Polimeli, Reiss - The first joke, exploring the evolutionary nature of humour.pdf

(135 KB) Pobierz
The First Joke: Exploring the Evolutionary Origins of Humor
Evolutionary Psychology
human-nature.com/ep – 2006. 4: 347-366
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Original Article
The First Joke: Exploring the Evolutionary Origins of Humor
Joseph Polimeni, Department of Psychiatry, University of Manitoba, 771 Bannatyne Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3E 3N4, JPolimeni@shaw.ca
Jeffrey P. Reiss, Department of Psychiatry, University of Manitoba, 771 Bannatyne Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3E 3N4, JPReiss@cc.umanitoba.ca
Abstract: Humor is a complex cognitive function which often leads to laughter.
Contemporary humor theorists have begun to formulate hypotheses outlining the possible
innate cognitive structures underlying humor. Humor’s conspicuous presence in the
behavioral repertoire of humankind invites adaptive explanations. This article explores
the possible adaptive features of humor and ponders its evolutionary path through
hominid history. Current humor theories and previous evolutionary ideas on humor are
reviewed. In addition, scientific fields germane to the evolutionary study of humor are
examined: animal models, genetics, children’s humor, humor in pathological conditions,
neurobiology, humor in traditional societies and cognitive archeology. Candidate
selection pressures and associated evolutionary mechanisms are considered. The authors
conclude that several evolutionary-related topics such as the origins of language,
cognition underlying spiritual feelings, hominid group size, and primate teasing could
have special relevance to the origins of humor.
Keywords: humor, evolution, laughter, teasing, language, group size.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Introduction
Evolutionary forces will have shaped, or at least not selected against, any
phenotype that has an appreciable connection to genotype and has existed over a number
of generations. T. Dobzhansky, the pre-eminent geneticist, emphasized this point in his
famous aphorism, “Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution” (as
cited in Mayr, 2001, p. 39). The ability to generate and perceive humor is a biological
process – a cognitive phenotypic trait – almost certainly dependent on a corresponding
genetically based neurological substrate. Humor has certainly been around for thousands
of years and possibly even a few million years. This article will systematically and briefly
review topics that could be germane to the evolutionary origins of humor.
Humor and laughter are closely related; however, they are not synonymous.
Humor is the underlying cognitive process that frequently, but not necessarily, leads to
laughter. Laughter is a seizure-like activity that can be elicited by experiencing a
humorous cognitive stimulus but also other stimuli such as tickling. Thus, one can laugh
without a humorous stimulus and similarly one can experience humor without laughter.
The First Joke: Exploring the Evolutionary Origins of Humor
The basic ability to perceive humor seems “instinctive” and, thus, likely reliant on
genetic machinations. Humor is complex; arguably too complicated to learn without an
assemblage of specific neural pathways or an associated cognitive module. Whether
something is funny or not is often dependent on nuanced verbal phrasing in combination
with a full appreciation of prevailing social dynamics. In fact, humor’s inherent opacity
yields itself to occasionally be purposely used when ambiguous communication is
particularly desired. Humor is ubiquitous and universal, further implicating a genetic
substrate. To our knowledge, no culture exists that is unfamiliar with humor. It appears
that all healthy individuals reliably comprehend obvious attempts at humor.
Humor has been part of the behavioral repertoire of modern Homo sapiens for
thousands of years. Ancient Greek texts contain descriptions of “professional” jesters and
jokebooks (Bremmer, 1997, pp. 11-18). One of the earliest historical figures to be firmly
associated with humor and laughter was the Greek philosopher Democritus. Known as
the “laughing philosopher,” he not only had a reputation for his mirthful disposition but
perhaps also for his tendency to “[laugh] at the stupidity of his fellow citizens”
(Bremmer, 1997, p. 17).
Using two pieces of available evidence, a minimum figure for the age of humor
can be proposed. First, humorous conversation has been observed by the pioneering
anthropologists in first contact with Australian aboriginals (Chewings, 1936; Schulze,
1891). Second, it appears that Australian aboriginals have been essentially genetically
isolated for at least 35,000 years (O’Connell and Allen, 1998). If genetic factors dictate
the fundamental ability to perceive or produce humor (and barring convergent evolution),
then 35,000 years may reflect a minimum age for humor in Homo sapiens .
There are several reasons to suppose humor and laughter could be evolutionarily
adaptive. As previously mentioned, the complexity of humor implicates an established
genetic substrate that in turn could suggest evolutionary adaptiveness. Given that even a
simple joke can utilize language skills, theory-of-mind, symbolism, abstract thinking, and
social perception, humor may arguably be humankind’s most complex cognitive attribute.
