Another example of Structured reading:

https://hegelreadinggroup.wordpress.com/phenomenology-of-spirit-2014/

The Phenomenology of spirit (1807) is the first book Hegel published, and certainly one of his most famous and debated work.

This year we will read the Preface. Written by Hegel after the whole work was completed, the Preface represents one of the most beautiful and major text  in the history of philosophy. Here Hegel defines his philosphical method and polemically debates with the main previous figures (Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Fichte and Schelling beside others).

 
https://hegelreadinggroup.wordpress.com/calendar-2014/

The Phenomenology of Spirit, The Preface

Week 1     (21 October)                    §§ 1-3

Week 2     (3 November)                  §§ 4-10

Week 3     (17 November)                §§ 11-16

Week 4     (1 December)                  §§ 17-21

Week 5     (15 December)                §§ 22-29

Week 6     (12 January)                    §§ 30-39

Week 7     (26 January)                    §§ 40-51

Week 8     (9 February)                    §§ 52-62

Week 8     (12 February)                   §§ 63-72

As Tim said above:
'The goal here is both to understand and contribute to understanding - a team effort.'

So,Tim and team, any thoughts on separating paras along these lines ?
And time frame ? Too long ?

Following the current reading group:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6214/reading-group-preface-to-hegels-phenomenology-of-spirit-trans-walter-kaufman

I enjoyed this:

The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant’s existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. The ceaseless activity of their own inherent nature makes these stages moments of an organic unity, where they not merely do not contradict one another, but where one is as necessary as the other; and constitutes thereby the life of the whole.

Preface to the Phenomenology of Spirit (1807)


And so looked for others, here:

Hegel Quotes:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/quotes.htm

150 quotes from Hegel, linked to the context. — the only genuine source of Hegel quotes on the internet, where you can verify the quote and read it in its context.

I am going to start by using both Miller and Pinkard to see if there is much of a difference. — Fooloso4

Thanks for the links, Fooloso4. This morning, I downloaded both. Ater a quick look decided to go with Pinkard. It seems easier to read.
The Preface itself starts on p50 of the 539 page download.

Neat bud-flower-fruit metaphor. The numbering sequence escapes me. In Miller it is in paragraph 2. — Banno

Yes. That is a beautiful quote. Still trying to work out its meaning and better understand it in philosophical context. In Pinkard, it is found in the numbered paragraph 2. Will spend some time on this.

To understand any book or text requires first that it be read - and understood. That's the task of this thread, and that is the only task of this thread — tim wood

With luck, 50-odd pages, maybe the thing can be done in under 50 - 100 posts! — tim wood

I appreciate your aims here and taking on a difficult job. However, the reading group is just starting to assemble. Why the rush through ? It seems such a beautiful and worthwhile piece of writing to be savoured as a read.
Never thought I could be attracted to Hegel, but there ya' go.

Anyway, carry on as you decide. It will still be here, if and when, I catch up.
Best wishes.

Cooperative approaches to humour.
What would this look like ?

Is it about the Cooperative Principle? — Amity

Following this question...
It would seem that jokes are created by violating Grice's maxims. Who knew ?

This paper concentrates on one of the widely used means to evoke laughter, telling jokes. Analysing the jokes in relation with Grice’s maxims show that most of the jokes used in media such as sit-coms, movies, and books are formed by violating Grice’s Maxims...

...The cooperative principle of communication assumes that the participants in a speech act share a common goal (or the conversation moves towards a tacitly agreed direction) and so each participant puts on a mutual effort to communicate successfully to reach this goal. This principle was put forth by philosopher Paul Grice. He formulates this as “Make your contribution such as it is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged” (Grice, 1989, p. 45). He further distinguishes four sub-principles called maxims (Grice’s maxims), under cooperative principles, that explains the process through which communication implications are generated. On the one hand, if a conversation adopts to these maxims then they contribute to a cooperative exchange, but on the other hand, wilfully violating these maxims creates joke...

https://voidabyss.blogspot.com/2017/05/creating-jokes-by-violating-grices.html

Any thoughts on Grice and humour?

