Evolutionary basis for laughter.
E Kurtz
> Laughter must have evolved because it confered a survival advantage. And
> because laughter is auditory and visual this advantage must have to do with the
> communication of some message.
> What message? I believe that laughter evolved in hominids (who lacked speech)
> to convey the following message, "This apparently dangerous thing or animal is
> harmless."
> Most jokes have two characteristics, surprise (ie the punchline) followed by a
> feeling of superiority in the listener. That's why ethnic jokes are funny.
> The following story will illustrate how these characteristics led to the
> evolution of laughter: A group of hominids see a dangerous snake. Then one
> recognizes it as a harmless vine and starts laughing. This conveys to his pals
> that it's harmless and that there's no need to scatter quickly and draw the
> attention of predators. Because laughter aided in maintaining the social
> cohesion of the group it also was selected for by natural selection
From: E Kurtz (ekur...@aol.com)
>I agree that jokes sometimes elevate the teller and demean the
target,
>but what about ethnic jokes that are told within the ethnic group
>itself? Jews are particularly good at this, with the Irish a close
>second.
>
>WC Fields once said: "it was a woman that drove me to drink and I
>never properly thanked her" - how do you get from hunters, snakes and
>vines to laughter at this remark?
>
>baseball player Dizzie Dean was hit in head by baseball, later told
>reporters: "the doctors X-rayed my head and found nothing". If
>superiority were the only issue, any dumb remark would be funny. But
>in this case there is a perfect ambiguity that transforms it.
>
>In any case, I don't see where the superiority comes from. Your
>adaptationist argument doesn't account for it. Relief, perhaps, at
the
>transformation from danger to safety. Some humor effects this
>transformation by suggesting taboo violation, but in an ambiguous
way
>that permits an alternate interpretation, eg a sign in French hotel
>(frequented by American tourists) said: 'please leave your values at
>the front desk'. This makes us laugh, but it is not the sense we have
>of being superior, but, again, the perception of perfection in the
>ambiguity, which a typical mistake in English would not have.
rush...@aol.com (Rushtown) wrote
> I assume you agree with my basic premise
>that evolution would not have selected for laughter unless laughter
confered
>some survival benefit.
Its not a given that every trait an organism possesses permits of an
adaptationist explanation. Gould has coined the term "spandrel" (an
architectural metaphor) to designate non-adaptive phenotypic traits
that arise as accidental by-products of the development of other
traits that *do* conduce to fitness.
QUOTE:
Each quadrant [of the central dome of St. Mark's Cathedral in Venice]
meets one of the four spandrels in the arches below the dome.
Spandrels-the tapering triangular spaces formed by the intersection of
two rounded arches at right angles are necessary architectural
byproducts of mounting a dome on rounded arches.
END QUOTE
(The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique
of the Adaptationist Programme Stephen Jay Gould And Richard C.
Lewontin)
He has not taken the concept any further so far as I know.
Humor may be a spandrel, though of what *adaptive* trait is not at all
clear. It has the hallmarks of something that evolved, being universal
and distinct from other traits, yet a clear description of that which
is common to all humor is lacking, and without that its hard to see
how an adaptationist argument can be constructed. What we laugh at is
quite specific - we would worry about someone who laughed at
everything (or nothing) - but the common structure is a mystery.
Actually we are arguing about somewhat different things. I believe
that humor is what matters, laughter is merely the response to it.
Both are mysterious, but the structure of humor, if we could figure it
out, would tell us something about the mind that laughter would not.
If, as you say, laughter is a signal, then it is probably arbitrary,
as signals usually are. Humor without laughter is rare, but it exists,
and in states of fatigue or depression we can recognize humor without
responding to it.
>You also seem to agree with the surprise and relief bit.
The earliest laughter in human development arises from fear followed
by relief in the game peek-a-boo and games like it that mothers play
with their babies. The mother hides her face for a moment and then
shows it. The baby becomes distressed and then laughs with relief. It
is believed that babies cannot conceive of an object or person
continuing to exist when not perceived, so when the mother's face
disappears the mother has effectively vanished from the world.
