August 06, 2005

• ... laughter ... is a convincing signal that the danger has passed Somewhere, years ago, I read that eskimo humor is usually about escaping danger, something like: "the polar bear was about to eat him ... but didn't!" (peals of laughter from other eskimos).
• It depends on which word they use for polar bear. They have seventeen.
• Any theories as to why we laugh should be based on the most inherent of funny events, the fart. I'd agree with laughter being the result of danger, er, passing.
• I am a believer in Henri Bergson's theory that laughter is a social sanction against inflexible or malfunctionary behaviour. Bergson describes the basis of all laughter as being social, based in the conflict of rigid and mechanical with the flexible and organic. Bergson also notes that "laughter has no greater foe than emotion" - which is why we can laugh at a sick joke that is generalised - like the Aristocrats - but if it becomes specific it's not funny at all. Our normal sympathies are temporarily withdrawn in the process of laughing. I would also argue that it is healthy to be able to do this. I heard Michael Palin talk about this in the anniversary show about Python some years back, he was saying you have to laugh at some horrible things otherwise you'd never survive. But really, those things aren't funny in reality. It is a safety valve. There is also a distinction to be made between laughter and comedy.
• Think what really grabbed my attention (apart from the off-handed excrement-producing poets and imperfect lovers bit), was the part about about religion and humour as differnet, and perhaps competing ways for people to accept death and the general unsatifactoriness of the world. Still mulling that one over.
• =different
• Commented before seeing your post, Chy. a social sanction against inflexible or malfunctioning behaviour Seems to me this is not the cause of laughter, but rather an effect of laughter. The cause of laughter and the cause of comedy are even more dissimilar, I think.
• Interesting and thought-provoking article, bees. 95% of the writings that he sampled from important Christian scholars through the centuries disapproved of humour, linking it to insincerity and idleness. This reminds me of one of my favourite pastimes, laughing at fundamentalists. Fundamentalists (of any stripe) love and feed off anger-- it makes them feel validated and persecuted and godly-- but they really can't stand the pointing and the laughing. Here's a question for fellow-monkeys: do you see laughter more as a defuser or an inciter of potentially violent situations? I know it does both, but which do you think it does more? Meanwhile, I am currently laughing because I am an Evil Genius. mwahahahaha.
• Sometimes I feel like I laugh because it's all so fucking horrible, and the alternative, in terms of possible responses, is unthinkable. I know this sounds a little pretentious, but I mean it.
• By the way, the following line is hilarious: "For instance, many people find it funny that a conference on humour could take place in Germany."
• do you see laughter more as a defuser or an inciter of potentially violent situations? Depends on who does the laughing, and why.
• malfunctionary is not a word?
• ;)
• I think there's also an aspect of encouraging curiosity. Because we find dangerous things and unexpected things funny in either retrospect or immediately (respectively), then it encourages us to do things that are dangerous and leads to learning about unexpected things. If we didn't have additional encouragement, we would be less inclined to do anything that is not part of a normal routine.
• Can't help noting a strong kinship, physilogically, between laughing and crying -- both produce tears, both interrupt the routine patterns of breathing, both may result in near-convulsive diaphragmatic activity, both may be occasioned by no partucular physical cause and both seem to be functions/expressions of human beings and not found in (many) other creatures. The article seems to offer five possible reasons why people laugh: 1 (social) Laughter signals a danger has passed 2 (perceptional) Laughter is based on incongruity, something unexpected 3 (social) Laughter is a form of bonding. 4 (perceptional) Laughter is a means of accepting death and the general unsatifactoriness of the world 5 (social) Laughter is done to assert superior social status However, in refutation of 3 and perhaps 1, some people regard laughter as jeering, directed at them personally (paranoid?) Additionally, from the thread: 6 Chyren-Bergson: Laughter is social, a sanction against inflexible or malfunctionary behaviour (sorry about misquoting you earlier, mate) behaviour. 7 Chyren-Palin: (social/perceptional) Laughter is a safety-valve. 8 Pallas Athena: (social) Laughter defuses or incites potentially violent situations. 9 HawtrhorneWingo: (percetional) Laugh because it's all so fucking horrible...and the alternative is unthinkable 10 Sandspider: (social) Laughter encouragews curiosity. Emotionally, I;m inclined to 9. Another instance of rationality not really helping much.
