full
Episode 105 - Serious Science, Funny People: The Surprising Truth About Humor in Science
Humor feels like a universal language—but can it really help people understand science? In this episode researchers Hauke Riesch and Bruno Pinto discuss the surprising limits of using jokes to teach science and what happens when scientists try to get laughs while explaining complex ideas. They discuss the psychology of humor, the risks of being “too funny,” and what it means for trust, emotion, and connection in science communication today. From stand-up scientists and late-night hosts to cultural differences in humor, they unpack what works, what doesn’t, and why communication is about more than just being funny.
Takeaways:
- The episode delves into the intersection of humor and science communication, exploring whether humor enhances retention of scientific information.
- Guests Hauke Reich and Bruno Pinto discuss their research on the impact of humor in popular science articles and its effects on audience engagement.
- The conversation highlights the subjective nature of humor, acknowledging that what is funny for one person may not resonate with another.
- The guests emphasize the need for more research on humor in international contexts to better understand its efficacy across different cultures.
- The discussion suggests that while humor may not always improve knowledge retention, it can enhance the enjoyment of scientific content, making it a valuable tool in communication.
- Ultimately, the episode underscores the importance of tailoring humor to the audience and context for effective science communication.
- Hauke Riesch
- Bruno Pinto
- Does Humor in Popular Science Magazine Articles Increase Information Retention and Receptiveness in Science Education?
- Are audiences receptive to humour in popular science articles? An exploratory study using articles on environmental issues
This is the only link you need to subscribe and never miss an episode of Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out.
If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here.
Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo.
Transcript
What is up, Brad fans?
Speaker A:How you doing?
Speaker A:How you living in this episode?
Speaker A:Joke's on you because I'm talking about humor.
Speaker A:More specifically, humor in science communication.
Speaker A:Why?
Speaker A:That's the kind of things that we talk about on this show, but also because humor is most of our default mode when we have to do some kind of public speaking or speaking with strangers.
Speaker A:And I think more so for scientists as well, when they want to, quote, unquote, communicate with the public.
Speaker A:The default is if I'm funny, people will like me and they'll remember what it is that I said.
Speaker A:And that last part is exactly what my two guests today set out to research.
Speaker A:Today I'm joined by Hauke Reich, who is a sociologist at Brunel University in the uk, and Bruno Pinto, who researches environmental and science communication and at the center for Marine and Environmental Sciences in Portugal.
Speaker A:And in a paper that they published earlier this summer, they asked this question, does humor in popular science magazine articles increase information retention and receptiveness in science education?
Speaker A:To put it in other words, does adding humor increase a reader's ability to remember what it is that they read?
Speaker A:It was an interesting conversation.
Speaker A:It was an interesting question to ask.
Speaker A:And we talk about the paper, but we also talk about humor more broadly.
Speaker A:We talk about humor in other areas of society, namely politics and some of the more contentious things that have happened in recent weeks and months publicly regarding comedians and politics.
Speaker A:And we just explore how difficult it really is to answer some of these questions because humor is so subjective.
Speaker A:Before we get to the conversation, please, like, subscribe.
Speaker A:Leave us a comment.
Speaker A:Really helps us out.
Speaker B:All right.
Speaker A:Welcome.
Speaker A:Hauke Rich, Bruno Pinto, thank you so much for being here.
Speaker A:Appreciate you taking the time at the beginning of a busy semester, I'm sure.
Speaker A:Before we get into humor and science communication and the topic of the paper that you two wrote together, why don't we just get a quick introduction from both of you, very brief, so that we don't use up all of our time.
Speaker A:But we can start with just on my screen to the right, Bruno, I think you were the first listed author on the paper, too.
Speaker A:So let's go with that.
Speaker A:How did you get into science and then science communication?
Speaker A:And then after Hauke, same question to you.
Speaker A:And then we'll dig into humor.
Speaker C:Okay.
Speaker A:Hello.
Speaker C:Thank you for having me.
Speaker C:Us.
Speaker C:So basically, when I was a teenager, I was hesitant between science and literature or science and letters, so.
Speaker C:And what.
Speaker C:What I was more amazed with science was the biological sciences.
Speaker C:So this came from spending time on nature in nature.
Speaker C:It came from experiences on the coast because I grew by the sea and so.
Speaker C:And I was hesitant between these, these two passions, between literature and between biology.
Speaker C:Eventually I end up choosing biology.
Speaker C:And not only biology, biology.
Speaker C:I was curious about astronomy, chemistry, other sciences but.
Speaker C:But mostly biology.
Speaker C:And eventually I. I picked biology.
Speaker C:And later I was able to join my.
Speaker C:My two passions in doing science communication.
Speaker C:But I. I don't know.
Speaker C:Don't know if you want me to.
Speaker A:No, that's great.
Speaker B:Go.
Speaker A:Let's.
Speaker A:Let's hear from Hauke and then we'll.
Speaker A:We'll go from there.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:Hi.
Speaker B:So remarkably similar actually.
Speaker B:At least in the beginning.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:So I also couldn't decide between literary or kind of humanities studies and science.
Speaker B:I ended up doing a undergraduate degree in physics and philosophy, which is like a joint honours degree.
Speaker B:Followed that up with Master in philosophy of science, having decided to kind of stay on the non direct science route and then a PhD in sociology of science.
Speaker B:So the PhD was I was very much interested in how scientists kind of conceived philosophical topics.
Speaker B:And one of the things I looked at in the PhD was popular science books because scientists when they're kind of writing about science, they want to explain science.
Speaker B:So I was going to be interesting, interested to see kind of what the philosophical topics behind how science is being explained.
Speaker B:Then obviously coming out of all this with a PhD based basically in popular science books, I was hooked on science communication in sense of studying how science is being communicated rather than doing it myself.
Speaker B:That's what I've been working on since alongside kind of more wider sociological topics around science and philosophical topics around science.
Speaker B:But public understanding of science on the more academic side, that's one of the things that stuck with me.
Speaker A:Yeah, interesting.
Speaker A:So I guess I'll give you guys my little brief so you know where I'm coming from.
Speaker A:And it was I think similar to Bruno.
Speaker A:I was interested in biology.
Speaker A:Ended up doing a biology undergrad and then PhD studying parasites and using genetics to figure out where these parasites come from, how they moved around and all that stuff.
Speaker A:So population genetics type stuff.
Speaker A:But yeah, it was.
Speaker A:For me it was.
Speaker A:I realized I wasn't a good scientist.