Laughter at apparent danger - as in your snake/vine example - persists
into adult life, but appears to be simply *one form* of humor, not the
essence of it. This is really my point. And superiority, though it may
be associated with some forms of humor, is again not the essence.
>Come up with a better explanation.
I believe that humor is one of the great evolutionary mysteries, which
is probably why supporters of evolution theory ignore it, preferring
to concentrate on things they *can* explain.
Because I can find problems with your explanation doesn't oblige me to
find a better one, though I wish I could.
Jack Penkethman
"E Kurtz" <ekur...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a6b7ku$p1v$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
A good behaviorist could address this, I think. What's the essential
difference between our humor and laughter, and the dance of the grebe or the
call of the peacock?
E Kurtz
> > is probably why supporters of evolution theory ignore it, preferring
> > to concentrate on things they *can* explain.
"Jack Penkethman" <pnk...@garlic.com> wrote
> A good behaviorist could address this, I think.
So name one, and give his explanation. (I presume you are not a
behaviorist, or are a bad one, since you do not address the point
yourself).
This is a typical response to the question of the evolution of humor
(and art, music, etc) - "I don't know the answer but I'm sure someone
does, I just don't know who".
> What's the essential
> difference between our humor and laughter, and the dance of the grebe or the
> call of the peacock?
Laughter is the behavior that results from the experience of humor.
Grebes do not dance, nor do peacocks cry, in response to jokes.
PF
reinvented in this NG. This thread included (as I see it at at this point of
its posting progress).
For example it is commonly ignored (or not cared enough about) that numerous
and roughly simultaneous "once (or repeatedly or persistently) upon a time"
life-situation shaping*" selection pressures (in the phylogeny of a
phenotype or species) can sometimes rather fully explain the existence of
many a trait.
Laughter (and forms of artistic expression and appreciation) included.
The unifying explanation most missing in nearly all instances of
evolution-theoretical thinking appears to be one that is most EPT (also as
in apt) when it comes to explaining/revealing/understanding the nature of us
humans.
In short, the EPT explanatory strategy holds that SHITS (a *sub* category of
Adversity type selection (<=/Evolutionary) pressures (of an "Evolutionary
Pressure Totality") have with inevitably significant frequency tended to
overlap* (in selection-significant time and space) with examples of the to
"Adversity" dialectically juxtaposed supertype, namely evolutionary
"Opportunity" (i.e. Opportunity type evolutionary pressures >= "selection
pressures").
SHITS stand for Selective Hibernation (a 'concEPT' related to but
distinguishable from the physiological means and instinctive behavioural
methods that allows individuals of some species (e.g. certain
self-dessicating frogs, or cold climate Brown Bears) to cope with any kind
of relatively regularly occurring and large-scale seasonal hardship
encountered by inhabitants of a different various regions) Imploring Type
"Situations" (i.e., any in a Darwinian sense "selective" environmental
challenges).
---
By the way:
Further aspects of the explanatory "EPT scheme" (an evolution philosophical
treatis conceived with the aim to contribute something both "edutating" and
'philanthropically targeted':->) also imply clinical experimental and
"field" observations that underpin the current state of affairs within
disciplines of Science such as sociology, developmental psychology,
neurobiology, and others. (So, basically, EPT can not be faulted for being
anything but in complete alignement with scientifcally established
principles and theories.)
Some of these other defined and concEPTualized insights within the EPT
scheme are also acronyms. E.g., the understanding that a SHITS by defintion
remain in the "actention selection system" (a 'sEPTically' expressed
alternative to "brain") as a type of memory - come subsequent
co-motivational factor - (re)concEPTualized
as "CURSES" (variable in spelling to the more explicitly meaty meaning of
"CCKHURSES").
To sum this my reaction up:
It is concerning to me how profoundly AEVASIVE the typical phenotype of the
human species is.
AEVASIVE pragmatically abbreviates most of the above, as *roughly* follows:
Ambi-advantageously Evolved Vital (and/or Vested), Actention Selection
Incorporating (amongst else) Various Endorphins.