Despite its ostensible complexity, humor is also paradoxically reflexive – people
typically laugh without consciously appreciating all the causal factors. Other human
behavioral reflexes such as the corneal reflex or startle response clearly reflect behavioral
adaptations. In fact, laughter may perhaps represent an ethological fixed action pattern .
Supporting this notion are several accounts of runaway pathological laughter originating
in various neurological brain insults (Black, 1982; Dabby et al., 2004; McCullagh et al.,
1999; Okuda, Chyung, Chin and Waubant, 2005). One could perhaps frame humor in
reductionistic ethological terms: exposure to a humorous stimulus induces laughter – a
loud multi-second seizure-like signal – that generates a positive emotional state in
conspecifics and facilitates further social activity.
Something evolutionarily positive seems to be occurring around humor and
laughter – another reason to invite adaptationist thinking. Foremost, laughter is
pleasurable and, consequently, a reinforceable behavior. Perhaps, the most overarching
use of humorous communication is to help navigate contentious social situations. In
addition, humor is widely utilized during courtship (Weisfeld, 1993). Outside the social
domain, humor may have modest physiological benefits such as boosting immunity
(Bennet, Zeller, Rosenburg, and McCann, 2003, Martin, 2001).
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 4. 2006.
-348-
The First Joke: Exploring the Evolutionary Origins of Humor
It has been forwarded that there are certain evolutionary costs to humor and
laughter - disadvantages that prompt the expectation of countervailing evolutionary
advantages. Appreciable physiological energy is spent during vigorous laughter
(McGhee, 1983). Almost every culture spends appreciable time communicating in a
humorous context. Laughter is noisy and could even attract the attention of predators
(Weisfeld, 1993).
If humor and laughter are, in fact, evolutionarily advantageous, a myriad of
questions must accordingly follow. How does humor specifically enhance fitness? Which
vehicle of selection (individual, kin, or group) most benefits? Invoking the principle of
gradualism, how would early or intermediate forms of humor be configured? Which
cognitive attributes had to be in place before humor evolved (i.e. language, theory-of-
mind)? Have any contemporary cognitive functions been exapted from the neural
mechanics of humor?
This article cannot definitively answer all these questions. However, we do intend
to methodically explore important areas that could reveal further clues to humor’s
enigmatic evolutionary history. The first section will review contemporary humor
theories including previous evolutionary ideas on humor. The second section will explore
a number of topics which could be related to the evolution of humor – 1) animal models,
2) genetics, 3) children’s humor, 4) humor in pathological conditions, 5) neurobiology, 6)
humor in traditional societies, and 7) cognitive archeology. In addition, the reader is
directed to two other reviews, emphasizing different aspects of humor and laughter’s
evolutionary history (Vaid, 1999; Weisfeld, 1993).
Humor Theories
Because of the multilayered nature of humor, no single humor theory has been
completely satisfactory and thus clinched universal acceptance. Plato perhaps expounded
the earliest recorded speculations on the subject, although according to Provine (2000,
pp. 12-13), he appears to have discussed the effects of laughter rather than humor per se.
Aristotle commented on the social effects of laughter (Provine, 2000, pp. 13-14) although
evidence exists that one of his lost manuscripts may have “concentrated on humor”
(Bremmer and Roodenburg, 1997, p. 4).
Similar to the familiar story about the blind men, each figuring their own unique
representation of an elephant, every humor theory seems to reflect a partial truth. Three
essential themes, however, are repeatedly observed in the majority of humor theories: 1)
humor reflects a set of incongruous conceptualizations, 2) humor involves repressed
sexual or aggressive feelings, and 3) humor elevates social status by demonstrating
superiority or saving face. These ideas reflect separate cognitive domains and therefore
are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Incongruency theories, for example, emphasize
the underlying cognitive structure of humor, while the latter two ideas relate putative
social purposes to humor. Evolutionary humor theories have emphasized the possible
adaptive characteristics of humor and laughter.
1) Incongruity Theories of Humor
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 4. 2006.
-349-
The First Joke: Exploring the Evolutionary Origins of Humor
Notions that humor involves incongruity can be seen in the writings of Immanuel
Kant (LaFollette and Shanks, 1993), Norman Maier (Vaid, 1999), Arthur Schopenhaur
(Provine, 2000) and Arthur Koestler (1964). Suls was perhaps the first to formalize the
incongruity model of humor by unequivocally demarcating the congruous and
incongruous components of humor in his two-stage model (Suls, 1972) According to
Suls, solving an incongruity by applying an alternative formulation to the discrepancy
forms the basis of humor.
Building on Raskin’s (1985) linguistic-semantic theory of verbal humor, T. C.
Veatch (1998) has perhaps formulated the most precise and encompassing humor theory.
