What's the Evolutionary Advantage of Humor?

I'm the same guy that asked about the evolutionary advantage of death (aging). But now, I'm serious! We carry around an appendix that has lost it's luster, as well as tonsils and wisdom teeth. So, what's the point of humor? Did it have any function in getting us through the migration from the African savannah and the lean years of the Ice Ages?I'm working on a hypothesis that the Neanderthals became extinct in part because they couldn't take a joke. Homo Sapiens Sapiens triumphed because, along with the development of speech, was the invention of the one liner. Desireable females were attracted to males with a sense of humor, leaving Neandethals struggling to develop professional wrestling as an alternative sex lure. They failed, although some of their genes may have made it into the modern human gene pool.But seriously, what does the evolutionary development of humor have to do with survival?(:raig

You're assuming it has to have an advantage.Why wouldn't it just be a by-product of higher intelligence?

If that were the case Dan, has humor been observed in any of the great apes; chimps, gorillas, orangutans, bonobos? Is there a Silver Back Rodney Dangerfield or a Don Rickles chimp?(:raig

I honestly don't know if humor has been observed in primates. But arguably our intelligence as a species is on a higher level.I still don't get the basic premise behind your topic though... why does it have to confer an advantage? If it showed up, either on its own or as a by-product of something else, and wasn't a disadvantage, why would it go away?

A very good question, and one that is definitely in need of further study. We've seen plenty of primates invent "games" ("keep-away" is a common one, because it can be improvised with almost anything). Play, by and large, is confined to mammals and birds - generally, the more intelligent and K-selected of them. Other primates can also be tickled, but cannot tickle themselves - just as us. They sometimes play games attempting to tickle each other, and breaking out in their versions of laughter. But, why is humor something largely for us only?

quote:

---

"There needs to be a connection in our hidden framework for a joke to be perceived as humorous. The first stage of joke processing is usually a mild surprise caused by an incongruity that slightly upsets our anticipation. The second stage consists of solving this incongruity by reinterpreting all of the information in a new context. The pleasure of a joke depends on the individual's ability to solve the incongruity, the joke being all the more funny or subtle as the level of complexity of the problem to be solved is greater. Not everyone gets the joke, no matter how intact their brains may be. Going to another country, or hearing a comedian from a different tradition, often leaves first-time listeners cold, since they don't have the same set of associations as the comic and the crowd. This complexity that comes from the network of possible meanings of words is the province of the right side of the human brain. A long line of research shows that this hemisphere selects words very differently than the left does. The right hemisphere has a ability to hold lots of different meanings of a word available for use while, by contrast, the left hemisphere quickly selects a single meaning. People with damaged right hemispheres, then, have difficulty with jokes because they cannot hold the different meanings of a word or phrase in mind for comparison." (Ornstein, R. (1997) The Right Mind. Harcourt Brace & Co: San Diego p. 108)

---

Also worthy of note is that autistic children often have extreme difficulty in distinguishing lies from jokes.In short, yes - humor does seem to be (largely) a human concept, and functions as a byproduct of being able to hold at the same time two incongruous trains of thought. Trying to reconcile them produces the sensation known as humor; the human brain likes to be challenged.But the jury is still out on whether we're alone in regards to humor. ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Well basically, Dan, that's what I'm trying to determine. If humor isn't biological, than is it cultural? Is it a funtion of higher social animals that has nothing to do with biology?The concept and activity of "play" has been observed in many species. River otters sliding down a mud ramp into a river, over and over. I also recall an article by a photographer for National Geographic who observed African elephants sliding down sand dunes on their butts near a water hole.So is humor necessary? Did it just come along for the ride as part of some other biological function, or was it invented to pass the time between meals?(:raig

One of the lines of reasoning I have heard is that humor is a means to mediate conflict in social interactions. Humans are a highly social species with a complex set of interactions. Processes that assist to reduce conflict and promote harmony among the members would be selected for.Now, that would be a thing that would get a basic concept of humor into the system. What might amplify humor would be things like sexual selection where those who are better able to ameliorate conflict would be more prized as mates than those that promote conflict.Whether or not that's what actually happened with regard to humor is unknown, but there is a means by which humor could be developed and expanded in an evolutionary sense.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Humor could have no direct benefits; it could be that just by making the company of others more enjoyable it promotes the social cohesion of the band of humans. (Or is that what Rrhain is saying?)[This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 11-08-2003]

Consistent with this idea is the fact that the VAST majority of laughing in social situations is in fact NOT tied to "humor" in the sense of "wit" or "jokes", but seems to be a spontaneous expression of feelings in a group situation. Also, laughing occurs far more readily in groups. "Humor" as we usually mean it seems like its built on a more fundamental social/emotional base.

Chiroptera responds to me:

quote:

---

Humor could have no direct benefits; it could be that just by making the company of others more enjoyable it promotes the social cohesion of the band of humans. (Or is that what Rrhain is saying?)

---

Well, yes and no.Promoting the social cohesion of the band is somewhat direct since it keeps the group alive. Now, humor won't put food in your mouth or make you faster than the bear, but it does reduce intra-group conflicts.This gets to a zero-sum game concept. That is, if there are enough resources for the entire group but not enough to completely satiate any individual, being able to produce a sense of camraderie such that the group decides to passel out the resources to benefit the entire group will directly benefit the individuals in the group...they will remain alive and capable of reproducing.So I would say that humor has both direct and indirect benefits.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!