As a matter of interest, what have you experienced or read on the subject that gives rise to your issues ?
I haven't read much. However, you have piqued my curiosity.
I am going to leave this link here, in case it promotes a better understanding of the concerns :

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-problem/

'Seeing Things As They Are' by John R. Searle, OUP, 2015.
He has a theory of perception which might help answer some of your questions.
Or not. I don't know.

The central question concerns the relation between the subjective conscious perceptual field and the objective perceptual field. Everything in the objective field is either perceived or can be perceived. Nothing in the subjective field is perceived nor can be perceived precisely because the events in the subjective field consist of the perceivings , whether veridical or not, of the events in the objective field

Back to definitions:

The change from a harsh to a kinder sense of the word 'git'.
It doesn't have to be used in a derogatory way.
Just to be clear, when I said earlier that you lot were 'pure gets' it wasn't a typo, it was me being cuddly.
Honest guv :halo:

Git' is usually used as an insult, more severe than twit but less severe than a true profanity like wanker or arsehole, and may often be used affectionately between friends.

'Get' can also be used, with a subtle change of meaning. 'You cheeky get!' is slightly less harsh than 'You cheeky git!'.

https://www.yourdictionary.com/git

Cooperative approaches to humour.
What would this look like ?

Is it about the Cooperative Principle?

The cooperative principle is a principle of conversation that was proposed by Grice 1975, stating that participants expect that each will make a “conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange.”

The cooperative principle, along with the conversational maxims, partly accounts for conversational implicatures. Participants assume that a speaker is being cooperative, and thus they make conversational implicatures about what is said.

https://glossary.sil.org

Philosophy is incredibly funny. Silly. Ridiculous. One of the funniest things in the world. Absurd. But that’s ok. The problem is not that it’s funny, it’s if you don’t recognize it’s funny. Philosophy is play – play with words, play with ideas. If your philosophy is not playful, it’s bad philosophy. — T Clark

Ooooh. Tell that to the mods, I dare ya' :wink:

Humor is always spontaneous. — T Clark

Is it ? I don't think so. Think of a stand up comedy show. Think of how thought processes are involved relating individuals to society and cultural absurdities.To be funny might come naturally to some - they have a talent for quick knee jerk responses.
Others not so much.

Play is aggressive and competitive. Play is also gentle and submissive, but humor is not. — T Clark

I disagree. I think humour can be gentle.
Submissive or cooperative ?
I am trying to think of examples of approaches to humour which are cooperative. Morreall suggests this belongs more in the female sphere. Hmmm...is this a natural division ?

:cool: Creative juices in full flow !

I had been thinking about that list of Dr Morreall and our discussion about his 'harnessing'. Also what he thought we should avoid. Here's the relevant part:

• Not all humor is positive. We need to avoid divisive humor such as sarcasm and sexist humor.
• Women and men frequently have different approaches to humor. Men’s humor is often competitive, while women’s is usually cooperative. When we understand these and other differences, we can harness the power of humor to benefit everyone.  — Dr. Morreall

I think he is right in a sense. However, there is a nagging concern that this smacks of censorship.

Sarcasm - most of us have experienced. In my case, from a language teacher at High School.
I loved it. If I could have, I would have relished biting right back in similar spirit, with joy.
However, such was the teacher/student relationship, that would have come with negative consequences. The belt was still in use.
With sarcasm, there is a sharp wit involved which can delight but also cut to someone's core.
Some could be seen as, or feel like, targets or victims of bullying.There was no real way of knowing the effects on individuals, even as we smirked.

The power of humour lies in both the positive and the negative. Perhaps the avoidance of the divisive would limit our growth and understanding of our nature...

Nope, it was the Atlanta City Council that first used that bird. They thought it up themselves. — Hanover

Ah, so that's what they get paid for. Drawing birds. Was there another one in the running whose beak was too high, or something...