Speaker A:I mean I got the PhD so it was okay.
Speaker A:But you know, it was really.
Speaker A:I was.
Speaker A:I found myself more interested in talking about science and the knowledge that other people were creating.
Speaker A:I was like let's let me leave the knowledge creation to them.
Speaker A:And I just want to talk about it because I was just so curious about it.
Speaker A:Read Popular Science growing up.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:And so shifted into science journalism, science communication and I Found myself in the last.
Speaker A:Yeah, like really year or two, really focusing on how we do science communication now that I've been doing it for a while.
Speaker A:You know, what are the things that are working?
Speaker A:What's not working?
Speaker A:Because it feels like science communication as a field is really, you know, we're always looking at ourselves and being like, it's not working.
Speaker A:You know, we see, you know, science hesitancy, everything like this on the rise.
Speaker A:And so it's like, how do we make that better?
Speaker A:And I'm, I'm, I'm searching for ideas.
Speaker A:I haven't found all the answers yet.
Speaker A:Surprise, surprise.
Speaker A:And I'm not expecting us to answer all the big questions here today, but humor was one that it struck me when I saw your guys paper, and I'm sorry I don't have the title of it off the top of my head, but essentially you're looking at, does humor actually work in science communication?
Speaker A:Specifically writing in terms of knowledge retention, I think you looked at a few other metrics as well, but it stood out to me because I feel like it's a lot of times the default position.
Speaker A:Right, and I'll get your thoughts on that.
Speaker A:Why it's the default position.
Speaker A:I think, you know, humor is a very.
Speaker A:It's a universal emotion.
Speaker A:It's a universal feeling.
Speaker A:It's a universal concept in all cultures.
Speaker A:We all have it as humans.
Speaker A:So it feels natural.
Speaker A:Pretty difficult to actually pull off if you've ever tried to, you know, stand in front of a crowd and make people laugh.
Speaker A:But I'll let you guys decide who wants to go first.
Speaker A:But what do you think about humor in terms of just its role in communication in general?
Speaker A:Because it's obviously very important in political discussions and societal conversations, you know, in difficult conversations that you have with your family, grief, like all of these things.
Speaker A:Humor is everywhere.
Speaker A:So what kind of made you think about looking at this in this area and what are your general thoughts on the importance of humor, let's say in communication?
Speaker B:Do you want to go first, Bruno?
Speaker B:Should I?
Speaker C:No, no, let's.
Speaker C:You can go.
Speaker B:Okay.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:So I don't know.
Speaker B:I kind of generally start my presentation on this by saying I'm German.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:So I come from an outsider's perspective in Germany.
Speaker A:Oh, it's good.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:Naturally funny.
Speaker A:I lived in Germany for eight years, so I know.
Speaker B:In a sense.
Speaker B:So, you know, when I started looking at humor, I just started my job here at Brunel and we have an established center for critical comedy studies here, which is, yeah.
Speaker B:Fantastic resource and I kind of got talking to my colleagues here, Sharon Lockyer in particular, and they taught me a lot about kind of looking at humor critically.
Speaker B:This is like most other people have never done that before.
Speaker B:I thought, you know, humor, it's a fun thing and we all love it.
Speaker B:Therefore it's generally a great thing to make things humorous.
Speaker B:Right?
Speaker B:But having looked at kind of critical comedy studies and you can also see a lot of the kind of flip sides of humor.
Speaker B:So you know, how stereotyping, for example, actually entrenches pretty nasty perceptions.
Speaker B:How some jokes are funny for some audiences, but maybe offensive for others.
Speaker B:And how the way we use humor, looking specifically, sociologically, the way we use humor actually kind of has wider purposes on kind of how we present ourselves, how we understand our identity, how we interact with outsiders from our group, and so on.
Speaker B:So one of the things that I found interesting is the perspective that actually humor can be used as a way of setting your group aside from the out group.
Speaker B:So make a joke which is kind of fairly specialized, needs understanding of specialized scientific concepts, right?
Speaker B:You can spend, you can then kind of see by who laughs, who gets the joke, who is part of the in group, and those who don't get the joke are part of the out group.
Speaker B:Right?
Speaker B:So even though it's a nice thing, it's a nice feeling to be funny and laugh at things, but it also has the kind of these kind of social mechanisms behind which are maybe not always entirely great.
Speaker B:So that is a roundabout way of saying I got interested in applying this to science communication basically because I don't think anybody really has done up until that point.
Speaker B:That was like 10 years ago.
Speaker B:So I was just interested in, see, let's take the theory from critical humor, critical humor and comedy studies, and kind of apply this to science communication.
Speaker B:Kind of see where the opportunities for this, but also the pitfalls, the potential pitfalls for that.
Speaker B:And this is how I got into that.
Speaker B:So I wrote a brief kind of theory paper, just going to make sure I stake my claim before somebody el does it.
Speaker B:And on the back of that, arrange the conference panel, I think a year later.
Speaker B:And then that's where I'm at.
Speaker B:Bruno?
Speaker C:Yeah, my story is a bit different.
Speaker C:I come from a practical perspective.
Speaker C: So basically in: Speaker C:We have in Europe something called European Researchers Night.
Speaker C:I don't know if you know it.
Speaker A:Yeah, I'm familiar.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker C: ly we prepared a Show for the: Speaker C:We worked with a scientist, a science communicator and an actor, actually a professional actor.
Speaker C:And we were about nine, nine of us.
Speaker C:And I really enjoyed the process.
Speaker C:And humor was something that I had already an interest in.
Speaker C:So to apply humor to sense communication was basically great for me.
Speaker C:And all these feelings of being on stage and being able to make people laugh or at least try and to communicate science.
Speaker C:So it, it was a great feeling.
Speaker C:And basically at the time, me and two other colleagues of the group, we did a research article on this in which we tried to, as Hawk said, there was basically nothing about science, communication and humor.
Speaker C:There were very few literature references.
Speaker C:So basically we started from scratch, from nothing.
Speaker C:And we tried to collect the information that was within the group.
Speaker C:And we also did like survey of one of our shows.
Speaker C:But it was a bit difficult to do it because we were performing, organizing and if you do a questionnaire afterwards, it's too much, too much stuff.
Speaker C:But getting back to what you were asking Bradley about the social function of humor, I completely agree.
Speaker C:Normally it has a social function.
Speaker C:The humor is like a social glue or like meeting in the kitchen, right.
Speaker C:Where everybody gets together and discusses.