• There's also a physiological kinship between laughter and coughing. Or choking. Can't say that I see much meaning in that, because we only have one mouth. If we had gills or something, maybe we'd laugh with one of the other orifices. And you know that apes and monkeys laugh? They open their mouths wide and loll their tongues and go "OUGH".
• anyone else see the small text arrow at the top of this post? what's that?
• Dodgy tag.
• Thoinking over that, Chy: seems there's usually a physical cause for coughing or choking -- to clear matter from the airway or because there's some irritation there or because, in the case of choking, there's an obstruction to the airway. I think the gag reflex gets invovlved when it's severe, though maybe I'm wrong about that. Whereas with laughter and crying there's not necessarily a physical cause per se. And gagging -- well, I supppse it can happen, but I believe it's uncommon in such activities. If you're drinking and you start laughing heartily, you may choke -- but there again, is a physical cause for choking. Seems to me I read something a couple of years or a year ago, about people being ticklish. People don't laugh if they try tickling themselves. But if someone else tickles you, you may well laugh. As if the element of surprise -- had to be present. That seems somehow pertinent to laughter...? ian, are ye by any chance seeing a wee bowman up there?
• Ach! I spoke too soon, for now I'm seeing it too.
• I'm not persuaded to the idea that something so complex as laughter can be reduced to a single theory. I would think that the ability to laugh arises first in an evolutionary sense as a parallel development of brain capacity, particularly frontal lobe concious thought. After that, I suspect that the reasoning behind the phenomenon are as varied as the topics which we individually find humourous. But were I to wager anything on it, I suppose I would go with a combination of pressure relief (detensioning of the difficult days we had chasing down mammoths and whatnot) together with social bonding. But a lot of our reactions -- the things we find funny and our manner of laughing at/about them -- are unpredictable or at least not reducible to a theoretical framework because they rely too heavily on our upbringing and socialization history. I't almost like looking for a theory of beauty - you can describe it qualitatively perhaps in a general sense, but it will have no particular value because it's either so broad brushed as to be unhelpful or, if the focus is narrowed, then it will not encompass everyone. This sort of subject is ripe for evolutionary biology rather than pure psychology IMHO. Brain development versus our chimp cousins etc. That's my 2c spent, anyway. But it's a thought provoking post beeswacky, cheers.
• Offline friend I was talking to about this holds the opinion laughter is what happens when left-brain thinking, which wants and expects things to conform to a certain pattern, discovers something does not. And, so to speak, collides with the right-brain, which immerses itself in experience rather than having expectations. Result: a glitch or hiatus in left-brain continuity, and a possible attempt to fill in by the right brain resultong in a gasp and then laughter, if I followed his notion correctly. Not entirely easy about this left-brain, right-brain schism, but thought it worth mentioning since it allows for laughter being an involuntary thing for the individual.
• I agree with peacay about the complexity. I can't imagine what the evolutionary explanation for laughter (or grief) might be, though. To say laughter promotes bonding is rather vacuous, isn't it? What has physical cachinnation (or tears) got to do with it: why not just evolve a greater propensity for bonding in the first place? It might be (I speak hesitantly) that laughter is a pointer to some altogether deeper truth about the nature of thought and emotion. Just wish I knew what. Interesting, anyway - thanks bees.
