogies like drunks use streetlights – more for support than for illumination.
Comedians love the technique. Analogy is one of the major joke-writing structures. Some comics like Mark Normand have really made analogy their thing. I’m just going to insert a short video where Mark Normand talks about how he writes jokes with this technique:
“But wait a second,” I hear you say. “Didn’t you just tell us that analogies are dirty and dishonest?”
Sure. And I’ll also tell you that we don’t care. We really don’t.
Here’s a thing about stand up comedy, maybe the most salient thing I could tell you about it:
Anything goes.
That’s right. Anything goes. You don’t have to tell the truth. You don’t have to phrase your arguments like categorical syllogisms. You don’t have to stick to certain premises and you don’t have to avoid certain topics. You don’t have to fight fair. You don’t have to be polite or nice, and you sure don’t have to be honest or sincere. You don’t have to fight clean. You can use every sneaky deceptive dishonest and insincere trick in the book to get the job done.
There’s only one caveat: It has to work and there are consequences.
This isn’t minor. If your joke isn’t funny – or if it’s less funny that it is offensive, preachy, annoying or time-consuming – then it won’t work. If the consequences are that people become hostile or upset, they’re entitled to their response… and your joke won’t work.
But aside from that, have at it.
Remember, comedians aren’t trying to change what you think. They’re just trying to change the way you think. There’s a big difference: the first one is invalid (the word they use in the world of formal logic is fallacious) but the second one is a fun thought experiment, which is exactly what you’re there for.
Comics frequently use badly structured and insincere arguments that wouldn’t withstand the scrutiny they’d get in a dialectic or debate. We’re often seen defending the indefensible. We say stuff that you know can’t possibly be true, right or fair. We know that an ad hominem (basically, an insult) is a dirty trick when it’s used in a sincere argument, but a well-placed one can be bloody funny in a comedy set. We know that an extreme position (or reductio ad absurdum) is poor logic in a debate, but we also know that exaggeration and understatement are two of the most beloved spices in our kitchen. We know that there’s nothing about two things that sound similar which confers their qualities onto each other, but we also know that most people really fucking love puns.
If you study comedy sets and specials with an eye for shitty logic, insincere argument and dirty persuasion techniques you’ll quickly see that they are actually the dominant style that comedians communicate with.
So if you’re a comedian, it might pay to study the different types of argument fallacies. You might view all of these as joke writing formulas. See what I just did? I just gave you a brilliant tip for an easy way to write effective jokes! All you need is this List of Fallacies and you’re on your way.
My book, The Self Made Stand Up is available as a paperback or e-book from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Books.By and lots of other places.
More than a how-to book, The Self-Made Stand-Up is an essential resource for developing yourself as an effective comedian. If you’re a comedian, or looking to become one, The Self-Made Stand-Up is the emotional support animal you need.
Sean Cooper, Comedian 