Thus laughter *and much else* can be comprehensively understood through a
most encompassing "evolution philosophical" thinking.
Peter Fellin
Tim Tyler
:> Laughter must have evolved because it confered a survival advantage. And
:> because laughter is auditory and visual this advantage must have to do
:> with the communication of some message.
:> What message? I believe that laughter evolved in hominids (who lacked
:> speech) to convey the following message, "This apparently dangerous
:> thing or animal is harmless."
Certainly not its primary modern usage. I'd say humor exists primarily as
a means of displaying mental characteristics to companions and potential
mates - and that its existence may be attributed primarily to sexual selection.
: I believe that humor is one of the great evolutionary mysteries [...]
Look at how often GSOH is mentioned as a desirable trait in singles
columns. This represents a serious selection pressure in favour
of a GSOH. Given this selection pressure the results are hardly
suprising.
--
__________
|im |yler Index of my domains: http://timtyler.org/ t...@iname.com
Matt Hodgkinson
Laughter must have evolved because it confered a survival advantage. And
because laughter is auditory and visual this advantage must have to do with
the communication of some message.
What message? I believe that laughter evolved in hominids (who lacked
speech) to convey the following message, "This apparently dangerous thing or
animal is harmless."
I've done some digging around, and this is what I can come up with in a
short time...
A study (Schmidt, Memory 2002 Mar;10(2):127-38) shows that humourous
cartoons are remembered better than non-humourous cartoons - a sense of
humour may aid memory of anomalies.
Other studies suggest that humour advertises intelligence.
The false alarm theory has been studied by Ramachandran (Med Hypotheses 1998
Oct;51(4):351-4), here's the whole abstract:
"Laughter (and humor) involves the gradual build-up of expectation (a model)
followed by a sudden twist or anomaly that entails a change in the
model--but only as long as the new model is non-threatening--so that there
is a deflation of expectation. The loud explosive sound is produced, we
suggest, to inform conspecifics that there has been a 'false alarm', to
which they need not orient. The same logic may underlie tickling (menacing
approach followed by a light non-threatening contact). Thus tickling may
serve as 'play', a rehearsal for adult laughter. And lastly, when one
primate encounters another, he may have always begun with a threat
gesture--to bare his canines--but upon recognizing the individual as kin he
may stop the grimace halfway and 'smile'. When the insular cortex is
damaged, patients giggle in response to pain, presumably because they can
still sense the pain ('danger') but the pain is no longer aversive ('false
alarm'), thereby fulfilling the two key requirements for laughter."
An article in American Scientist (Provine, Jan-Feb 1996) points out that
Chimpanzees 'laugh' as well as humans. The 'laugh' is not scacatto like in
humans, probably because they don't have the fine breathing control we have.
"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."
He also studied normal conversational laughter, finding that "Mutual
playfulness, in-group feeling and positive emotional tone--not comedy--mark
the social settings of most naturally occurring laughter". Supporting the
idea of sexual selection is the fact that "The limited cross-cultural
evidence suggests that males are the leading humor producers and that
females are the leading laughers. These differences are already present by
the time that joking first appears around six years of age."
A lecture by Prof van Hooff of the University of Utrecht points out that
many animals conduct 'play', and have accompanying facial expressions to
show that their behaviour is play (as opposed to serious behaviour) to
conspecifics. Jaak Panksepp, a neurobiologist, claims that rats produce a
sort of high pitched laughter when tickled and when in 'play'.
Robert Storey argues that laughter "is always in response to the perception
of a mastered (or masterable) incongruity, signaling either appreciation of
the well-mastered ("laughing with") or ridicule of the ill-mastered
("laughing at"). The signal evolved from the vocalizations accompanying
ancestral primate play, which themselves sustained fitness-enhancing
behaviors involving resolutions of incongruity. I propose that for human
beings amusement laughter proved adaptively advantageous primarily in the
teaching of offspring, especially when that laughter was qualified by the
unambiguously positive bonding signals, including both smiling and laughing,
that evolved from the primate fear-grin."
