Why do we find things funny

For example, my own line of research deals with humor in interracial interactions and how it can be used to facilitate these commonly tense situations. Many comedians have tackled this topic as well, focusing on how language is used in interracial settings and using it as an example of how relief can be funny. Interestingly, this theory has served as the rationale behind many studies documenting the psychological and physiological benefits of laughter.

In both cases, the relief of tension physiological tension, in the case of laughing can lead to positive health outcomes overall, including decreased stress, anxiety and even physical pain. In the case of our moose video: Once the moose charges, the tension builds as the man and the animal face off for an extended period of time.

The tension is released when the moose gives up his ground, lowers his ears and eventually scurries away. The video would probably be far less humorous if the tension had been resolved with violence — for instance, the moose trampling the man, or alternatively ending up with a stick in its eye.

The incongruity theory of humor suggests that we find fundamentally incompatible concepts or unexpected resolutions funny. Basically, we find humor in the incongruity between our expectations and reality. Resolving incongruity can contribute to the perception of humor as well. When identifying what makes a humorous situation funny, this theory can be applied broadly; it can account for the laughs found in many different juxtaposed concepts.

Take the following one-liners as examples:. My friend gave it to me as he was dying. It seemed very important to him that I have it. Wilson and Gervais applied the concept of group selection to two different types of human laughter. Spontaneous, emotional, impulsive and involuntary laughter is a genuine expression of amusement and joy and is a reaction to playing and joking around; it shows up in the smiles of a child or during roughhousing or tickling.

This display of amusement is called Duchenne laughter, after scholar Guillaume-Benjamin-Amand Duchenne de Boulogne, who first described it in the midth century. Conversely, non-Duchenne laughter is a studied and not very emotional imitation of spontaneous laughter.

People employ it as a voluntary social strategy—for example, when their smiles and laughter punctuate ordinary conversations, even when those chats are not particularly funny. Facial expressions and the neural pathways that control them differ between the two kinds of laughter, the authors say. Duchenne laughter arises in the brain stem and the limbic system responsible for emotions , whereas non-Duchenne laughter is controlled by the voluntary premotor areas thought to participate in planning movements of the frontal cortex.

The neural mechanisms are so distinct that just one pathway or the other is affected in some forms of facial paralysis. According to Wilson and Gervais, the two forms of laughter, and the neural mechanisms behind them, evolved at different times. Spontaneous laughter has its roots in the games of early primates and in fact has features in common with animal vocalizations. Controlled laughter may have evolved later, with the development of casual conversation, denigration and derision in social interactions.

Ultimately, the authors suggest, primate laughter was gradually co-opted and elaborated through human biological and cultural evolution in several stages.

Between four and two million years ago Duchenne laughter became a medium of emotional contagion, a social glue, in long-extinct human ancestors; it promoted interactions among members of a group in periods of safety and satiation. Laughter by group members in response to what Wilson and Gervais call protohumor—nonserious violations of social norms—was a reliable indicator of such relaxed, safe times and paved the way to playful emotions.

When later ancestors acquired more sophisticated cognitive and social skills, Duchenne laughter and protohumor became the basis for humor in all its most complex facets and for new functions. Now non-Duchenne laughter, along with its dark side, appeared: strategic, calculated, and even derisory and aggressive. The book grew out of ideas proposed by Hurley.

Hurley was interested, he wrote on his website, in a contradiction. The idea is that humor evolved from this constant process of confirmation: people derive amusement from finding discrepancies between expectations and reality when the discrepancies are harmless, and this pleasure keeps us looking for such discrepancies. It is a sign that elevates our social status and allows us to attract reproductive partners.

In other words, a joke is to the sense of humor what a cannoli loaded with fat and sugar is to the sense of taste. And because grasping the incongruities requires a store of knowledge and beliefs, shared laughter signals a commonality of worldviews, preferences and convictions, which reinforces social ties and the sense of belonging to the same group.

As Hurly told psychologist Jarrett in , the theory goes beyond predicting what makes people laugh. And yet, as Greengross noted in a review of Inside Jokes, even this theory is incomplete. Other questions remain. For instance, how can the sometimes opposite functions of humor, such as promoting social bonding and excluding others with derision, be reconciled?

One consistent finding in scientific studies is that laughter is universal and predates humans , while humor seems to appear alongside modern humans — wherever there is a record of modern humans, one finds jokes. Even the topics seem modern — such as fart jokes and sex gags.

These themes also confirm some of the scientific theories of jokes and humor. For example, humor often involves the realization of incongruity mismatch between a concept and a situation, violations of social taboos or expectations, the resolution of tension , or mocking and a sense of superiority here, over those stupid Aberdites!

But, even if jokes tend to be structured in a certain way, over time and place no one thing is guaranteed to make everyone laugh. Some of this is because time and distance rob the jokes of their cultural meaning. Similarly, a recent study of jokes told by medical doctors in France showed that these often relied on pretty broad sweeping or down right offensive stereotypes — for example, that surgeons are megalomaniac tyrants, that anesthetists are lazy, and that psychiatrists are mentally ill.

Within the workplace, especially in stressful jobs, humor is often used to encourage cohesion within a group in order to deal with stress in an acceptable way. But it also works to exclude outsiders, who can find such humor to be unpalatably dark. This last point is important —exclusion of others can help boost group cohesion.

The superiority theory comes into play when we laugh at jokes that focus on someone else's mistakes, stupidity or misfortune. We feel superior to this person, experience a certain detachment from the situation and so are able to laugh at it. The relief theory is the basis for a device movie-makers have used effectively for a long time. In action films or thrillers where tension is high, the director uses comic relief at just the right times.

He builds up the tension or suspense as much as possible and then breaks it down slightly with a side comment, enabling the viewer to relieve himself of pent-up emotion, just so the movie can build it up again! Similarly, an actual story or situation creates tension within us.

As we try to cope with two sets of emotions and thoughts, we need a release and laughter is the way of cleansing our system of the built-up tension and incongruity.

According to Dr. Lisa Rosenberg, humor, especially dark humor, can help workers cope with stressful situations. Why can't I tickle myself?