• Plegmund - I suppose the bonding hypothesis has to do with just how this laughing propensity manifests. In fact this article and whole discussion is really speaking about 2 concepts - one is the origin of the biological ability to laugh and the other is the psychological reasoning behind why we actually laugh. Separating evolution from psychology is a bit difficult I guess. To me, an evolving brain becomes more able to comprehend the world before them including nuances and incongruities and banalities and absurdities -- this is a given development really. But we are pleasure seeking creatures, whether food or sex or relaxation, like all animals I suppose. You're asking 'why not just evolve a greater propensity for bonding in the first place' speaks about evolution as though it were purposeful or logical. As I understand it, it is neither. DNA changes occur haphazardly either conferring an advantage, a disadvantage or a neutrality. All by chance. So we get smart. We see weirdness in our worlds. We spend our lives trying to get food and shelter and partners. Hmm...I'm starting to think that it's just an extension of the pleasure principle thing -- relaxation/destressing on the background of highly developed intelligence. The bonding part occurs because we share it, imprinting socialized tendencies - it's not a cause of laughter in an origin sense, just an explanation for how we laugh and what we laugh at. If it seems like I'm musing out loud then good.
• I'll muse along, if I may. I suppose I could reformulate my question more rigorously along the lines of "Wouldn't a creature that, in order to bond, went through an elaborate performance involving convulsive breathing, involuntary noises, and loss of concentration, tend to reproduce less successfully than one that just got on with the bonding?" I suppose an answer might be that the laughter is a form of signal. It allows you to test whether you're among friends. It has to be involuntary so that it's sincere. That might explain why it can also be used against people, excluding them when they're clearly not about to laugh. But I don't really convince myself. Anyway, excuse me - there seems to be some sort of robot at the door. See you chaps later.
• Perhaps laughter has evolved partly for it's physiological benefits in response to stressful situations. Maybe it promotes the release of endorphins, increases oxygen uptake or lowers adrenaline levels. It may also be somehow related to our propensity for play as a means of learning about our surroundings, honing our skills, and so on. A ticklish topic.
• The bonding explanation doesn't hold much water for me either. What was the evolutionary scenario? Chief Neanderthal lines up his cavepeople, then kills the ones who don't laugh at his jokes? (kind of a reverse Biggus-Dickus situation). What i find funny about humor is that you laugh *unconsciously*. You can't control it. It just hits you. So in some way, the humor processing is going on in some non-conscious part of the brain. It's like those "Aha!" moments when a fully-formed solution to a problem that's bugging you springs into your mind. But Aha moments don't usually make you laugh... And what about when you think up something that makes *you* laugh? What's going on there?
• Widening scope of inquiry: 11 Chyren: simian laughter, not limited to humans 12 beeswacky: tickling, element of surprise present before laughter occurs 13 peacay: limiting cause to only one is overly simple 14:peacay: laughter parallels brain capacity, particularly frontal lobe conscious thought 15 peacay: combination detensioning and social bonding 16 peacay: too many variables to make easy generalization -- also questions worth of doing so 17 beeswacky-friend: left-brain/right-brain glitch causes involuntary laughter 18 plegmund: to say laughter promotes bonding is rather vacuous 19 plegmund: laughter possibly points to deeper truth about the nature of thought and emotion 20 peacay: laughing propensity is twofold: A -- origin of biological ability; and B -- psychological reason(s) why individuals laugh 21 peacay: difficulty in separating evolution from psychology 22 peacay: denies purposeful/logical evolutuon occurs; instead, [due to] haphazard DNA changes 23 peacay: since intelligent beings perceive weirdness in world [presumably stress-inducing], [so a cause of laughter is] an extension of destressing/pleasure principle 24 peacay: social bonding is not a cause/origin of laughter, merely explains how we laugh and at what 25 plegmund: why the elaborate busines of convulsive breathing, involuntary noises, loss of concentration all for bonding purposes? 26 plegmund: does this really forward human breeding/evolutionary success? 27 plegmund: laughter as a means of testing whether one's among friends 28 plegmund: involuntary laughter is sincere [expression of friendliness] 29 plegmund: laughter as means of social exclusion 30 islander: probably laughter has physiological benefit re de-stressing 31 islander: laughter possibly releases endorphins, increases oxygen uptake, or lowers adrenalin levels 32 islander: laughter possibly related to our propensity for play as a means of learning about surroundings, increasing skills [Apologize if I've distorted or failed to grasp points here; please correcxt as ye see fit] Riffing off islander's and above comments -- 33 beeswacky: laughter produces an altered state of consciousness/pleasurable sensation. 34 beeswacky: laughter/jokes might therefore enable low-risk (safe surprises) or socially-sanctioned innovation/creativity to occur in an individual's/group's mental landscape, again affording pleasure. A bit like theatre/a theatrical performance without the actual physical structure of a theatre, live actors, etc being present. The exercise of imagination is its own reward, perhaps.