The trouble a lack of humour and understanding can get us into.

http://djflanagan.blogspot.com/2016/11/nietzsche-humour-and-great-war.html

Nietzsche, Humour and the Great War

I think the war was partly caused by a lack of humour in both the Germans and the British and an acute failure to understand some profound insights into the human condition. I think, for example, that one reason the war broke out was because the peoples of Europe failed to get the jokes of that much maligned and misunderstood philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche — Damian Flanagan

Now look whose being humourless :rage: — StreetlightX

You what ?
Because I am trying to pin down one tiny, little, specific example of Nietzschean humour ?
And I get me a rage emoticon too ?
Crikey, you really oughtta swap that scarlet fizzog with its downturned mouth and scowling eyes before the wind changes direction...
It really does not become you.
Try this instead :nerd:

The seal of the City of Atlanta actually includes the phoenix for that very reason. Maybe you knew that, or maybe you're just the smartest person in all the world. — Hanover

Great symbol of renewal that bird. The Greeks and the Romans probably got there first.

Oh wow. From its ashes...
Should have been renamed Phoenix...oh wait...

He's funny! He makes fun of everyone and everything, and does it with gusto. He wields sarcasm like a rapier, and it's just deliciously clever humor. — StreetlightX

Ah well, if that's it, then that don't impress me much.
Any half-witted, half-humorous, half-drunk forum participant can do that :roll:
So much for the How.

What is the point - or Who is at the point - of his sharp, sarcastic tongue, and Why ?
Where ?

I broke those few words into 55 deep south syllables and spoke with my distinctive drawl, taking a good 10 minutes to finally conclude. I wore my Colonel Sanders outfit, leaving the collar unbuttoned, just to maintain some enticing man sass. — Hanover

:scream: :monkey:

When I think of Atlanta, I am Gone with the Wind :fire:

Frankly my dear I don't give a damn :broken:

Tomorrow is another day :sparkle:

Ta. I have tried and tried at various points to understand Nietzsche. What specifically puts a smile on your face when reading him ?

Your reading list is bookmarked :smile:

A quick response:
1. It would be strange if there were only 2 philosophers who did not have diametrically opposite points of view, at any given time. That is the nature of the beast.
2. If one is happy and the other sad, then there can be a multitude of reasons or causes, including personal, socio-economic, politico-historical.
3. Being joyful or sad, being thoughtful or humourful can vary like the weather, a natural phenomenon.
4. How one views the world likewise. However, philosophy can help dispel or justify beliefs by encouraging careful thought processes in self-examination.
5. The choice is yours to make. However, there are some predispositions to depression or bipolar conditions which can affect how we see the world, no matter its state.
6. If there is no meaning in a claim or statement then there is nothing to discuss.
7. Some philosophers develop a fascination for a particular theme or story, time or theory.
It's all good. Perhaps your fascination with H & D could be further explored and analysed in a dedicated thread...

I must admit I'd never heard of a git until you mentioned it. — Hanover

That's what I love about this place - the deep cultural intercourse.

It must be a British insult, probably used with the word bloody — Hanover

It could be but like you get to choose from specialist sources such as wiktionary, urban dictionary - so many shun-aries. Spoiled for choice really.

My spell check changes it to got, which means it's not a real word as far as spell check is concerned. — Hanover

Funny the spell-whatever-thingie here changes it to But or bit, or Got depending on its bloody mood.
Ignorant total tosser of a thing.

I therefore rule it not a word. — Hanover

You know I find that sexy.
And sometimes it's not what you say but the way that you say it. Drawl git again, honey, just for me ?

Anticipating you'll object to my ruling on stupidity grounds — Hanover

Hah. Well you got that wrong. But there's nothing quite like anticipation, except perhaps participation.
Oh lookee, attention - more of them shun-words.

The House of Commons has previously ruled similarly when it ruled the word unparliamentary language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary_language . I find myself in good company. — Hanover

The House of Commons or UK Parliament is full of useless tossers and grumpy old gits who use arcane language such as Right Honorable Gentleman when it is apparent there is no such entity.
The Speaker who shouts 'Order! Order!' must have a strong sense of humour.
Words must not offend the dignity of the assembly.
However I believe that a hefty Scotsman got away with calling our probable next Prime Minister, a liar.
Cue bangings on table.