Speaker C:And some people normally is benign.
Speaker C:Normally it's a way of connecting, a way of understanding the world, of criticizing the world.
Speaker C:But it can also have a negative effect if you are marginalizing someone or if you are doing a bit too much of aggression to someone.
Speaker C:So I think it's a double edged sword.
Speaker C:So you can have this negative side as well.
Speaker A:Yeah, I think it's.
Speaker A:I like that you guys are both sort of mentioning the dark side.
Speaker C:Right.
Speaker A:Because I think we're looking at it in a positive way and like how can we use it to improve science communication?
Speaker A:And I think most people think of humor as positive, but I can think of just a lot of examples just in the last recent days of political things that I'm seeing that where humor is being used negatively or it's being punished or you know, all of these things that we don't need to get into here.
Speaker A:But it suffice to say that it's, it's a very powerful tool.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:And it's maybe something that we don't think of as being a powerful tool.
Speaker A:And I wonder why it's sort of the default again, like if you were to ask scientists, you know, how they, you go to give a conference presentation or something, there's always awkward jokes in there, right?
Speaker A:Like somebody every.
Speaker A:That's sort of the default.
Speaker A:And I wonder why that is, my theory is kind of that.
Speaker A:Well, and I didn't think of this before, but Bruno, you said, you know, when you were doing it with your colleagues, it's just fun.
Speaker A:And I bet that it's, it probably just makes it more fun for the presenter, for the communicator.
Speaker C:Right.
Speaker A:So that's probably something.
Speaker A:But I kind of, my theory is.
Speaker A:Theory, my thoughts on it.
Speaker A:Theory makes it sound too serious, is that it's just, it's, it's, it's kind of the only trick that people have, you know, that, that know and they think that it's going to make it relatable.
Speaker A:And that's something.
Speaker A:It's from science communication that you always.
Speaker A:Well, we have to be relatable.
Speaker A:We have to, you know, let people know that scientists are just like them or, you know, or that it's going to be more understandable, which is, again, is leading us towards your work.
Speaker A:But what do you.
Speaker A:Any thoughts on, you know, why it's.
Speaker A:Why it's sort of the default mode, let's say, or if you disagree, if it's the default mode, maybe you have a disagreement.
Speaker C:Yeah, I think it's a way of socializing and, you know, connecting.
Speaker C:But the issue is, at least for me, is that humor is very personal.
Speaker C:What you find humorous, probably, or possibly it's not exactly the same as for me.
Speaker C:And in science communication, there are also other drawbacks that we can delve into later on.
Speaker C:But I mean, it's delicate.
Speaker C:Humor is delicate.
Speaker C:So although some people argue that it's always a good tool to have, I mean, you should be aware of drawbacks and also that humor is very personal.
Speaker C:I mean, and some people may even find it offensive if you're not careful with something.
Speaker C:In the last years, maybe we've developed something more.
Speaker C:We are very, very sensitive.
Speaker C:Maybe it's not so good that we are so sensitive to humor.
Speaker C:And you were, you were talking about Jimmy Kimmel, I assume, among other.
Speaker A:Among other things.
Speaker A:Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker C:But yeah, I think we should be careful with its use.
Speaker C:But also what.
Speaker C:At least for me, I found it strange that some people recommended the use of humor in sense communication, but there was no real solid basis to do it.
Speaker C:I mean, there's still flaws in these recommendation of using humor in science communication.
Speaker C:I think you should be aware of problems, drawbacks, or at least be careful with some stuff.
Speaker A:Okay.
Speaker A:Any thoughts?
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:So first of all, echo Bruno here, but one thing I kind of find interesting is you mentioned kind of, you know, how we use humor, professional Communications between ourselves as academics or scientists.
Speaker B:And I think there is something there.
Speaker B:What I starting to think is that, you know, there's a very kind of national culture element in here.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:And you know, like I say, I'm German, so I also see how Germans communicate with each other.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:And we don't joke.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:There is a little bit of a kind of, you know, not to say that Germans aren't funny, but I think, you know, depending on kind of the natural cultural situation you're in, humour occupies slightly different spaces.
Speaker B:The social acceptance of when you make something humorous, it's different in different countries and different cultural spaces.
Speaker B:I see this particular in the uk where I live at the moment.
Speaker B:British people are very proud of their sense of humor.
Speaker B:It's part of their national identity.
Speaker B:So they make jokes about almost everything at any, any given opportunity.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:Whereas in other spaces it's different people are no less funny.
Speaker B:But you have different times and spaces where you make jokes.
Speaker B:So there's partly that we tend to, at least in the English speaking academic publishing world, we tend to really look at one cultural space rather than kind of a wider cultural space.
Speaker B:So humor assumptions we make about humor, that social acceptance in science communication, for example, or other spaces of communications are very much colored by the humor is unmitigated force for social good that dominates British national philosophy, if you will.
Speaker B:Now, I think also you make jokes at scientific conferences.
Speaker B:Interesting.
Speaker B:And that study has not been done as such as yet, which actually I think there's a gap there.
Speaker B:I've seen studies on humor being used in kind of group meetings in science or in medicine where there's a clear hierarchy about who is allowed to make jokes.
Speaker B:So the senior people who are secure in their employment, they can make fools of themselves.
Speaker B:The further down you go in the hierarchy, the more formal the speech gets because jokes or being humorous is itself a kind of signaler of your status.
Speaker B:So I think that is something that also kind of underpins how we use humor and also probably in science communication as well.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:And I think this is in the introduction of your, of your paper you talked about some of the drawbacks and it's people scientists worry about reputation, right.
Speaker A:Credibility and if they look right, it looking smart appearing the part right.
Speaker A:And as someone who's, you know, was in science and gone to the other side and also I'm a, I would say very unserious person about my own status or whatever, you know, like I have no problems making fun of myself, you know, so that was always a part of my My way.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Like, and it was, I found it was a way that made me comfortable.
Speaker A:People seem to laugh, you know, and that's so just, you know, so it's okay, but it's not.
Speaker A:Everyone's going to feel that way.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:And I guess the point that I'm trying to get at is I think that there is a lot of pressure on scientists, as you say, Helga, probably younger, you know, scientists are lower down in the hierarchy, right.
Speaker A:To sound professional, to sound serious.
Speaker A:And so there would be an unease to say, take part in a stand up night or you know, one of the things that I really saw in like 10 years ago when scientists started going on comedy podcasts, right, Going into those spaces where it's like, it's a, it's a, supposed to be an unserious space, but you're coming in with serious ideas and credibility and there might have been some reputational risk or something like that.