• Oops -- another snuck in! 35 StoryBored: laughter is unconscious, uncontrollable 36: StoryBored: processing of humour happens in a non-conscious part of the brain 37 Storybored: [laughter seems] similar to one of those Aha monents My understanding is that that is the nature of intuitive reasoning -- answers spring full-blown into awareness without your necessarily being aware of how exactly you arrived at such a particular understanmding, SroryBored. Or you could even think of it as a kind of inspriration, I suppose, at least if ye were an ancient Greek.
• OH NO! PLEGMUND, GET OUT OF THE HOUSE!
• Just a by the way: A few of us don't get the bloody joke, OK!
• Nice analysis, bees. I'm not laughing AT you, I'm laughing WITH you.
• Re 19: Though I relished the character of Spock as performed by Mr Nimoy, never really accepted the idea of a severance between thought and emotion, both of which seem to be the products of a fairly complex brain. Of course I could be wrong here, but it seems as if we've been dancing around the idea of laughter as a function of intelligence.
• But I laugh for more than 37 reasons!
• Hope we all do, peacay -- 'cause that damned old number 9 encompasses a hell of a lot of territory.
• This page links to a South Park rendition of the "The Aristocrats" joke. (Utterly not safe for work, unless you have the sound turned off. But then you wouldn't hear the joke.) And there are those who believe donkey fucking isn't funny?
• I must say that laughter/humor is one thing I don't mind not knowing too much about, in terms of what it means and where it comes from. Something about talking about it seems like overexplaining, to me -- takes away from the magic of humor, somehow.
• i thought i read an article linked from here which hypothesized, iirc, that laughter in dogs and primates served as a social indicator to signify something along the lines of "i am just play-wrestling with you and dont actually wish to kill or harm you"... which would seem to fulfill a vital communicative niche. am i on crack or does anyone remember such a link/fpp?
• Animals other than humans laugh? Hm. I would have thought that a proponent of that idea was on crack frankly. I wait to be persuaded otherwise.
• Can't recall or find an FPP, Wedge, but it does seem that animals laugh too.
• re: laughing chimps

  There is a common misperception that laughter is exclusive to human beings. From at least the time of Darwin, however, it has been known that chimpanzees and other great apes perform a laugh-like vocalization when tickled or during play [...] It is noteworthy that chimpanzee laughter occurs almost exclusively during physical contact, or during the threat of such contact, during chasing games, wrestling or tickling. (The individual being chased laughs the most.) Although people laugh when tickled, most adult human laughter occurs during conversation, typically in the absence of physical contact.

• 39 HawthorneWingo: discussing origin of laughter/humor seems like overexplaining, subtracts from the magic of humor somehow 40 Wedge: laughter in dogs and primates as social indicator that individual's play-wrestling, not out to kill or harm 41 Wedge: laughter therefore is a vital communucation [?for social animals?] 42 peacay: queries whether other animals laugh 43 islander-->National Geographic link: "ample evidence that many other animals make play sounds" 44 islander-link above re Robert Provine --> "there is an evolutionary contnuity of laughter, its origin is in tickling and rough-and-tumble play" 45 islander-link above quote Robert Provine --> "Laughter is literally the sound of play, with the primal 'pant-pant' -- the laboured breathing of physical play -- becoming the human 'ha-ha" 46 islander-link above --> "breath control is the key to the emergence of both human laughter and speech" 47 islander-link above --> "The sources of play and laughter in the brain are instinctive, many scientists believe" 48 islander-link above Robert Probine --> at issue, "consciousness and other human conditions...we may be conscious less than we think and overestinmate consciousness and its influence on our lives....we are not, for example, conscious of unconsciousness. Regarding laughter, since it's not consciously controlled -- try to laugh on command! -- we don't speak laughter the way we choose words in speech." 49 Wedge-quotation American Scientist --> "chimpanzee laughter occurs almost exclusively during physical contact, or during the threat of such contact" 50 Wedge-quotation above --> "Although people laugh when tickled, most adult human laughter occurs during conversation, typically in the absence of physical contact" /uses both hands to close gaping jaws Monkeys are astonishing! I'm dumbfounded. Neither thank you nor ))) begins to express my gratitude for these insights. Heartfelt thanks! So much to think through. Wonderful.
