01-17-2021, 07:43 AM
Ten years may not be long enough, but here goes...
Maybe your views have changed, and no longer view all humor as based on misfortune of others, but I have wanted to go back and answer this more in the way you wanted. So. We want to examine content by using other content, and not just ridicule a "point of view". Okay. First let me just condense things a bit.
I only looked at a few papers, and of those the only paper I saw that didn't make horrific overgeneralizations was this article in "Evolutionary Psychology" Volume 4, 2006: "The First Joke: Exploring the Evolutionary Origins of Humor" by Polimeni and Reiss.* Hopefully this link works: First Joke
My choice of quotes is aimed at countering the idea that humor evolved basically as a form of derision used in competition of social status. (What's true for American males in the last 50+ years, the span of my experience, is not necessarily true for all humans throughout history.)
These anomalies may include the Schadenfreude-type putdown laughter you posited is the basis of humor, but note that it is only one part.
Here (above), primitive groups can and do use humor to diffuse stress of competition. Now let's look at cultures other than the "whiteUSA" culture that is very much over-represented in psychology...
(Wow, I coulda been a North American shaman! All from my underlying mania. My mania is so lazy, it's always underlying. And since I was raised in a barn, my mother never taught me exaggerated female manners.)
Anyway, the idea that humor is always "at someone's expense" is contrary to the ideas presented in the article. While that is present in many cultures it is not the only part of the culture's humor, and it's often not used as a social dominance weapon.
I'm not out to prove anything, especially about something as difficult to understand as humor. But if someone seriously posits something based on the idea that all humor is derisive, I have to disagree, and ... uh ... make fun of them. To show that it is of trivial consequence, of course.
One thing I did not respond to very well last time was your "I believe this is because of our nature as humans to like, enjoy, or even want to see others fail in some way". After 10 years, do you still consider this to be human nature?
-Van
* You may be pleased to discover Polimeni and Reiss when you visit southeast asian restaurants.
Maybe your views have changed, and no longer view all humor as based on misfortune of others, but I have wanted to go back and answer this more in the way you wanted. So. We want to examine content by using other content, and not just ridicule a "point of view". Okay. First let me just condense things a bit.
(08-12-2010, 04:57 PM)MEAT Wrote: Well, Van, I suppose ... my ... to ... my ... to ... of ... a ... that ... about ... the ... almost ... all ... of ... it ... what ... own ... and ... you’ve ... one ... to ... you ... now!I assure you that was absolutely necessary.
I only looked at a few papers, and of those the only paper I saw that didn't make horrific overgeneralizations was this article in "Evolutionary Psychology" Volume 4, 2006: "The First Joke: Exploring the Evolutionary Origins of Humor" by Polimeni and Reiss.* Hopefully this link works: First Joke
My choice of quotes is aimed at countering the idea that humor evolved basically as a form of derision used in competition of social status. (What's true for American males in the last 50+ years, the span of my experience, is not necessarily true for all humans throughout history.)
Quote:Ramachandran’s (1998) “false alarm theory” suggests “the main purpose of laughter is for the individual to alert others in the social group that the anomaly detected by that individual is of trivial consequence”. The immediate social group would be close relatives who are likely to share similar genes. Ramachandran further speculates that the cognitive perspective necessary to distinguish between trivial and serious could have somehow evolved into a cognitive framework that classifies congruous and incongruous components of humor.
These anomalies may include the Schadenfreude-type putdown laughter you posited is the basis of humor, but note that it is only one part.
Quote:Nicely captured in Frans De Waal’s (1982) phrase “chimpanzee politics,” primate life is characterized by constant negotiations between empathic and aggressive tendencies. Grooming engenders pleasurable feelings that countervail aggressive tendencies. But with language replacing grooming, what mitigates aggressive tendencies between lesser-related individuals? Humor seems to inject positive feelings while hierarchal competition and other minor social quarrels are being worked out. Humor can’t control pernicious disputes but for the more mundane disagreements, it diminishes the risk of a contentious issue deteriorating to violence.
Here (above), primitive groups can and do use humor to diffuse stress of competition. Now let's look at cultures other than the "whiteUSA" culture that is very much over-represented in psychology...
Quote: Tribal clowns, from several different continents, are described in a variety of cultures. Turnbull noted, for example, that each Mbuti band seemed to have an unofficially designated clown. “His function is to act as a buff between disputants, deflecting the more serious disputes away from their original sources, absolving other individuals of blame by accepting it himself” (Turnbull, 1965, p. 183). The tribal clown, typically male, can also have a more formalized position, particularly in native North American tribes. Apte (1985) refers to them as “ritual clowns” and some descriptions cross over with shamanism. Since shamanistic experiences can resemble psychotic symptoms, one naturally wonders whether this reflects underlying mania in the individual. Ritual clowns have been known to act in an exaggerated feminine manner, spoof neighboring tribes, mock formal religious ceremonies and utter sexual or obscene humor (Apte, 1985).
(Wow, I coulda been a North American shaman! All from my underlying mania. My mania is so lazy, it's always underlying. And since I was raised in a barn, my mother never taught me exaggerated female manners.)
Anyway, the idea that humor is always "at someone's expense" is contrary to the ideas presented in the article. While that is present in many cultures it is not the only part of the culture's humor, and it's often not used as a social dominance weapon.
I'm not out to prove anything, especially about something as difficult to understand as humor. But if someone seriously posits something based on the idea that all humor is derisive, I have to disagree, and ... uh ... make fun of them. To show that it is of trivial consequence, of course.
One thing I did not respond to very well last time was your "I believe this is because of our nature as humans to like, enjoy, or even want to see others fail in some way". After 10 years, do you still consider this to be human nature?
-Van
* You may be pleased to discover Polimeni and Reiss when you visit southeast asian restaurants.