Veatch utilizes the established idea that humor contains two incongruous elements;
however in Veatch’s formulation, one element is socially normal while the other
constitutes a violation of the “subjective moral order.” Veatch defines this moral order as
the “rich cognitive and emotional system of opinions about the proper order of the social
and natural world” (p. 168). Using one of the series of “Mommy, Mommy” jokes as an
example:
Mommy, Mommy! What is a delinquent child?
Shut up and pass me the crowbar.
The inferred setting is a young child asking his mother an innocent question about
a topic the child presumably knows nothing about. The social violation is embedded in
mother’s incongruous reply – mothers are supposed to disapprove rather than encourage
egregious antisocial behavior. The congruency is that it is also natural, to a small extent,
to teach your children some non-altruistic strategies in order to more effectively compete
with others. Humor is complex and dependent on a myriad of subjective associations.
Consequently, its specific makeup is open to subjective interpretation. In this joke, there
is arguably a secondary layer of incongruency and an associated resolution. Despite
asking, “What is a delinquent child?” it becomes clear that an act of delinquency is
precisely what the child is doing. People are supposed to know the essential features of
their character and when they don’t – that is incongruous. However, children can be
exempt from this stringent expectation due to their immaturity and this detail could be the
associated resolving element.
There are other factors to consider when determining the funniness of any
situation such as how surprised one is by a punch line or the mood of the respective
participants. Laughter facilitates laughter in others (Chapman, 1976) and therefore could
conceivably cue and enhance humor perception. Also, it has been hypothesized that an
optimum state of arousal exists to enjoy humor (Apter and Smith, 1997; Rothbart, 1977).
Notwithstanding the lack of clarity around the construct of psychological arousal,
entrenched boredom or extreme fear seem to limit laughter.
2) Humor and Laughter originating in repressed expression of sexual or
aggressive feelings
The aggressive quality of jokes has been cleverly captured in Mel Brook’s
amusing characterization of humor, “Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when
you fall into an open manhole and die.” Freud (1905/1963) viewed humor as a release of
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 4. 2006.
-350-
The First Joke: Exploring the Evolutionary Origins of Humor
excessive sexual or aggressive tension. Framed within his views of the unconscious mind,
humor and laughter release the psychic tension related to inhibiting unconscious sexual or
aggressive impulses. Expressing laughter is considered anxiety-reducing, pleasurable and
healthy. Subsequent researchers have studied various aspects of humor within this
framework (Ziv and Gadish, 1990). Although numerous jokes do, in fact, have a hostile
edge, many others seem to lack prominent aggressive themes (although it is
acknowledged that depending on social context, covert or low level aggression could
conceivably be interpreted in any humorous comment).
3) The use of Humor to demonstrate superiority and elevate social status
Several humor thinkers have emphasized how humor is often utilized to
demonstrate superiority or elevate social status. Weisfeld (1993) provides several
examples such as the Greenland Inuit who “traditionally resolved disputes by engaging in
public contests of ridiculing each other” (p. 154). Thomas Hobbes (1651/1981) in
Leviathan was the first to clearly articulate this idea, characterizing laughter as an
extension of “sudden glory.” Critics point out that most jokes do little to boost feelings of
superiority.
4) Evolutionary Theories of Humor
In Expressions of the Emotions in Man and Animals , Darwin (1872/1920, p. 196)
conjectured, “Laughter seems primarily to be the expression of mere joy or happiness.”
By comparing the behavioral aspects of laughter in “savages,” “imbeciles,” and apes,
Darwin thus implied some evolutionary advantage. He did not address the concept of
humor.
Alexander (1986) was one of the first to methodically analyze humor and laughter
within an evolutionary context. Advancing an idea clearly rooted in Hobbes’ superiority
theory, Alexander figured humor led to greater reproductive success by enhancing one’s
social standing through ostracizing others. Ostracism steers “conflicts and confluences of
interest” ultimately altering access to resources. Humor is considered one method of
social ostracism. Thus, according to Alexander, the major benefits of telling jokes are
varied and include 1) raising one’s own status, 2) lowering the status of certain
individuals and 3) raising the status of designated listeners and thereby enhancing
camaraderie or social unity.
Weisfeld (1993) proposed a general humor theory suggesting humor provides
valuable social information to others while laughter provokes pleasurable feelings that
positively reinforce the humorist. In return, the humorist gets forthcoming reciprocation
by putting an ally in a favorable disposition. It is an interesting hypothesis although
difficult to critique given that the mechanics of mammalian cooperation are exceedingly
complex and yet unsolved (Wilson, 1975/2000).
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
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 4. 2006.
-351-

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika:

Zgłoś jeśli naruszono regulamin