• The article protagonists are psychologists and it could be argued that they were searching for a pattern of behaviour to hang a theory on (ie. animals behaving in a laughing manner similarly to humans). But I don't buy it wholesale. I'd rather hear what the biologists have to say. In fact I'd like to hear about brain sectioning of rats and monkeys or CT/MRI testing with comparatives to humans (after deciding of course where the magic centre of humour lies within the brain). Do I come across as an 'animal laughing skeptic'? Good.
• Sorry I forgot to add that I was smiling.
• Went a_Googling, and found this and this and this, peacay.
• Perhaps laughter has evolved partly for it's physiological benefits in response to stressful situations. Or social benefits. I recently learned that a wagging dog's tail doesn't necessarily mean that he's happy. It's also how animals attempt to defuse what appears to be a serious/angry situation. A laugh might do the same (barring negative interpretations -- some people really do think everyone is laughing at them). Meh. Probably just indigestion from your inner Thetan.
• They're interesting beeswacky (no mention of insect laugh among them ;). I would still say that they (2nd article you linked) draw a long bow calling monkey/rat sounds laughter. Perhaps we move into a discussion of semantics - just what constitutes laughter and also mirth (the joyful exuberance associated with humourous situations) - that limits our ability to fully develop a theory. Now, they've done some serious work in elucidating human brain mechanisms (to an extent anyway, it seems) but unless they were to take a rat and a monkey and say, remove or destroy those equivalent sections of brain that are said in humans to be associated with the laughter impulse, to see if the chirping reactions to tickling continue, then it remains a point of conjecture or interpretation. So as a conclusion (and I say that because I don't think this is something that I want to research until the end of the earth and I daresay that from a strictly scientific point of view, there's probably insufficient evidence out there to actually reach an irrefutable conclusion) I'd just say again that I think this thing called laughter is too complex to reduce to a single theory or equate with a single biological development save for say rising intelligence and consequent highly developed awareness of our environment. As I think the 2nd article you've just cited says, there are recognizable components of laughter that bring into play various parts of the brain (yes yes, paraphrasing to the max) and they most likely interact (thought process) and that part of it is likely to be innate (my interpretation). The 3rd article is crap imho. I would still laugh at the donkey fucking article and Cartman's aristocrat joke nonetheless.
• Women tend to smile and laugh as an appeasement gesture more often then men. What about evil teasing laughter?
• The moth is mute to express its miseries or passions. Though perhaps they do so in some way comparable to the communication of bees -- who knows? Insects seem so different from monkeys it's not as easy to enter into their feelings or imagine their sensations or even daily experiences except in the most general way. Some would question whether insects have anything comparable to our sensations/perceptions or to those of other vertebrates. But we really know very little about vertebrates, especially about their neurology, as opposed to anatomy, (a failing I don't hesitate to attribute to that *deleted* fool Skinner). Science hasn't been in existence long enough, it seems, for all the questions one has to be answered. Think when there's a consistently observable pattern of play-associated sounds/behaviours seen in a number of species, then it's highly suggestive thaT laughing ia indeed happening. If so, something very old and deep-rooted in terms of species development/evolution must be involved. And it does seem from the various links and articles that 'older' structures in the brain play a role in laughter. Not surprising, since it's )sometimes) involuntary. I'm a word freak, so of course excited by the suggestion speech and laughter share a common origin. (And as a Buddhist, the suggestion that that origin lies in breathing is ... well, I won't say breath-taking, but definitely amusing and valid.) There's high insistence in some quarters that human beings are not as Other, as intrinsically Alien, as irrevocably Unhuman, as all other creatures. The notion we're somehow -- by virtue of our voluminous brains or by divine fiat or whatever -- exempt from being animals ourselves. So I expect we'll see a lot more on this topic (as well as the idea that laughter may occur in critters other than ourselves) during the next few years. The scientific inquiry into laughter's manifestations seems to be in its infancy. But at least it's a beginning. This is too long! To be contnued.
