4 ms·

I haven't seen theories of "philosophical anthropology" independently verified by MRI very often, so it's very interesting to see this -- confirming that all hu

I haven't seen theories of "philosophical anthropology" independently verified by MRI very often, so it's very interesting to see this -- confirming that all human beings experience humor and find it in incongruity, and thus, among other things, that we learn where a civilization finds a lot of incongruities by looking at the subject matter of its jokes. (It's also refreshing to see something like this with science, not culturally insular pop psychology, behind it.) So, I'd predict that a civilization with more, stronger stresses should have simpler forms of humor, and one with an easier mental life should range further afield in its search for laughs. This looks like it's confirmed in the contrast between, say, Monty Python and Seinfeld on the one hand, and Restoration English, classical Greek, and Golden Age Spanish comedy on the other; does anyone know enough about East Asian or, say, Aztec (properly Mexica) humor to be able to say whether the pattern holds there, too? This also suggests that LOLcats reveal intensifying pressures in American social life. Of course, such pressures do exist, so the question is whether we can plausibly suspect causation...

jerf 17y ago
It would seem to me plausible that while your metric may hold when considering society as a whole, zooming in on a subset, especially a self-selected subset, will invalidate your thesis. Every society will have people who love simple humor, if for no other reason than there is a chunk of people who are below-average intelligence. I'm not saying below average intelligence -> liking LOLcats, nor liking LOLcats -> below average intelligence; I like them too. It's just that you can not enjoy humor you can not comprehend, which leaves them with the simpler stuff. It's a selection effect, one I would think would dominate the thesis.
- dkimball 17y ago
  You have a very good point about the dangers of zooming in, especially on self-selected subsets; but I didn't mean that LOLcat fans are less intelligent. I think that simpler forms of humor indicate, not lower intelligence in those enjoying them, but tensions and stresses that are nearer to the surface of their lives. (Did I mention that "All Your Base" still cracks me up?) By my theory, Monty Python's "wide accountant sea" is the product of a civilization that is largely content with its lot in the world; but if a civilization finds it adequately entertaining to observe that I are serious cat and this are serious thread, then there are problems somewhere near the surface of that civilization, and the civilization is aware of them. As an example: at least as far as I know, East Asian (Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) humor is much simpler than American and English; East Asians are more intelligent than Americans and Englishmen on average (at least as measured by IQ testing), but they have social stresses that are _much_ nearer to the surface. I also doubt that low intelligence limits comprehension of refined humor. G.K. Chesterton thought that the English peasantry, who were at the least uneducated, were better at telling and at understanding jokes than their social betters; my own -- admittedly just anecdotal -- experience also seems to suggest no correlation between intelligence and sophistication of humor, but a high correlation between low social class and low education on the one hand, and good comedic style on the other.
  - jerf 17y ago
    I think intelligence affects your understanding and enjoyment of humor, but intelligence is not particularly strongly correlated with social class or standing; there are smart garbage men and people I would say are actively stupid running around with PhDs in various things. It is certainly correlated, but less strongly than our instincts-to-hierarchy would have us believe. (I would also observe the relevant definition of "sophistication" here would have to be something about joke complexity or the subtly of the incongruous connection being made, rather than the explicit subject matter. Someone who never heard of Proust would never generate one of my favorite unfamous Python sketches, the "Summarize Proust" competition sketch, but they can still be subtly humorous in their own way. Or humuorous, as the case may be.)

jerf 17y ago

It would seem to me plausible that while your metric may hold when considering society as a whole, zooming in on a subset, especially a self-selected subset, will invalidate your thesis. Every society will have people who love simple humor, if for no other reason than there is a chunk of people who are below-average intelligence. I'm not saying below average intelligence -> liking LOLcats, nor liking LOLcats -> below average intelligence; I like them too. It's just that you can not enjoy humor you can not comprehend, which leaves them with the simpler stuff. It's a selection effect, one I would think would dominate the thesis.

dkimball 17y ago
You have a very good point about the dangers of zooming in, especially on self-selected subsets; but I didn't mean that LOLcat fans are less intelligent. I think that simpler forms of humor indicate, not lower intelligence in those enjoying them, but tensions and stresses that are nearer to the surface of their lives. (Did I mention that "All Your Base" still cracks me up?) By my theory, Monty Python's "wide accountant sea" is the product of a civilization that is largely content with its lot in the world; but if a civilization finds it adequately entertaining to observe that I are serious cat and this are serious thread, then there are problems somewhere near the surface of that civilization, and the civilization is aware of them. As an example: at least as far as I know, East Asian (Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) humor is much simpler than American and English; East Asians are more intelligent than Americans and Englishmen on average (at least as measured by IQ testing), but they have social stresses that are _much_ nearer to the surface. I also doubt that low intelligence limits comprehension of refined humor. G.K. Chesterton thought that the English peasantry, who were at the least uneducated, were better at telling and at understanding jokes than their social betters; my own -- admittedly just anecdotal -- experience also seems to suggest no correlation between intelligence and sophistication of humor, but a high correlation between low social class and low education on the one hand, and good comedic style on the other.
- jerf 17y ago
  I think intelligence affects your understanding and enjoyment of humor, but intelligence is not particularly strongly correlated with social class or standing; there are smart garbage men and people I would say are actively stupid running around with PhDs in various things. It is certainly correlated, but less strongly than our instincts-to-hierarchy would have us believe. (I would also observe the relevant definition of "sophistication" here would have to be something about joke complexity or the subtly of the incongruous connection being made, rather than the explicit subject matter. Someone who never heard of Proust would never generate one of my favorite unfamous Python sketches, the "Summarize Proust" competition sketch, but they can still be subtly humorous in their own way. Or humuorous, as the case may be.)