Might be just the job for you, if you like that kinda thing ?

Carry on. — Hanover

I knew it. Just when a girl says she is closing down, someone comes over all seductive.
Pure gets the lot of ya' :naughty:

Definitions
— Amity

I am reminded of Arthur Koestler's definition: "the systematic abuse of a terminology specially invented for that purpose." — Fooloso4

Definitions

The philosophical quest for definition can sometimes fruitfully be characterized as a search for an explanation of meaning. But the sense of ‘explanation of meaning’ here is very different from the sense in which a dictionary explains the meaning of a word. — Anil Gupta

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/definitions/

Kind of like when a newborn's diapers fail and they have to rely on their personal knowledge of hygiene. — Baden

:grin:
So funny and clever and so one of my favourite non-gittish, humourfool philosophers of all times.
Seriously :100:

...
It is not true that all philosophers are humourless gits. But some might be, even if they can tell a joke.

Definitions:
A philosopher: a person who philosophises.
To philosophise: what a philosopher does.
A git: an unpleasant, silly, incompetent, annoying, senile, elderly or childish person ( Wikipedia)
[ Edit 9th July to add:
'Git' is usually used as an insult, more severe than twit but less severe than a true profanity like wanker or arsehole, and may often be used affectionately between friends.
'Get' can also be used, with a subtle change of meaning. 'You cheeky get!' is slightly less harsh than 'You cheeky git!'.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/git ]

Humourless: unable to see when something is funny, usually because of being too serious ( some online dictionary )
Humour: isn't just about being funny.

If humour were a glass of beer, philosophers in pubs would be full of it. Or half empty. Or something.
Probably.

Closing down now with special mention to Dr. John Morreall, a non-git philosopher who can do humour with authority and fun and makes lots of money. And all the participants, human or non-human, who helped in the production of this most serious of projects. Who did it for the love of it :hearts: :love:
Cheers :party:

What is really lacking is any kind of opposition to Trump in the Republican party. — ssu

I don't intend to continue discussing Trump or politics. However, I think that this is an important point you make. What does it take for members to oppose leaders or presidents of their own party.
It takes moral courage and a willingness to be removed from the party and the power it currently enjoys.
There are a few who take a stance.

I begin to see encouraging signs in our own political system ( U.K. ) where all seems chaotic, confusing and self-serving with Brexit being the most divisive issue.
Other parties appear to be joining forces in a cooperative manner to oppose the extreme elements in the Conservative party ( I think roughly the equivalent to your Republican ? ).

Anyway, that's all I got. I am no expert. I watch and listen and vote as best I can.

invoking the heroism of an army that defeated the British in the 18th century in part because “it took over the airports”. Lol: behold, the ignoramus president.
— Amity
Reading of a teleprompter is so difficult. How could we assume the President of the United States to be able to clearly read out from a teleprompter a prepared speech. :razz: — ssu

Again. This quote thing. It is not mine. It is from the Freedland interview.
I actually have no idea of what Trump said in his speech. I didn't watch the show.

Anyway, where ever Trump stumbles on any issues or speeches doesn't matter. — ssu

It seems that Trump gets away with anything.
But it still needs to be called out.

I agree about the balance required by opponents. It is a pity there doesn't seem to be an effective political, legal or moral strategy to deflate this ever increasing hysteria and fanaticism, fuelled by hatred.

However, there are careful, intelligent and interested listeners out there who can be reasoned with. Hopefully.

I'm brain dead
— Amity

Let's hope that's an exaggeration. — Bitter Crank

Yes. And perhaps a bit of a humourless, non-facilitating, self-defeating joke.
Perhaps showing a subconscious fear of being that very thing.

Cranking up the brain cells now.

I suspect that many philosophers probably are humorless gits. This is probably associated with their low appreciation of being embodied beings--creatures of flesh and blood with all sorts of drives which which are "in charge" a good share [or all?] of the time. — Bitter Crank

Yes, many might be. I tend to think that humour, as a sense, is an ingrained part of being a human.
It just goes AWOL at certain times and for various reasons. Both reason and emotion, mental and physical factors involved.