Speaker A:I thought that was a great.
Speaker A:The podcast space has now since been not as comedy, again, not as good.
Speaker A:Now we don't have to talk about that.
Speaker A:But I thought that was a really great science communication tool.
Speaker A:I was like, wow, this is, you know, you know, preeminent scientists going on places like Joe Rogan, you know, which again, now, not really good.
Speaker A:But at the time, 10 years ago, I was like, this is probably reaching more people than any science communication has ever reached before.
Speaker A:And it was a real risk for some of those people to go on there.
Speaker A:Again, as you say, how could.
Speaker A:These were the established people, so they have less of a risk.
Speaker A:But I guess that's kind of an interesting.
Speaker A:I'm not sure what my question here is, but it's an interesting thing to think about in terms of, you know, again, we have this idea that that humor is just, it's going to work.
Speaker A:You do it, that's how you reach people, that's how you be.
Speaker A:But there is a real, you know, there's a reputational risk at times.
Speaker A:And I guess I'm more interested in your thoughts on scientists having that feeling like, I have to be serious.
Speaker A:You know, I have to be serious, I have to look serious.
Speaker A:I can't look, I can't look wrong.
Speaker A:I can't look misinformed or something because I feel like this exacerbate some of the problems we have with science communication reaching people because it does build that ivory tower perspective, right.
Speaker A:It separates you from the non scientists.
Speaker A:It puts up this barrier of, you know, and I think it probably leads to scientists being more lecturing rather Than conversational.
Speaker A:Yeah, again, throw a lot out there and just see what you guys want to react to.
Speaker B:I'll leave the photopreneur first.
Speaker C:Yeah, I think you're right.
Speaker C:There is not all the time, but there is in some cases, some fear of losing face or whatever you want to call it.
Speaker C:There is also another risk, which is of being misinterpreted.
Speaker C:So if you're talking, imagine that you're doing a joke on something that the audience is not really aware of.
Speaker C:Maybe they will understand something different from what you want.
Speaker C:Imagine that they are not going to understand the irony.
Speaker C:Imagine that they are going to make a different assumption.
Speaker C:So there is definitely risk involved.
Speaker C:But I also met scientists with great sense of humor that know how to make a joke and are not fearful of going there.
Speaker C:So it all depends on the circumstances.
Speaker C:But, yeah, I guess it would be easier for someone that is already a reputed scientist to go on a podcast or whatever and talk freely and even go on a more playful conversation instead of lecturing, just mingling and engaging in regular conversation.
Speaker B:Yeah, just also quickly, you know, I think part of this is a wider issue in science communication where it's not just about humor.
Speaker B:It's about kind of, you know, writing popular books articles or get, you know, doing podcasts.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:That detracts from the requirements you have to jump through in order to advance in your scientific career, particularly early on.
Speaker B:It's common knowledge, I hope, that it's very difficult to get a faculty job and a permanent employment as an academic post PhD.
Speaker B:So you have to really buff up the areas of your CV that your employers are looking for.
Speaker B:And unless that includes podcasts and humorous science articles, there will be not necessarily, not even necessarily a reputational risk, but a risk of getting sidetracked with the precious time you have to otherwise to write proper scientific stuff.
Speaker B:So there's that risk as well.
Speaker B:And I think that's a wider risk in science communication, that it's gone better, I think, over the last 10, 20 years.
Speaker B:But I certainly.
Speaker B:I was reading research papers from 20 years ago where basically, you know, people were advising, don't write popular science books unless you're established already.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:But it's still going on.
Speaker B:Definitely.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:Which is a shame, really.
Speaker A:I think, you know, you get.
Speaker A:Because a lot of people, I feel like a lot of times you, I don't know this is going to make academia sound bad, you know, but let's.
Speaker A:Like you go in and when you're younger, when your early career, that's when you have the most Enthusiasm, that's when you have the most, you know, willingness, let's say, to use your extra time with this because you're so excited.
Speaker A:And then as you go through, you know, the grind of a, of a Ph.D. of research, of, you know, the bureaucracy of a university can be soul crushing.
Speaker A:I think then it's like by the time you get to the end, you don't really want, you don't really want that, or you don't really have the, the same enthusiasm maybe that you once had.
Speaker A:All right, let's, let's get into your, the actual study that you guys did.
Speaker A:Because like I said, I think it's interesting to actually we have all these assumptions about humor.
Speaker A:We're having a discussion now for 30 minutes about humor and its importance in society and all of these things.
Speaker A:But I like that you guys actually said, well, let's test it, let's see if it quote unquote, works right.
Speaker A:In specifically writing.
Speaker A:So first question is why look at writing?
Speaker A:Is it, was there evidence that it's.
Speaker A:Or numbers out there that it's like it's the most widely engaged in media or medium rather, or is it just, it's also just like the easiest to study in terms of just the practicality of it.
Speaker A:So why look at writing?
Speaker A:And then we can dig into what exactly you looked at and how you did that.
Speaker C:Okay, yeah, go for it.
Speaker B:No, I was just going to say actually, you know, Bruno, you devised and designed the whole study.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:So first if you talk us through that.
Speaker C:Yeah, basically it was a question of opportunity, Bradley.
Speaker C:So basically I was writing Popular Sciences in a magazine in well known Portuguese magazine online.
Speaker C:And sometimes I would put some humor in it.
Speaker C:So I wanted to test if it was doing a good job or not.
Speaker C:And basically I went through some literature and there is not many evidence of whatever if it worked well or not.
Speaker C:So basically I imagined that I could do like a simple experience in which I had like a version of two texts with small snippets of humor and another one without them.
Speaker C:And if they are very similar in terms of the information that they have and this structure, maybe you could say, okay, maybe humor is helping or humor is not helping or even having a negative effect.
Speaker C:So that's basically, that was basically the idea just to take something that I was doing at the time and test if it's working or not.
Speaker A:Yeah, I mean, I love the opportunistic nature of it.
Speaker A:Just for people that don't understand sometimes science, these are the best experiments.
Speaker A:Right?
Speaker A:You're, it's Quick.
Speaker A:It's.
Speaker A:It's something quickly that you can do, you can implement.
Speaker A:There's a practicality to it.
Speaker A:So I like that.
Speaker A:And the design is very.
Speaker A:It, very.
Speaker A:It very much is there.
