Interesting question around now. Why is something able to make you laugh? I hear John Cleese has been doing research on this (no, really), and i was wondering myself.

I mean, I shot a new video "Randomness," (search if you want on youtube user: PartyHat) I decided to skip out entirely on the idea of a plot and set it up like channel surfing. Needless to say, it was hilarious for the most part, but one scene in particular (a cop chase on tricycles) was one of the better ones. Why?

give your opinion.

Welll.... another question you might need to consider is why do some people (i.e., not me) find the tricycle chase funny, and others (i.e. me) not find it funny?

that's the question. Why do people's senses of humor differ so?.

I mean, a large part of it goes into your background, upbringing, nature vs. nurture, influences on your learning, cultural preconceptions... the list is endless. Research on this seems to have unlimited directions.

Well, in primates the act of "laughing" (defined as bearing one's teeth and making a loud vocalization) is actually a sign of aggression and a warning to others. Oftentimes, we hear jokes that suggest some form of reality that is inconsistent with the way things should be, and as a response, we offer a warning to the person in the joke telling them that danger is near.

Or something like that.

The classical definition of humor is "misplaced tragedy".
This implies that something can be objectively "funny". (independent of your response to it)

quote:

Well, in primates the act of "laughing" (defined as bearing one's teeth and making a loud vocalization) is actually a sign of aggression and a warning to others. Oftentimes, we hear jokes that suggest some form of reality that is inconsistent with the way things should be, and as a response, we offer a warning to the person in the joke telling them that danger is near.

So, in humans, the pleasurable feeling one gets from laughing would be... evolution?

quote:

The classical definition of humor is "misplaced tragedy".
This implies that something can be objectively "funny". (independent of your response to it)

Note that this definition and your implication leave little room for "taste". In other words, what you're saying is, no matter how tasteless a joke might be, by definition it may still be a joke?

And though it might come off as such, there's really no sarcasm in either question... I'm just asking.

E.

quote:

Originally posted by E.D.M.:

quote:

Well, in primates the act of "laughing" (defined as bearing one's teeth and making a loud vocalization) is actually a sign of aggression and a warning to others. Oftentimes, we hear jokes that suggest some form of reality that is inconsistent with the way things should be, and as a response, we offer a warning to the person in the joke telling them that danger is near.

So, in humans, the pleasurable feeling one gets from laughing would be... evolution?

Both the adrenaline of aggression and the pleasure of laughter involve the release of endorphins into the bloodstream. The feelings are quite similar, really. The only reason we think they're different is that we associate anger with negative emotions and joy with positive emotions. But the actual chemical reaction that causes that "rush" is very similar.

oooh, someone's been taking psychology

Also, at different times of the day, different things are funny.

If it is 4 o'clock in the morning and the only reason you are awake is because you forced it, and someone says somthing stupid like "poop" its hilarious. but in the middle of the day, you look at the guy and wonder what is wrong with him. Unless of course your six years old.

Ha! I've actually never taken a psych course in my life. But I have spent some time around primates, which, amazingly, taught me a lot about instinctual behavior (even in humans). Pretty interesting stuff.

Really? Your description of the response system was 100% right on the money!

Much kudos to you my friend!