So, we climb down from the title's generalisation to a more qualified, specific scenario of types of philosophers.
Which philosophers might have a 'low appreciation' of having physical drives and who might deny the influence of emotions ? Those steeped in an academic tradition of serious analytical reasoning with little time for frivolous concerns such as 'humour'?

Confidently embodied people understand that their rational facilities are subservient to their emotions--like it or not. (It's emotional drives that sends people to college to study philosophy which foolishly elevates rationality over emotionality.) — Bitter Crank

'Confidently' understanding. What stops their reasoning from working out their motivation stems from a basic movement i.e. fear or desire ?
Is it fear itself ?

[In another thread - about Mary Midgley - one of the questions of significance was to ask philosophers what were they most afraid of.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4326/death-of-mary-midgley ]

As to academic study of philosophy, I think that to 'elevate rationality over emotionality' is the essence. 'Emotionality' is not the subject matter. However, they will definitely discuss the old and ancient arguments of reason v emotion. It's important that the interaction of both is recognised.

To avoid misunderstanding... I'm in favor of people being rational. But we discount and ignore our emotional drives at our peril. — Bitter Crank

Glad you're in favour of people being rational. Too bad if you weren't !
Again, all kinds of rationality...including reasons to be cheerful 1, 2, 3.

Is humour an emotional drive ? Or simply an aesthetic sense. A brain management tool ?
Morreall sees it as a kind of emotional intelligence. Wonder how an IQ test would compare to an EQ ?
Apply both to Wittgenstein and stir.

People too wrapped up in their cogitations can't afford to laugh at their ridiculousness. — Bitter Crank

I guess this might mean academic philosophers who have spent their lives in pursuit of some truth via seriously deep study and research. Who might never lift their heads to smell the roses but can appreciate a beer or two. Perhaps a man huddle in a corner of a dingy pub in London. The only consolation in the select few of like attracting like.

Even if they can't distance themselves from their projects, they will still have their humour.
Like Monty Python and the Holy Grail. On a lonely trail.

So, in conclusion:...

I think I totally agree with you. But I'm brain dead :groan:

When we understand these and other differences, we can harness the power of humor to benefit everyone.
— Amity

Harnessed humor is not humor anymore. On TV they try to harness humor using laugh tracks. As someone else said on this thread, humor is play. You can't harness play either. You can stop it, but that's as far as you can go. — T Clark

I'll respond to your words at the end of this explanatory part.
Apologies: I missed out the quote marks in that part of the post, despite my best intentions. I hope not to take credit for the thoughts of Dr. Morreall. The 'harnessed' comment is at the end. Here it is in full, from

http://www.humorworks.com/index.php

Using real examples, lots of visual materials, and interactive exercises, John shows audiences how:

• Play is not the opposite of work. Companies like Southwest Airlines which have put play and humor into their corporate culture have soared to the top of their industries.
• Physically and mentally, humor is the opposite of stress.Laughter lowers blood pressure, increases blood circulation, reduces muscle tension and pain, and boosts the immune system.
• Humor fosters mental flexibility, blocking negative emotions and allowing us to think our way through problems instead of feeling our way through them. It makes us more creative and better at coping with change.
• When we have a sense of humor about ourselves, we see ourselves more objectively, "as other people do," to use the words of the old Candid Camera jingle. That makes us less defensive and more cooperative.
• Sharing humor is essential to building and maintaining teams. It's a kind of emotional intelligence.
• Humor serves as a social lubricant. It improves most kinds of communication, especially potentially threatening messages such as warning, evaluating, criticizing, and saying no. With humor we can complain without bitching.
• Because humor short-circuits conflict, it is useful in coping with difficult people.
• Not all humor is positive. We need to avoid divisive humor such as sarcasm and sexist humor.
• Women and men frequently have different approaches to humor. Men’s humor is often competitive, while women’s is usually cooperative. When we understand these and other differences, we can harness the power of humor to benefit everyone.  — Dr. Morreall

----
[ just worked out how to make a clear and distinct quote, much better !]