Speaker A:You know, you have a really great control and manipulated variable.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:So in terms of humor working, what were we looking at here?
Speaker A:Understanding, you know, comprehension really was I think, the main thing.
Speaker A:But was there some other questions you asked?
Speaker A:Enjoyment of the article and did you actually.
Speaker A:Forgive me for not knowing, but did you, did you ask whether they.
Speaker A:Did they rate the jokes?
Speaker C:They did not rate the jokes, actually.
Speaker A:You didn't.
Speaker A:Weren't that brave?
Speaker A:You didn't want to get that much feedback?
Speaker C:No, no, no.
Speaker C:Actually when I did it, I didn't want it to be.
Speaker C:I did not want people to be aware that it was about humor.
Speaker C:So the experience was sold as communication.
Speaker C:Is it communic?
Speaker C:And some people had a humorous version and other people had a neutral version.
Speaker C:And we tested information.
Speaker C:So information retention and receptiveness.
Speaker C:And the indis.
Speaker C:Receptiveness was the pleasure of reading or, you know, things more emotional and.
Speaker C:But I, I didn't ask people to write the jokes, I guess.
Speaker A:Yeah, I was just curious because it would be.
Speaker A:It would be interesting to.
Speaker A:Because then you would get that.
Speaker A:Did they get the jokes or, or that kind of thing.
Speaker A:But it's.
Speaker A:I.
Speaker A:It's a little more difficult in, in writing.
Speaker A:I understand.
Speaker A:So what were the.
Speaker A:So we're looking at your comprehension.
Speaker A:How much based on the neutral one and the humorous one, did comprehension go up?
Speaker A:And then metrics like, did you enjoy?
Speaker A:Which one did you enjoy?
Speaker A:Or which one was more enjoyed?
Speaker A:And I'm assuming whether that that had an effect on comprehension and stuff.
Speaker A:So what did you find?
Speaker A:And was there anything surprising about the result?
Speaker C:Hawk, do you want to go?
Speaker B:Yeah, we don't find anything specifically significant.
Speaker C:Yeah, do you want to go?
Speaker B:Yeah, go for it.
Speaker C:Basically we just find that there was little effect in the humor.
Speaker C:And then we tried to understand why there wasn't that much effect.
Speaker C:And actually it was small snippets of humor.
Speaker C:So in the beginning or at the end of each paragraph.
Speaker C:So basically we concluded that there wasn't that many differences between the two texts.
Speaker C:So they were basically rated as very similar.
Speaker A:So maybe saying that like there.
Speaker A:Maybe there wasn't enough humor to make a difference between the two.
Speaker C:Yeah.
Speaker C:And there is another thing that we were tested, testing positive non aggressive humor.
Speaker C:So in the literature you get that the most benign form of humor is this positive non aggressive relating to what we were saying something that.
Speaker C:That didn't marginalize people or, you know, that it was not aggressive.
Speaker C:So we tested this.
Speaker C:Only this sort of humor, this kind of humor.
Speaker C:And yeah, basically, maybe it's not enough to have just small pieces of humor, or maybe the humor was neutral enough so that people didn't value it that much or.
Speaker C:I don't know.
Speaker A:Well, it seems like, you see the study, and it seems like a very clear thing and a very clear design.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:But everything that we talked about at the beginning plays a role in this.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Like, it's so subjective, it's hard to evaluate whether the humor landed, whether it worked.
Speaker A:If you reworded it in a certain way or something like that, would it.
Speaker A:Would it work?
Speaker A:Because, correct me if I'm wrong, there is some evidence that humor can increase remembering the important bits or something like that.
Speaker A:Is there?
Speaker A:Or is the other research also equally neutral?
Speaker B:There is, as far as I remember, a bit of that.
Speaker B:But there's also a kind of counter reasons for, you know, theoretical reasons for saying why it might go the other way around.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:Because humor might put people into a positive heuristic frame of mind that makes them just more suggestive.
Speaker A:Sure.
Speaker B:So that I'm not sure I can't even remember this completely.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:But, you know, there's, you know, potentiality for, you know, the humor just kind of putting them, putting people into kind of a frame of mind that makes them kind of a little bit more kind of expecting unseriousness.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:And therefore not, you know, not taking the scientific information as the main issue of what's just happened.
Speaker B:They enjoy the humor more, but also kind of, because now it's a humorous exchange.
Speaker B:It's also kind of.
Speaker B:It's about the humor, and then the science gets a bit forgotten about it.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:But, you know, this is, you know, difficult to say for sure what says.
Speaker C:Yeah, I think the most correct answer to your question, Bradley, is it depends.
Speaker C:I mean, we have seen in the last 10 years some research being done on the effects of humor.
Speaker C: And yes, since: Speaker C:And, you know, it depends on the medium.
Speaker C:It depends on the person.
Speaker C:It depends on the title of the person, on the type of humor, on the type of audience.
Speaker C:It's really, you know, there's lots of variables.
Speaker C:Probably humor, I would say, has a positive effect or neutral effect and more seldom a negative effect, but I don't think we have a good information basis to be able to say very Strictly that humor works all the time.
Speaker C:And in each circumstance I don't think actually the evidence points in the other way that you don't have evidence to say that probably it works sometimes and it doesn't work in, in other times.
Speaker A:Yeah, yeah, it's, it's funny because it's like, it's, it seems like a, it's, it's kind of funny to me that it's a very science thing to do is to start dissecting humor.
Speaker A:Something that maybe shouldn't be, isn't dissectible because of all of these things that we said.
Speaker A:You know, like it's, it's so specific and that like the, the, the message should be and, and you know, negative results are good.
Speaker A:Right?
Speaker A:It's, it gives you some information, right?
Speaker A:But maybe that's.
Speaker A:The message is like if you're good, if you like it do.
Speaker A:May work for sight.
Speaker A:Like your, your audience isn't homogeneous either, right.
Speaker A:So if you can get, if it works and you get five people that, that then become interested or, or retain more information, that's a win, right?
Speaker A:You're not gonna get everybody all the time.
Speaker A:So.
Speaker A:But it's a very, very science thing to do to like put this under the microscope and be like, how do we optimize it?
Speaker A:How can we get it so, so that we're.
Speaker A:People are remembering our stuff and more engaged with it when maybe the, there's, there's probably some other knock on effects, right.
Speaker A:That again would be very hard to study.
Speaker A:But you know, when I was reading the paper and thinking about this kind of stuff, it's like, like, well, maybe retention is, you know, information retention isn't.