Matt Morton
Your theory is laughable from its inception from an evolutionary
standpoint. What you are arguing is tantamount to saying that
"Laughter" evolved as a response to a situation and must have
posotively benifited the organism. What you completely fail to
address, is why (if as you suggest it evolved in hominids incapable of
speech) there would have been the PHYSCIAL BODY PARTS (larnyx, vocal
cords, tonsils etc) that would be required to laugh (or speak) for
that matter. Why would we have evolved those parts....just so that one
day we could possibly "laugh" to convey a posotive bilogical
message???
Aditionally you are trying to jump the grand canyon in what effect the
first laughter would have had. Bio-chemically laughter shuts down the
bodies "flight or flight" system and lowers levels of stress causing
chemical and endorphins in the blood stream. So, laughter, would be
against survival modes. And you are assuming that other hominids would
have developed the capability to laugh and understand its meaning at
the same time????
Tim Tyler
: And you are assuming that other hominids would have developed the
: capability to laugh and understand its meaning at the same time????
Certainly chimpanzees laugh:
``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. [...]''
``Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) laughter differs in many ways from its
human counterpart. The vowel-like notes of human laughter are performed
by chopping a single expiration, whereas chimpanzee laughter is a
breathy panting vocalization that is produced during each brief
expiration and inspiration. Unlike human laughter, the laughter of a
chimpanzee lacks discrete, vowel-like notes that have sharp leading and
trailing edges on sound spectra. Chimpanzee laughter has the sound and
cadence of a handsaw cutting wood. The sounds of chimpanzee and human
laughter are sufficiently different that without viewing the
characteristic "play face" and source of stimulation (such as play and
tickle), naive human beings may be unable to identify the chimpanzee
vocalization as laughter. You can experience the difference in
production between the two forms of laughter by placing a hand on your
abdomen and comparing the abdominal pulsations of chimpanzee-like
panting with the smoother act of speaking "ha-ha-ha" during a single
expiration.''
- http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/Articles/96articles/Provine-R.html
PF
news:a78bf4$6o9$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
You MUST BE JOKING! ;-)
It seems you have never heared of the frequency by which individuals get
into SHITS ("selective Hibernation" imploring type situations)!
Peter
Tom Hendricks
Matt Morton wrote:
> I AM LAUGHING...SORRY.
>
> Your theory is laughable from its inception from an evolutionary
> standpoint. What you are arguing is tantamount to saying that
> "Laughter" evolved as a response to a situation and must have
> posotively benifited the organism. What you completely fail to
> address, is why (if as you suggest it evolved in hominids incapable of
> speech) there would have been the PHYSCIAL BODY PARTS (larnyx, vocal
> cords, tonsils etc) that would be required to laugh (or speak) for
> that matter. Why would we have evolved those parts....just so that one
> day we could possibly "laugh" to convey a posotive bilogical
> message???
Note that laughter comes out of the mouth. Food goes in.
I think the connection is this:
Energy/food coming in, evolved to mouth noises to better
bring in food. In mammals babies cry for breast milk. It
can easily be seen that this was partly the reason for voice
The other being cry for protection in the case of human
infants.
Also the soothing voice of the mother. Also the same facial
muscles for taking in and chewing food = smile, blocking
out unwanted food = frown muscles, also note how
sucking milk, smiling, being full, mother's voice - soothing, etc.
could have evolved to laughter. Also laughing as response
to mother's sensory stimulation of child, etc.
All of this suggests that laughter is part of the bond between
mother and child and later child and other individuals.
And all this out of taking in food/energy which was there at first life
day one.
Tom Hendricks, Hendricks Health Theory
text files at
http://www.ediacara.org/~josh/hendricks.html
(text #10 has a pretty up to date summary)
Matt Hodgkinson
"Matt Morton" <mort...@elltel.net> wrote in message
news:a78bf4$6o9$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> I AM LAUGHING...SORRY.
>
> Your theory is laughable from its inception from an evolutionary
> standpoint. What you are arguing is tantamount to saying that
> "Laughter" evolved as a response to a situation and must have
> posotively benifited the organism.
