M<\/strong>: Thank you for speaking with me, Hill.\u00a0So\u2026 this is quite a remarkable institution! Most people only hear about the IDNF when something tragic happens, but obviously there is much more to it than that. \u00a0What does your institute actually DO? M<\/strong>: Can you think of an example? M<\/strong>: That\u2019s an incredible undertaking! How long has this institution been at it? M<\/strong>: Well\u2026 what happened with the argument? Is blasphemy funny or not? M<\/strong>: I\u2019m sure my readers are wondering: How exactly do you test to see whether something is \u201cDecidedly Not-Funny\u201d? M<\/strong>: So if it makes it passed the stoned children it\u2019s not funny? M<\/strong>: How many things have been tested so far? M<\/strong>: How many things have been found to be decidedly not-funny? M<\/strong>: Not one? M<\/strong>: That\u2019s hard to believe! There are many things which jump to mind as decidedly not-funny. Mass-murder, viral epidemics, nuclear warfare, Will Ferrel\u2026 you can\u2019t tell me these things are funny!? M<\/strong>: Then why do you bother calling this place The Institute for the Decidedly NOT-Funny??? ~r<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" My guest today is Hillary Hitswith, who has been heading the Institute for the Decidedly Not-Funny (or \u201cIDNF\u201d), for the last quarter-century. The science of what is, and what is decidedly-not funny is complex, its history fascinating, and its ramifications vast. The following is an excerpt from an interview I had with Ms. Hitswith in … Continue reading “The Institute for the Decidedly Not-Funny (Interview)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/watchyourhead.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/292"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/watchyourhead.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/watchyourhead.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/watchyourhead.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/watchyourhead.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=292"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/watchyourhead.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/292\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/watchyourhead.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=292"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/watchyourhead.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=292"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/watchyourhead.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=292"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nG<\/strong>: That\u2019s quite a broad question. However, much of our activities involve research. We have cataloged the H.Q., or “Hilarity Quotient” for a wide cross-section of the human experience. Every time something new is discovered or an event happens, our institute has to test for its H.Q. This is not as easy as it seems. Many things that are apparently not-funny can become funny in different contexts.<\/p>\n
\n G<\/strong>: Well, for example\u2026 take a pencil. Pencils aren\u2019t terribly funny objects, right? But jam one in your eye and, well\u2026 you see the point. And objects are just one aspect of our research. Ideally, we are trying to analyze every object, location, event, situation, idea\u2026 everything\u2026 until we end up with a finalized list of those things which are Decidedly Not-Funny. We think this knowledge benefits all humanity.<\/p>\n
\n G<\/strong>: The institution was established in 1723 by Lord Pompermeyer Fannigus Gillbert IV in London. He had a long standing disagreement with his bitter rival, Sir Norrius Tobbleton Stote of Wankchester, over whether or not blasphemy was funny. This was a widely publicized argument, and many of the leading scholars and theologians of the time weighed in on the heated debate. When Lord Pompermeyer lost the argument, he was enraged, and disbanded the institute, which fled to safety in the new world, where it has been ever since.<\/p>\n
\n G<\/strong>: Yeah. It\u2019s pretty funny.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/watchyourhead.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/02\/idnf-300x262.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n G<\/strong>: We mostly use \u201cthe PLOP,\u201d or the \u201cProgressive Laughter-Omission Protocol.\u201d \u00a0Basically, we draw a picture of the object, situation, idea etc. to be tested. Then we look at it. If we don\u2019t laugh, we show it to children. If they don\u2019t laugh, we show it to stoned teenagers. Finally, if the stoned teenagers don\u2019t laugh, we show it to stoned children. Most things can be found to be decidedly funny in this way. Cucumbers, for example, always pass as not-funny down to the stoned teenagers, and then they\u2019re instantly hilarious. Gets em\u2019 everytime.<\/p>\n
\n G<\/strong>: No\u2026no\u2026no\u2026 That\u2019s preliminary. The same method is employed again, using contextual combinations. Lets say a plane crash is being tested. This will usually make it past the preliminaries. We then include accessory knowledge to the context. For example, with the contextual knowledge that humans are primates, it is easy to equate the incident to one involving \u201ca jet-propelled tube of monkeys plummeting from the stratosphere; the tube-doomed primates muttering in symbolic monkey-speak for a monkey shaped deity to catch them.\u201d That is decidedly funny.<\/p>\n
\n G<\/strong>: Many hundreds of millions.<\/p>\n
\n G<\/strong>: Well, including all the ones discovered prior to our records becoming digital?
\n…none so far\u2026 there have many false negatives, though. Many times something will be maintained as not-funny for generations before a new interpretation or context reveals its innate funnitude. Presently, nothing holds the Decidedly Not-Funny (DNF) designation.<\/p>\n
\n G<\/strong>: So far, no. But we are still looking.<\/p>\n
\n G<\/strong>: That\u2019s the remarkable thing. The universe is tragically hilarious and all things are temporal. Beyond that, we’ve been unable to determine just what separates one “thing” from another, so that if any<\/em>-thing is funny, every<\/em>-thing is funny. It’s a complex metaphysical problem. But that’s what we do here.<\/p>\n
\n G<\/strong>: Because we think it\u2019s funny.<\/p>\n