Speaker A:Maybe they'll just remember you.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:And that's what I think about these scientists going on the podcast, right?
Speaker A:Like you're gonna, they're gonna remember that person as a. Oh, wow.
Speaker A:A physicist that was like, you know, making jokes with my favorite comedian and was going like back and forth with my favorite.
Speaker A:That makes them more human.
Speaker A:That breaks down that, that us versus them kind of barrier, right?
Speaker A:And maybe that person is going to be more susceptible to.
Speaker A:Maybe I'll check out that book or maybe I'll listen to their podcast or something like that.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:So there's probably a broader benefit that we just can't measure.
Speaker A:I don't know if you have any thoughts on that.
Speaker B:Yeah, I think actually it's a very fundamental question.
Speaker B:It's what do we want to get out of science communication?
Speaker B:And actually quite often people just launch into it without having Any kind of clear operationalized idea about what the end goal is here.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:Maybe again, a too scientific way of looking at it.
Speaker A:Well, I think it's a big problem.
Speaker A:I think it's a really big problem.
Speaker A:When I talk to researchers in doing science communication projects and stuff, they never think about what it is.
Speaker A:The answer is always, we just have to reach the public.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:And it's such a vague answer like who is the public, what subset, for what purpose, for what you know, and they don't think about it.
Speaker A:I think that is a.
Speaker A:It is a problem.
Speaker A:Sorry to interrupt you, but.
Speaker B:Yeah, no, no, exactly that.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:So we can maybe kind of identify two or three and it's not going to be exhaustive, but two or three reasons why we get why we do science communication.
Speaker B:One is to educate people.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:That is a completely different.
Speaker B:Requires completely different way of doing things.
Speaker B:Also slightly different, different philosophy behind doing it than if you want to make people like science more, for example.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:Other reasons are also kind of a personal.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:So some, you know, I don't want to discount those either.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:Because they are very important for the people doing it.
Speaker B:But sometimes, you know, you need to do science communication to fulfill job requirements.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:Because your university or your employer asks you to go out there and do outreach in vertical commerce.
Speaker B:And that is.
Speaker B:Well, that's also important, at least for the people that are doing it, because we're all interested in keeping our jobs.
Speaker B:So there's plenty of different reasons.
Speaker B:And some ways of doing science communication are better for one thing than for the other.
Speaker B:And this is kind of why, even kind of, with let's say, disappointing results on kind of does the humor work for knowledge retention?
Speaker B:It doesn't mean we write this, I think in the paper as well, doesn't mean we shouldn't do this.
Speaker B:But we just need to be conscious of what we can achieve and what the likely outcome is.
Speaker B:So if it makes it more fun to read or write these humorous articles, then that's already better than if it's not fun.
Speaker B:So enjoyment is very much important.
Speaker B:Even if people don't like the science better afterwards or even if they don't remember the science better.
Speaker B:But at least we had fun in the process.
Speaker C:Yeah, in the case of the articles, the popular science articles, if they were written, they were all in humor.
Speaker C:I mean, if they were all ironic from one point to the other point, maybe the humor had a greater effect or at least people would value it more or have a negative reaction to it more.
Speaker C:Maybe what we can say about These small sections of humor is that if it's too small, it doesn't have like a really important effect.
Speaker C:But imagine that you write something that is humorous from the beginning to the end.
Speaker C:Maybe it will have a different effect.
Speaker A:Yeah, yeah, I could see that.
Speaker A:But again, it's probably, it would probably come down to, you know, the audience you're trying to reach and stuff like that.
Speaker A:I think, you know, you could see there's authors out there that use humor consistently, right.
Speaker A:And so you know what you're going to get.
Speaker A:And then people, people go gravitate to that because that's what they like.
Speaker A:I wondered just quickly if you've thought, had any thoughts about the other emotions that are available?
Speaker A:Because when I do workshops with, you know, I'm teaching workshops to graduate students about popular science writing, what I, what I do for a living, I try to always say, you know, humor is the default.
Speaker A:Like we all try to make it funny.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:But there's all of these other emotions out there that are super powerful.
Speaker A:And I would say when we, when we talk about, you know, sort of, let's, what we would say the, the, the misinformation or the science denialism, you know, these kind of things, whether it's anti climate change, anti vax, whatever, this kind of stuff, stuff those, they're really good communicators and they're, they're wielding emotions that are very powerful, I would say for a negative, you know, a detrimental effect to society.
Speaker A:But it's effective, right.
Speaker A:So fear, anger, these kind of things.
Speaker A:What do you think about in terms of, if you have thought about it, you know, these kind of things, or blending comedy with, you know, these sorts of things, it might make it more, maybe it makes the comedy more powerful, makes the other parts more poignant.
Speaker A:Again, I'm kind of just going off the top of my head, but I could see that.
Speaker A:Again, it depends on what your goal is, right?
Speaker A:Like if your goal is to get someone to remember the information, maybe that doesn't work well, maybe you could scare it into the mind, I don't know.
Speaker A:But there's all of these other things we could do, we can use.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:As communicators.
Speaker A:So do you have thoughts on any of these kind of, of the other emotions that are out there?
Speaker C:Yes, I would start by trying to poke emotions like curiosity.
Speaker C:I mean, it's the basis of it all, I think, or one of the basis of it all.
Speaker C:If you can spark curiosity in someone that is, you're trying to communicate about science.
Speaker C:Let's suppose you're talking about parasites or the importance of parasites, or if you can make it interesting and relevant and curious for the person that you're talking with and you mix it up with humor or with other resources.
Speaker C:I think it's a very good way of communicating.
Speaker C:Also, by default, I also try to.
Speaker C:I started with humor, and then I diverge into other stuff.
Speaker C:And now I do comics on science issues.
Speaker C:So for me, it's also sometimes about storytelling, characters and visual effects or visual images, you know.
Speaker C:So these are the resources that I normally use to try to communicate science.
Speaker A:Yeah, Storytelling, I think, is so important.
Speaker A:So it's really how humans, you know, that's how we.
Speaker A:That's how we've evolved.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Is through storytelling.
Speaker A:That's how we get our information.
Speaker A:I don't know how much the literature or the research, you know, supports that, but I. I don't know.
Speaker A:I believe it.
Speaker A:I guess it's just very unscientific thing for me to say, but he has any thoughts on the whole range of human emotion that's available?
Speaker B:Yeah, this is a big question.