Yep, no kidding. Behaviours tend to evolve to optimise fitness, one so
clear as laughter much serve some social function. I simply cannot believe
that it's just a 'spandrel', if it, as you say later on, has deleterious
effects on survival (which I also don't believe - people quickly stop
laughing when genuine danger appears - apart from a laughing epidemic for a
week in an African town, but that's pretty exceptional).
> What you completely fail to
> address, is why (if as you suggest it evolved in hominids incapable of
> speech) there would have been the PHYSCIAL BODY PARTS (larnyx,
> vocal
> cords, tonsils etc) that would be required to laugh (or speak) for
> that matter. Why would we have evolved those parts....just so that one
> day we could possibly "laugh" to convey a posotive bilogical
> message???
Chimpanzees can vocalise already. They have lungs to breath, mouths to eat,
they combine these to produce vocalisations. They can easily adapt their
exisiting vocalisations to 'laugh'. Remember, I never suggested that
Chimpanzees laughed exactly like humans, since they do not have the fine
breathing control necessary (which humans acquired with the ability to
speak).
> Aditionally you are trying to jump the grand canyon in what effect the
> first laughter would have had. Bio-chemically laughter shuts down the
> bodies "flight or flight" system and lowers levels of stress causing
> chemical and endorphins in the blood stream. So, laughter, would be
> against survival modes. And you are assuming that other hominids would
> have developed the capability to laugh and understand its meaning at
> the same time????
The whole point is that laughter occurs AFTER an apparently stressful or
dangerous situation has passed. It is to show that the danger was not real
to conspecfics, and to show that the individual laughing knows this. It is
a valuable social tool. Surely you are not suggesting that a signal of
humour would be deleterious to survival? Chimpanzees can afford some time
for play (such as around waterfalls) which is apparently a waste of time, if
it helps social cohesion. They don't have to be forever watchful, they
really don't suffer from much predation, especially male adults. They even
proactively hunt down leopard cubs!
Matt
Andrew E. Smyth
I believe the above and the comments about sexual selection support my
original
post.
I understand that it is easy to come up with a "just so story" to
explain
human behavior in Darwinian terms. Just coming up with a logical
story does not make it right.
But it does seem that surprise, maybe fear or anxiety, and then a
release caused
by feeling superior (or not threatened) are all characteristics of
laughter (and humor). This being so the original idea that laughter
was a signal to communicate "this is not harmful" seems to gain
support. The post about chimps laughing shows that it did develop pre
language.
Once developed laughter could and did evolve into a social bonding
mechanism. (one would tend to bond with people who reduce one's fears
and tend to be in charge of the situation--ie laughing at it. This
also shows why laughter can signal that the male is a good mate and so
be a factor sexually selected for).
Rushtown
>From: Tim Tyler t...@iname.com
>Date: 3/20/02 3:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <a7b793$4d7$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>
>
>Matt Morton <mort...@elltel.net> wrote:
>
>: And you are assuming that other hominids would have developed the
>: capability to laugh and understand its meaning at the same time????
>
>Certainly chimpanzees laugh:
The previous posts confirm that laughter involves: Surprise, apprehension,
release, and sometimes feeling superior. This would confirm my original post
that laughter is a pre verbal communication (as shown by chimp laughter) that
communicates the message "This is harmless." Laughter also indicates genetic
desirability and so is sexually selected for because the real message is "This
doesn't scare me." This last message also shows why laughter enhances social
cohesiveness---it's good to have a fearless guy (ape) in your group.
PF
In reply to Matt Hodgkinson:
The only worry - if there is reason for one - about this your thinking is
that some reasons for the evolved existence of laughter and humour have been
LEFT OUT by you. ;-)
Never mind.
However, personally I find it valuable to keep on reminding myself (and
others ;-) of the wide variety, and high frequency of occurence, of adverse
evolutionary pressures that can be named and defined by way of the sub
categorizing expression - ""selective Hibernation" [~selective
unconsciousness] imploring type situations".
