What is it that prompts us to laugh at certain situations? What makes a particular joke so funny? Is laughter a natural response or the product of social conditioning, or both?
I have read some articles written by neurologists; but they are dissatisfying in that they can only identify where in the brain humour is processed (the median ventral prefrontal cortex), not why we laugh. It is a mystery as elusive to philosophers as it is to scientists, yet laughter is an everyday occurrence and enriches our lives.
It is also difficult to categorise different types of humour beyond the basic (ie. semantic jokes and puns). What about situational comedy? The unexpected is often thought to be a factor in making a joke funny, but then again you can anticipate a punchline before it is delivered and still laugh at it.
How would the Darwinians out there explain humour? Surely it would have evolved out if it wasn’t an aid to survival? Is humour essential to life (or is it a disproof by counterexample of the theory of natural selection’s application to humans!)?
I reckon its really important in nature. Not only for our own enjoyment but also because of social apsects. For instance, if you read something funny, one doesn’t tend to laugh out loud whereas when you read something funny when you are with other people that you get on with, you usually laugh out loud. Also, most other animals laugh (although not at the same frequency or anything) when they are around other members of the same species. For example rats, when meeting for the first time, tend to play with each other and laugh a lot. Interesting. I hope I make sense.
I think that a sense of humour is crucial to survival. Even from a biological angle, it fits in with (human) evolution. People are attracted to people who can make them laugh. Therefore these people reproduce and the gene remains intact. However as has been discussed elsewhere, we cannot look at evolution in humans in the same way as we can look at evolution in other animals. We have gone against evolution time and again so that genes which are not beneficial to survival are passed on anyway. Therefore the fact that the humour gene (if there is one) has survived doesn’t prove that it is beneficial to human survival and yet the fact that it has stuck around with such avengeance suggests that it is doing some good.
Like most things, a sense of humour is partly genetic and partly the result of upbringing. Much humour relies on observation so the life experiences are needed to let the sense of humour develop. Laughter’s a great thing, a form of communication, an illustration of social union. But as you said jawaad there is something about it that seems inexplicable. Is this not the beauty of it? There is no formula.
Interestingly in the episode of The Simpsons where Bart loses his soul, I seem to remember that he can’t laugh. I like the idea of this - laughter is maybe a way in which souls communicate. To me both laughter and the soul are inexplicable and therefore I think there’s some sort of link between them.
I seriously (scuse the pun) don’t find those sort of things funny. “100 best ways to…” e-mails have been floating around since the internet began and they weren’t even funny the first time I read them.
Probably deserves a separate topic but how can we define something that is funny? Why does louise find the list she posted funny but I don’t?
I find Monty Python pythonline.com funny and do believe that are the funniest group ever to live. I weep with laughter at some of their sketches/films which happens very rarely with any other comedy. They are usually in the top 10 of any compilation of “Funniest People Ever” lists. Is this because the media tells us to find it funny or is there something within Python humour (or any other “comedy genius”) which is superior to lesser comedy such as “birds of a feather” or “harry hill”.
I also found the list very unfunny because you knew they were struggling (and you always do) by the time they had reached number 7. Not that numbers 1-6 were funny either.
Humour depends on character quite simply. Obviously the fact that society has hailed Monty Python as comedy geniuses means that some will feel slightly obliged to like them and those that do will like them even more. Few people will admit to liking “Sabrina The Teenage Witch” or people will play down how much they like it to themselves (if they like it at all that is) because it doesn’t have the sort of reputations that Python does. So society has an effect. Another example is in music (e.g. Jimi Hendrix - a lot of people like him more than they instinctively do because they are told he is a god).
But humour connects with personality. The non-conforming type will love Monty Python because it’s completely bizarre etc. The simple type will love slapstick. The witty/satirical/clever type will love The Simpsons or Fraser and so on. So personality and social conditioning affect what we find funny.
how about black comedy - i found ‘grosse point blank’ hilarious - what does that say about you psychologically? but then, i also liked baseketball, which probably means i’m just rather childish, as i said earlier.
I tend to see humour in odd places? I found Starship Troopers fucking hilarious, not because of the shite acting, just the way the film was done. I think I was one of the few who found the Cable Guy funny. I think than the things I find funniest is when something/one is being parodied or ridiculed, but so subtly that they don’t notice, and neither to many others. but we do… oh yes… we do.
