In Chapter 4 of Reading Argumentative Texts we did a deeper dive into the nature and types of arguments and we examined the differences between argumentative and nonargumentative nonfiction texts. We covered a lot of ground in Chapter 4 and my commentary on Chapter 4 could be correspondingly broad and deep. Yet that may be boring. Whatever your chosen theology, if you are a serious reader or writer, you know that a cardinal sin is writing a boring text. So, rather than being exhaustive in my commentary, I will be selective.
Let’s start with enthymemes (enthymatic arguments). I do this not because this is the most important topic in Chapter 4, but because it allows us to discuss a few not-boring jokes.
This joke has made its way across social media:
- I picked up a hitchhiker. Seemed like a nice guy. After a few miles, he asked if I wasn’t afraid that he might be a serial killer. I told him that the odds of two serial killers being in the same car were extremely unlikely.
That’s not a great joke, but it’s a good one, and instructive to boot.
What do you have to understand to get the joke? What is implied by the actual sentences in the joke but because it is not stated, the joke is funny? The joke requires you to supply the missing premise that the driver/speaker is a serial killer. And once you have done that, you know why it makes sense for him to say that the odds of both of them being serial killers is low, and why we can imply from that (why he asks you to infer from that) that he is not afraid.
We know from Chapter 4 of Reading that an argument with an implied premise which is necessary to draw the conclusion the text is proposing is an enthymatic argument. What would this joke look like if we restated it as an enthymatic argument?
I picked up a hitchhiker when I was driving (alone).He seemed like a nice guy (not a threat).
After a few miles, he asked if I wasn’t afraid that he might be a serial killer.
I am a serial killer. [Implied premise]
I told him that the odds of two serial killers being in the same car were extremely unlikely. Therefore, I told him that I am not afraid that you (the hitchhiker) are a serial killer. [Implied conclusion]
This example illustrates that many jokes are really enthymatic arguments. That is not the only lesson to be drawn from this example, however.
You will recall that at several places in Reading (see especially Chapters 1 and 6) I said that the structure of a text is one source of its meaning. This joke is a good example of that. When we alter the structure of the joke and present it as a complete argument, with the missing premise supplied, it loses its humorous meaning; it isn’t funny anymore. But in its original form, when we treat the joke as an enthymeme and figure out the missing premise, we find it to be humorous. That reinforces a central premise of Reading, namely, that the meaning of an argumentative text is to be found not only in the words of the argument, but also in other features of the text, including its structure. (Jokes that derive their humor from their structure (and not all of them do, see Reading Chapter 7) are broadly similar to certain types of good poems. A good poem often takes its meaning not just from the words in the poem but also by the way they are arranged and by what is not said but only implied or suggested.)
It would take a psychologist to explain why we laugh at this joke or any joke, to explain the psychology of humor. I’m not that person. Our example does show, however, that the joke creates humor in large part through its structure as an enthymeme. When the listener figures out the missing premise, he is likely to think the whole joke is clever and typically will be amused by that. In addition, he may take some modest joy in the fact that the joke-teller thinks enough of his (the listener’s) intellect that the teller has chosen to communicate that to the listener in this fashion.
Enthymatic jokes, in other words, are intended to create shared meaning between the teller and listener, and they generally do it by asking and requiring that the listener engage in the intellectual exercise of figuring out what meaning the joke-teller is trying to share with him. Through the medium of the joke, the joke-teller may be trying to communicate and share values, group membership, a perspective on the world, or information in a novel fashion. That shared meaning generally tends to bring people closer together intellectually or emotionally (there are exceptions to this, as when the listener gets the meaning, but rejects its appropriateness (as in racist jokes)). It tends to create a community or strengthens the bonds of an existing community. It makes our lives richer and deeper, even if ever so slightly.
Let’s look at another enthymatic joke:
- Did you hear about the billionaire astronaut who held a news conference and announced that he was going to fly a spaceship to the sun? When a reporter asked him how he was going to avoid dying from the sun’s heat, he replied, “I’m not worried, I’ll be going at night.”
This is a pretty weak joke, more in the nature of a “Dad joke.” Nonetheless, it does illustrate how jokes can be enthymatic arguments and why even a 7th grader would be inclined to groan at this joke.
For the billionaire to arrive at his conclusion that he will be safe if he lands at night, he must reason according to this enthymeme, or one close to it:
I will fly a spaceship to the sun.The earth goes through cycles of daytime and nighttime. [Implied premise]
So, the sun must go through cycles of daytime and nighttime. [Implied conclusion]
On earth, the temperatures are generally hotter during the daytime and cool off at nighttime. [Implied premise]
So, the sun must have hotter temperatures during its daytime and must cool off during its nighttime. [Implied conclusion]
So, I’ll fly to the sun during its nighttime and be safe.
To refer back to other points made in Chapter 4, in addition to this argument being an enthymeme, it is also a form of inductive argument by analogy (two analogies, in fact), and it is a weak inductive argument, since there are many dissimilarities between the sun and earth that serve to falsify the premises and the (internal and final) conclusions of the argument.
Why is this joke not a very good one? Why is it relatively unfunny? Consider this possible explanation. Whatever humorous meaning is communicated by the enthymatic structure of the joke is undermined by the clear falsity of the premises in the arguments by analogy that purport to support the final conclusion. When two sources of meaning in an argumentative text conflict with each other, as here (structure and content), we experience an intellectual incongruity. We want to laugh and at the same time we want to groan because the premises are clearly factually off base.
Many jokes about lawyers and other professionals also are enthymatic arguments. Because I spent a few decades practicing law, I had no shortage of friends and relatives who thought I just had to hear the latest lawyer joke. Here is one of the “better” ones:
- A priest, a minister, and a lawyer were trapped on an island surrounded by sharks many miles from the mainland. They waited for days to be rescued, but no one came for them. Finally, in desperation, they agreed that one of them had to try to swim to the mainland to get help. No one volunteered for the task because they feared they would be eaten by the sharks. So they decided to draw lots to decide who would make the swim. The lawyer lost the draw, said his goodbyes to the priest and minister, jumped into the water and began to swim. Surprisingly, when he got near the sharks, they formed two parallel lines and allowed him to swim through this lane unmolested. The priest shouted with joy, “It’s a miracle. Thank God.” The minister replied, “No, father, just professional courtesy.”
This enthymatic joke incorporates the stereotypes that lawyers are aggressive predators, just like sharks, and that even within this profession of aggressive predators there exists professional courtesy. You can reformulate this joke as an argument with implied premises that express these stereotypes.
You will get this joke only if you believe or at least are familiar with these stereotypes and so can supply the missing premises. That belief or familiarity provides social context for the rest of the joke. If you aren’t at least familiar with these stereotypes, you won’t understand why this joke is humorous. In other words, this joke is an example of context imparting meaning to a text, which is the subject of Chapter 8 of Reading.
Finally, did you get the (very light) joke in the title of this post? Did you interpret this title as enthymatic? When someone comes up with a really bad idea or offers a bad argument in support of an idea, we often hear the expression, “that argument is a joke.” The comment typically is intended to be critical and disparaging. The title of this post is intended to play off of that phrase by turning it around and prompting you to pause and wonder what this post may be about, where is it going. Did Scheuermann make a mistake? Are there really some jokes that are arguments? You likely will be taking that pause and get the joke (such as it is) only if you first have heard the phrase “that argument is a joke.” This is another example of how context imparts meaning. More on that topic when we get to the post on Chapter 8.
© James E. Scheuermann 2022, all content on this blog
Reading Argumentative Texts 