>From this realization one does not need any great mental fitness to step up
and conclude that a great variety of "Opportunity type" evolutionary
pressures (some of which you have thought of) do very often coincide with
the above subcategory of adversity type evolutionary/selection pressures,
and that this particular "overlap" between evolutionary pressures has tended
to be optimally handled by mutant phenotypes that are correspondingly
*ambi-advantageously* adapted (or thus fit for reproductive survival).
>From this perspective on how the brain (or "actention selection system") of
humans and animals (but especially us humans) functions, develops in each
our social context, and have evolved over countless generation since the
days of our amoebic ancestors, and cause us to think, feel and behave the
ways we do (ways one may eptly label with the explanatory acronym AEVASIVE),
humour and laughter does not seem to be such a special case but becomes part
of a unified picture.
Peter
Matt Morton
and laughter may be emulating a similar physical sound, but again, I
believe you fail to adequately explain how or why the biological
functionality (or social functionality) would have evolved. By your
suggestion, the Parrot at the local pet shop must be an evolutionary
ancestor in the hominid line . Parrots are the only species (some
aviary species, not all) that can emulate human vocabulary and
LAUGHTER !!!. However I believe we can all safely agree that the
parrot at the local pet store (that can recite a line of Shakespeare
and let out a resounding chuckle) has absolutely no idea of what he is
saying(and there is a parrot here in Seattle that can do the
aforementioned).
In other words, the "ha"s that constitute both human and chimpanzee
laughter in fact come about through remarkably different processes,
suggesting not an ancestry line of evolution. In chimpanzees, the
consecutive sounds are the results of quickly alternating in-out and
exhalation.
In contrast, human laughter consists of a single exhalation, divided
into several short bouts by temporarily stopping the exhale. Though
the final products are superficially similar in the two species, they
are radically different in their way of production and meaning (just
as our friend the parrot)
In my view, the human vocal tract is not a secondary but a primary
product. Humans possess an "organ for vocalization" specialized for
speech that distinguishes them from other primates and (hominids).
Although I will grant you that various sorts of sounds inevitably
accompany the activities of eating and breathing, and these have
subsequently come to take on roles in communicative contexts in
humans, primates and hominids. Although would still like to see some
clear thought on why you think it warrants special attention as an
individual mutation or evolution processes'
Tim Tyler
: In other words, the "ha"s that constitute both human and chimpanzee
: laughter in fact come about through remarkably different processes,
: suggesting not an ancestry line of evolution. [...]
...but the circumstances that evoke it seem the same. Isn't it simplest
to say that human laughter differs because of modifications to the human
vocal tract which were intended to facilitate human speech?
Andrew E. Smyth
A parrot imitationg a "ha, ha, ha" sound is not laughing just as a parrot
is not speaking when it imitates speech.
A Parrot doesn't laugh at a funny joke---it just imitates the sound of laughter.
The exact sound of laughter doesn't matter--it could be a whistling sound. What
does matter is what elicits this response and why it was selected for.
William Morse
>> Laughter must have evolved because it confered a survival advantage. And
>> because laughter is auditory and visual this advantage must have to do with the
>> communication of some message.
>> What message? I believe that laughter evolved in hominids (who lacked speech)
>> to convey the following message, "This apparently dangerous thing or animal is
>> harmless."
>> feeling of superiority in the listener. That's why ethnic jokes are funny.
>> The following story will illustrate how these characteristics led to the
>> evolution of laughter: A group of hominids see a dangerous snake. Then one
>> recognizes it as a harmless vine and starts laughing. This conveys to his pals
>> that it's harmless and that there's no need to scatter quickly and draw the
>> attention of predators. Because laughter aided in maintaining the social
>> cohesion of the group it also was selected for by natural selection
The social cohesion point is one key. Most laughter at social occasions is at
lines that are not remotely funny (as noted in the Pinker reference below).
>From: E Kurtz (ekur...@aol.com)
>>I agree that jokes sometimes elevate the teller and demean the
>target,
>>but what about ethnic jokes that are told within the ethnic group
>>itself? Jews are particularly good at this, with the Irish a close
>>second.