• Don't really know about Cartman, other than his being a character in South Park, but then I hacen't watched television in some years. I started in the early thread to sort ideas into social and perceptual categories, but soon gave that up as being too subjective on my part. Social behaviour can be observed from outside, so to speak, but perceptual experience is altogether different, since one can be within it as well as investigating the conditions under which it manifests. Both seem valid approaches to me, and any ultimate answer(s) will hopefully take both into account. Am impressed by the particpants in this thread not entering intio an analysis of humour or comedy, topics which seem inherently sujective and certainly fall outside the limits of the inquiries in the threads lead article. What makes one person laugh at a particular thing and another not seems to me to be a fruitless inquiry at this stage of our ignorance. If there were to be a thread on that subject I suspect it would boil down to people saying what they found funny or didn't and then getting sidetracked into quibbling about the misguided opinons of others. Tedious. Like you, peacay, I've no great desire to pursue the matter much further. Think we did very well here, and I learned a great deal, certainly far more than I'd expected to. BlueHorse, appeasement gesture seems to mean essentially the same thing as deflecting behaviour, if I grasp all these terms aright. I suspect you're correct about women smiling in that way more often than men, but then studies I've encountered seem to point to men being more disagreeable/dangeous/and more frequently ill-tempered than women. By laughter I think the scientists mean belly-laughs/guffawa rather than the feeble sounds in nervous laughter. Could be wrong, though. And no one mentioned actors laughing -- what goes on there might be interesting to consider some day. To what degree out language may mask the activity of our brain from our moment-by-moment awareness is a question I'm now becoming curious about. /waggles antennae and smiles appeasingly/ingratiatingly at BlueHorse
• *tosses mane and smiles fetchingly at Bees
• animal laughter
• *ahem* ^^^
• islander, I suspect is ahemming because he'd already posted that same link, BlueHorse -- [see comments 43-48 above]. I'm not sure what the three circumflexes signify -- make me think of mountains and eyebrows, possibly raised? Anyhow, a very fine link it is!
• islander, I suspect is ahemming because he'd already posted that same link, BlueHorse -- [see comments 43-48 above]. I'm not sure what the three circumflexes signify -- make me think of mountains and eyebrows, possibly raised? Anyhow, a very fine link it is!
• Yes, well...I guess it bears repeating.
• *grovels and smiles appeasingly at Mr. Islander, then slinks away, ashamed*
• *pant-pant-pant* *chirp-chirp* *wags prehensile tail*
• Women tend to smile and laugh as an appeasement gesture more often then men. Ah-hah hahaha.
• ...laughing matters...
• My arm hurts. That's not funny.
• I had to laugh like hell.
• Plunging from science towards the arts, where the eternal verites lie (;]): [re 6] A good laugh is the best pesticide. --Nabokov, Strong Opinions [re 2] Laughter is an affection arising from the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing, -- Kant, Critique of Judgement [re 9? and 39]The longer and more carefully we look at a funny story the sadder it becomes. -- Gogol [re 9, 39]A man's got to take a lot of punishment to write a really funny book. -- Ernest Hemingway
• Now my arm is better, but my other arm hurts.
• The emptiness where my missing sock was hurts. The emptiness inside my remaining sock hurts.
• What's wrong? Nothing is wrong. What's right? Nothing is right.
• "The human race has one really effective weapon, and that is laughter." Twain *points* hah-hah
• On reflection, I don't believe I think much of the social sanction aspect of laughter -- or think it may be effective only in small groups. Being jeered/laughed at certainly hasn't inhibited Bush, for example, or not insofar as I can see, anyway.