Speaker B:I need to kind of be careful not to go completely off tangent here.
Speaker B:Remember, it's okay.
Speaker A:We still have like 10 minutes or so.
Speaker B:Put me back to humor.
Speaker B:But get completely off the engine sometimes.
Speaker B:Maybe it goes back to kind of what we want to achieve here.
Speaker B:When you do science communication, because you're just enthusiastic about dinosaurs and you want other people to feel the same as you do about dinosaurs, and that's great.
Speaker B:And you can go on and you use narrative techniques, and narrative is my journey, and this is how.
Speaker B:And you can talk about dinosaurs and make them kind of come to life.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:This is all kind of these kind of techniques you can use.
Speaker B:It's a completely different beast to the situation, which I'm pretty sure panic science communicators are scrambling around right now trying to tell the people that paracetamol itself, that's a different piece that you have to do.
Speaker B:You know, in that case, you're not setting the narrative.
Speaker B:You're actually responding to somebody else who has already put the narrative in motion, and you're actually reacting to that.
Speaker B:So, yeah, like I said, going off tangent because we're losing the connection to humor here.
Speaker B:But I think in one way, it's just kind of, yes, who has the narrative.
Speaker B:And you just kind of go the momentum on whatever kind of thing you need to communicate, you also need to respond to that.
Speaker B:And I can't imagine any amount of jokes, no matter how good they are, will kind of persuade some people now that paracetamol is perfectly safe.
Speaker B:I mean, it's not in high doses, but recommended doses during pregnancy is completely safe.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:And I don't know, you can't, you can't joke yourself out of this at the moment.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:I'm not entirely sure if there's a good way of doing science communication under these circumstances, but.
Speaker A:Yeah, well, and then you risk, you risk, you know, the mocking.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:Because I think that's something that, that has also become a problem.
Speaker A:You know, actually, I don't know, it's, I don't want to go as far as, say it's become a problem, but you could see how condescension, you know, sort of.
Speaker A:So you're making the jokes for the people that already agree with you.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Which I think, I think, I think science communication, you know, all of us, this is this big field, science communication.
Speaker A:I think we do have a bit of an issue that we, we are consistently communicating to our, our base.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:And, and that's what everyone always talks about in science.
Speaker A:How do we get beyond that?
Speaker A:How do we get beyond that?
Speaker A:How do you get the people that are, you know, that disagree with you or that weren't interested in science interested in science?
Speaker A:And that's a very, in some ways, I think it's, it's almost, you know, you're, you're asking too much, you know, because you wouldn't, you wouldn't go to someone who's like a really big, you know, sports fan or something and, or you know, let's say basketball fan and be like, I am going to convince you that football is actually what you need to be interested in.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:But we have this goal sometimes of like, no, we have to get everybody.
Speaker A:And I understand the urgency of it because these things do impact society when it comes to vaccines and all these things.
Speaker A:So I guess that's a lot.
Speaker A:Again, like sort of a long.
Speaker C:Bradley, let me just add something.
Speaker C:You're talking about science communicators.
Speaker C:I mean professional science communicators.
Speaker C:But if you think about late night hosts in American TV shows, many times they approach things like, you know, anti vaxxers or whatever in a, in a humorous perspective.
Speaker C:And they are quite effective in doing it.
Speaker C:They just apply humor and they do it in a.
Speaker C:Obviously they are professionals.
Speaker C:They know what they are doing, they do it very well and they are quite effective in doing it.
Speaker C:So maybe science communicators could, I don't know, pay a fee to hosts and learn from them or I mean, they already do it for themselves.
Speaker C:And if you think about other people, Robin Ins and even Ricky Gervais sometimes talks about science.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker C:So I think, I think some, some people in stand up comedy already approach science things.
Speaker A:But this is, I, I agree with you and I think that they're my, you know, counterpoint, let's say or just for discussion.
Speaker A:You know, I think they're coming at it from a political satire angle.
Speaker A:But I would say that also it's, it's, it's communicating to their base already.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Like by, by showing the absurdity of, you know, a hip, a hip hypocritical, you know, administration's views on science or you know, the absurdity of some flat earthers or anti vax claims.
Speaker A:Is that going that, you know, you're not going to mock that view out of that person.
Speaker A:So I would maybe you might get the people that are sort of teetering on the edge in between.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:So that, that could be useful.
Speaker A:But.
Speaker A:Yeah, but, but I mean, I guess you're never really trying to really get the entrenched person right.
Speaker A:Like that's all.
Speaker A:That's always going to be a, a fool's errand, I guess.
Speaker A:I don't know.
Speaker C:Yeah, yeah, I think you're right.
Speaker C:You're talking to a basis and people are, that are anti vaxxers probably will not even listen.
Speaker A:Yeah, they're not even going to hear that that show.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:They're not even going to turn that program on.
Speaker A:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker B:I mean, yeah, I was also going to say actually just come up with the same point.
Speaker B:I think.
Speaker B:Yes, it's actually on an academic sense it would be good to look at late night show satire and how political messages get communicated.
Speaker B:But I think on the basis of the evidence of the, I don't know, last 15 years or so these kind of the left wing shows haven't been terribly effective at communicating their particular worldview.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:So again we can, we all watch these shows or at least half of us do and we find them funny.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:But you know, it might be because it's already captured audience and they're not going beyond that or it's just unfortunately actually not effectful at all.
Speaker B:Maybe we should all try but maybe we should all be more serious.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:And actually convince people that no, these are serious arguments, they deserve a serious hearing and if you just keep joking about everything, people won't take it seriously.
Speaker B:So you know, I don't know.
Speaker B:Or maybe have a look at kind of what have humorous advances by, you know, people you don't Politically agree with had any effect on you.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:Like, you know, making assumptions of people's politics here.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:Maybe, you know, have, you know, the other side's, you know, Twitter or X memes actually convinced you to that point of view.
Speaker B:I don't think I.
Speaker B:Certainly not for me.
Speaker B:No.
Speaker B:I think, you know, some of them actually are funny.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:Even if you don't want to admit this, you know, but some of them are funny and they haven't convinced me, not one bit.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker A:Because then I think there's.
Speaker A:There's.
Speaker A:Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker A:It's getting.
Speaker A:Yeah, we're getting into the weeds here, I guess, a little bit.
Speaker A:But it's like, because you can.
Speaker A:There's that distinction, too.
Speaker A:You can find something funny but disagree with the content of it.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Or something like that.
Speaker A:Like.