Demeaning the target is probably more to the point - in fact I think you will
find it hard to come up with examples of jokes the point of which is to
elevate the teller. In the case of jokes within the ethnic group, the point
may well be to puncture egos - AFAIK pride is considered a sin in most
cultures. This is presumably because "pride goeth before a fall", so
puncturing pride is selected for.
>>WC Fields once said: "it was a woman that drove me to drink and I
>>never properly thanked her" - how do you get from hunters, snakes and
>>vines to laughter at this remark?
>>baseball player Dizzie Dean was hit in head by baseball, later told
>>reporters: "the doctors X-rayed my head and found nothing". If
>>superiority were the only issue, any dumb remark would be funny. But
>>in this case there is a perfect ambiguity that transforms it.
>>In any case, I don't see where the superiority comes from. Your
>>adaptationist argument doesn't account for it. Relief, perhaps, at
>the
>>transformation from danger to safety. Some humor effects this
>>transformation by suggesting taboo violation, but in an ambiguous
>way
>>that permits an alternate interpretation, eg a sign in French hotel
>>(frequented by American tourists) said: 'please leave your values at
>>the front desk'. This makes us laugh, but it is not the sense we have
>>of being superior, but, again, the perception of perfection in the
>>ambiguity, which a typical mistake in English would not have.
There is certainly more to humor than just social cohesion and puncturing
pride, and ambiguity is important in many jokes.
>> I assume you agree with my basic premise
>>that evolution would not have selected for laughter unless laughter
>confered
>>some survival benefit.
>
>Its not a given that every trait an organism possesses permits of an
>adaptationist explanation. Gould has coined the term "spandrel" (an
>architectural metaphor) to designate non-adaptive phenotypic traits
>that arise as accidental by-products of the development of other
>traits that *do* conduce to fitness.
Dennett in "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" has an extensive discussion of this
point, which has also been discussed at length on this NG. In any case it is
unlikely that laughter is a "spandrel" - laughter occurs at a much more basic
- and involuntary - level than speech.
(snip quote from Goulds)
>I believe that humor is one of the great evolutionary mysteries, which
>is probably why supporters of evolution theory ignore it, preferring
>to concentrate on things they *can* explain.
>Because I can find problems with your explanation doesn't oblige me to
>find a better one, though I wish I could.
Supporters of evolution have not ignored humor., but I agree that it is not
easy to explain. Pinker discusses the question of humor in "How the Mind
Works". The basics appear to be incongruity, resolution, and indignity.
Pinker attributes much of the value of humor as an anti-dominance weapon,
hence the indignity. I borrowed this idea in my discussion above. Why this
needs to be "set up" by incongruity (ambiguity) is still not clear to me.
There may well be an element of sexual selection involved - the cleverness of
exploiting the ambiguity illustrating a complex mind, perhaps?
Yours,
Bill Morse
pete
<wdm...@twcny.rr.com> sez:
`>rush...@aol.com (Rushtown) wrote
[...]
`>>WC Fields once said: "it was a woman that drove me to drink and I
`>>never properly thanked her" - how do you get from hunters, snakes and
`>>vines to laughter at this remark?
`
`
`
`>>baseball player Dizzie Dean was hit in head by baseball, later told
`>>reporters: "the doctors X-rayed my head and found nothing". If
`>>superiority were the only issue, any dumb remark would be funny. But
`>>in this case there is a perfect ambiguity that transforms it.
`
`
`
`>>In any case, I don't see where the superiority comes from. Your
`>>adaptationist argument doesn't account for it. Relief, perhaps, at
`>the
`>>transformation from danger to safety. Some humor effects this
`>>transformation by suggesting taboo violation, but in an ambiguous
`>way
`>>that permits an alternate interpretation, eg a sign in French hotel
`>>(frequented by American tourists) said: 'please leave your values at
`>>the front desk'. This makes us laugh, but it is not the sense we have
`>>of being superior, but, again, the perception of perfection in the
`>>ambiguity, which a typical mistake in English would not have.
`
` There is certainly more to humor than just social cohesion and puncturing
` pride, and ambiguity is important in many jokes.
[...]
`
`>I believe that humor is one of the great evolutionary mysteries, which
`>is probably why supporters of evolution theory ignore it, preferring
`>to concentrate on things they *can* explain.
`>Because I can find problems with your explanation doesn't oblige me to
`>find a better one, though I wish I could.
`
` Supporters of evolution have not ignored humor., but I agree that it is not
` easy to explain. Pinker discusses the question of humor in "How the Mind
` Works". The basics appear to be incongruity, resolution, and indignity.
` Pinker attributes much of the value of humor as an anti-dominance weapon,
` hence the indignity. I borrowed this idea in my discussion above. Why this
` needs to be "set up" by incongruity (ambiguity) is still not clear to me.
` There may well be an element of sexual selection involved - the cleverness of
` exploiting the ambiguity illustrating a complex mind, perhaps?
`
I think humour has several forms, which are to some degree distinct,
but have some unifying features. One of the best explanations I have
heard for humour, at least to the extent that it seems to accord with my
introspection of the process, is that it represents the apprehension
followed by almost instant resolution, of a paradox. How this fits in
with the notion of an announcement of disregard for an apparently
fearsome object, discussed elsewhere in this thread, I'm not sure,
but I can speculate that the connection runs something like "ack!
this aspect of the world doesn't make sense! The logical structure
can't be resolved - Oh, wait, yes it can!" I could further speculate,
even more tenuously, that this process might correspond to a physical
alteration of state in the brain. I'm thinking of something where
in the first phase, a lot of different possible neural paths are
activated, while seeking a solution to the paradox, and these paths
collapse when the puzzle is solved, leaving a trivial (not novel)
explanation. Something in the shifts in brain chemistry from this
collapse triggers the laughter reflex. Like I say, this is just
wildest speculation. It would be interesting, though, to know if
anyone has done studies of PET scans of subjects while they are being
told jokes...
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
William Morse
>and laughter may be emulating a similar physical sound, but again, I
>believe you fail to adequately explain how or why the biological
>functionality (or social functionality) would have evolved. By your
>suggestion, the Parrot at the local pet shop must be an evolutionary
>ancestor in the hominid line . Parrots are the only species (some
>aviary species, not all) that can emulate human vocabulary and
>LAUGHTER !!!. However I believe we can all safely agree that the
>parrot at the local pet store (that can recite a line of Shakespeare
>and let out a resounding chuckle) has absolutely no idea of what he is
>saying(and there is a parrot here in Seattle that can do the
>aforementioned).
Actually there is research with gray parrots (I think it was featured in
Discover magazine) that shows that parrots can learn some rudiments of speech.
But this is not why they are so good at emulating speech. Birds are good at
making varied sounds because they have to have conscious control of their
breathing in order to fly. Cetaceans are good at speech for the same reason.
It is probable that humans have become good at conscious control of their
breathing only because they needed it for speech. Most other mammals do not
consciously control their breathing (this is all according to Terence Deacon,
in The Symbolic Species).
>In other words, the "ha"s that constitute both human and chimpanzee
>laughter in fact come about through remarkably different processes,
>suggesting not an ancestry line of evolution. In chimpanzees, the
>consecutive sounds are the results of quickly alternating in-out and
>exhalation.
>
>In contrast, human laughter consists of a single exhalation, divided
>into several short bouts by temporarily stopping the exhale. Though
>the final products are superficially similar in the two species, they
>are radically different in their way of production and meaning (just
>as our friend the parrot)
>
Again according to Deacon, laughter in humans is not produced by the same
pathways as speech, and is probably more similar to chimpanzees.
>In my view, the human vocal tract is not a secondary but a primary
>product. Humans possess an "organ for vocalization" specialized for
>speech that distinguishes them from other primates and (hominids).
Agreed.
>Although I will grant you that various sorts of sounds inevitably
>accompany the activities of eating and breathing, and these have
>subsequently come to take on roles in communicative contexts in
>humans, primates and hominids. (slight snip)
True for primates and hominids, but humans have gone well beyond these sounds.
Yours,
Bill Morse