Speaker A:But I think that, that, I don't know.
Speaker A:This is, again, a statement about the world that we live in.
Speaker A:Bruno, you were saying people are very sensitive these days.
Speaker A:I think that's something seems to be a trend that's happening where you can't disassociate that.
Speaker A:A lot of people don't disassociate that.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Like, if you make a joke about a certain topic, that means you believe xyz and.
Speaker A:And therefore I. I'm not going to find it funny or something, even if, you know, maybe deep down you do or something.
Speaker A:I guess it just goes to show that this.
Speaker A:This is actually a very complex, complex topic.
Speaker A:And that's again, why I. I wanted to have you guys on and discuss your paper a little bit and just your thoughts on.
Speaker A:On communication and, And.
Speaker A:And humor.
Speaker A:Because, I mean, it's.
Speaker A:It's my default.
Speaker A:It's what I try to do.
Speaker A:I try to be affable, I try to be likable.
Speaker A:And.
Speaker A:And that's kind of just my personality.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:So I think maybe, like you said, that's kind of the message is if it works for you, it's going to work in certain audiences.
Speaker A:But it.
Speaker A:I think, as you said, Bruno, it depends.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker C:And actually, Bradley, one of the recommendations that we do, I don't know if it was in this paper or in the other paper, because we have two already, is to test it.
Speaker C:I mean, if you have an audience that you want to use humor with, test it.
Speaker C:Just ask some people to hear your jokes and see if it works.
Speaker C:Or, you know, and another idea is, the one that you were trying to convey is that you can assume that your humor or your podcast or your text is not going to Please, everybody.
Speaker C:And some people will flock to it and other people will repel, will, will go off.
Speaker C:So basically just assume that there is a niche that's going to adapt to what you, you do and is going to enjoy what you do and, and read it or hear it.
Speaker A:Yeah, I think that's kind of, I, I think a good message for especially scientists that want to communicate, you know, not, maybe not like folks like, like us that really dig into science communication or practice science communication, but just the young student or the professor, something who's like, I want to do this because I see value in it.
Speaker A:I want people to.
Speaker A:Or like how could you said I need to keep my job put taking the pressure off a little bit.
Speaker A:It, you know, I think is good because especially in this moment, we're alluding to these political, you know, climate and stuff in this moment.
Speaker A:It feels like it could be the pressure to communicate, the pressure to convince someone of, you know, the, the, the, the truth.
Speaker A:Let quote, you know, I'm doing the air quotes their truth of your work.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:Like we found this.
Speaker A:It's real climate change is real vaccine, you know, all that stuff.
Speaker A:It just feels very urgent and maybe taking a breath is better for the people that are actually trying to do this work.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:Hauga, do you have any concluding thoughts here as we wrap up?
Speaker B:Yeah, no, maybe just to say this is the typical kind of academic cop out, but I think we need much more research on this.
Speaker B:If there's anybody with money listening, I'm happy to take it.
Speaker B:I think.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:So we need to have a little bit more kind of evidence.
Speaker B:Not just one paper, but not just 10 papers.
Speaker B:But I think in needs to be kind of more kind of concerted research program because there's so many variables that we're looking at and one thing haven't even approached yet is the cultural space.
Speaker B:So our study was done in Portugal.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:And again, cultures of humor might differ.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:So that, but also one kind of also as a final thought saying even though we still need to look for the evidence.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:And even if the evidence is sketchy on whether it works, I don't want it to mean that you shouldn't use humor.
Speaker B:I think I'm hilariously funny in my lectures, for example, because I'm having fun with this.
Speaker B:And that's also very important.
Speaker A:Yeah, absolutely.
Speaker A:Please, Bruno.
Speaker C:I would just add to Hawke's view that most of research is based on Europe and North America and there is a bit of in Australia and you have wider parts of the world that nobody research about humor, like Asia, Africa, South America.
Speaker C:It's very residual.
Speaker C:So it would be good to have some research done there as well.
Speaker A:Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker B:That's at this moment.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:I just want to give a shout out to my PhD student who's actually researching science, communication and humor in Africa.
Speaker A:Oh, great.
Speaker B:So hopefully we'll have something we can.
Speaker A:Okay, well, once you have something, we'll have you back on because I do think it's like, it's funny because how you made the joke of yourself, the Germans not being funny, but it's just, it is like, like, you know, the people that are doing this academic research, like, we are kind of leaving out some of, you know, in my opinion, like some of the really rich, you know, cultures around the world that from my view, I'm Canadian.
Speaker A:So, you know, we are.
Speaker A:We're always.
Speaker A:We're very boring, you know, very, very polite, boring, bland people.
Speaker A:You know, you look at South America and the richness of dance and music and all of these things, right?
Speaker A:It's like, well, yeah, they probably have a way better perspective on some of these things than, Than.
Speaker A:Than Canada.
Speaker A:But anyway, I will wrap it up there.
Speaker A:And I think there's just a couple points that I wanted to make because, Bruno, you said try it out.
Speaker A:Try it out with someone.
Speaker A:I think that's so important.
Speaker A:And I think, you know, these, These things like, like that you did for European Researchers Night, where you actually get a professional actor or something.
Speaker A:I think that's so interesting.
Speaker A:I've talked to some other people that did this sort of science standup and they worked with the standup comedian.
Speaker A:And I think it's like, like, like you said, with the talk show host as well.
Speaker A:It's like go to the people that do it, right, that.
Speaker A:That are good at it and.
Speaker A:And learn from them, right?
Speaker A:Like with.
Speaker A:We should learn from good communicators, right?
Speaker A:No.
Speaker A:No matter the topic, no matter their field, let's learn from good communicators.
Speaker B:Sure, sure.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker A:So definitely thank you both for taking the time.
Speaker A:I really appreciate it.
Speaker A:And I'll be looking for the next.
Speaker A:The next paper and we can.
Speaker A:You're welcome to come back and chat about the.
Speaker A:That one too.
Speaker B:Thanks very much.
Speaker C:Okay, thank you very much.
Speaker A:There you have it.
Speaker A:Thank you all for tuning in, as always.
Speaker A:Please, like, share, subscribe Leave a Comment Leave a review Wherever you're getting this show, YouTube, podcast platforms, wherever it is, please reach out at tubrad4umail or on Instagram.
Speaker A:I really appreciate you.
Speaker A:You taking the time to check out the episode.
Speaker A:That's all I got for today.
Speaker A:Bye for.
Speaker B:Sa.