It is not humour that is harnessed. It is the power of it.
As can be seen, humour can be many things, including play.
Play if it involves power can indeed be harnessed. Like all energy or action.
Harness: to control and make use of [ natural resources ].

The Fourth of July military spectacle did not accomplish what he hoped it would, it did not bring him the kind of admiration he seeks to legitimize himself — Fooloso4

It provided him with powerful images to be used in the re-election campaign.
As did the UK Royals. Shame.

It is not enough that his followers adore him, the numbers are too low, — Fooloso4

But not too low so that he can't become president dictator at the next election.
With a little help from his friends.

So, what is being done to stop this eventuality ?

It is a confusion of your own making. Undo it yourself.
I know you can
— Amity

Ok. Thanks. :smile: — TheMadFool

So are you still confused about what you wrote ?
What specifically ?

By the way, there's another, longer version of the Descartes joke in the resources section of David Chalmers' site ( including Zombies on the Web )
http://consc.net/philosophical-humor/

On a more serious note, and a couple of steps up, there are links to recent Talks @ Google
For example, on 'The Meta-Problem of Consciousness', April 2019.

http://consc.net

I don't often venture into conversations about Trump.

However, I felt this article worth sharing, even if I disagree. I don't think that we fail to see what Trump is all about. He wants to be a dictator. The problem is what can be done about it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/05/donald-trump-dictator-not-enough-laugh

'Perhaps it’s the jokes and memes that Donald Trump generates in abundance, the gift that keeps on giving, that blinds us to a chilling fact that we’d rather not face. Put simply, the leader of the world’s most powerful nation is behaving like an authoritarian dictator, one who threatens democracy in his own country and far beyond.

Here’s the latest example of how the comedy can distract. On Thursday Donald Trump marked the Fourth of July by praising the US military, invoking the heroism of an army that defeated the British in the 18th century in part because “it took over the airports”. Lol: behold, the ignoramus president. Cue more chuckles as Trump delivered that speech during a downpour, the Almighty himself apparently deciding to rain on Trump’s parade.'

Humour gets in the way of seeing or telling it like it is. To our detriment.
Comedy distracts.

'Donald Trump wants to be a dictator. It’s not enough just to laugh at him'
by Jonathan Freedland
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/05/donald-trump-dictator-not-enough-laugh

'...the laughter gets in the way. So we snigger at Ivanka Trump ludicrously barging her way into a powwow of world leaders, making a meme of #uninvitedIvanka, rather than confronting head-on the reality that Trump is doing what dictators always do: he’s building a hereditary dynasty, so that his power won’t end with his death. Those images at the G20 looked absurd to us, but they will take their place in the showreel, so that, come the 2024 or 2028 elections, they can be used as proof of Ivanka’s supposed experience on the global stage.'

There's more in this excellent article with its sobering other image framing the 4th July.
The suicidal 4yr old, traumatised and caged, separated from parents in a detention camp, face covered in self-inflicted scratches.
Guess that won't be shown as part of Trump's family business.

Ok. Thanks. :smile: — TheMadFool

Sorry, madfool, that was very bad and cruel of me. :naughty: :worry:

What you wrote was interesting but I am off out now and not in the mood for philosophy games. Perhaps we can have more fun later ?
Untangling the tango.. :starstruck:

Au contraire! Philosphers can be kinda funny:

Rene Descartes goes up to the counter at Starbucks. “I’ll have a scone,” he says. “Would you like juice with that?” asks the barista. “I think not,” says Descartes, and he ceases to exist. — Relativist

There is no doubt. Philosophers can be kinda funny. Hilarious even.
The version of that joke I heard many years ago:

Rene Descartes walks into a bar and orders a drink. When he finishes his drink, the bartender asks him if he would like another. Descartes replies, “No, I think not,” and disappears in a puff of logic.

I found it funny then. Appreciated it because I had just learned about Descartes.
If, out of ignorance, I didn't get it, how humiliating would it have been ?
If someone has to explain a joke, it loses its fun...

Now, I'm confused. If you don't mind can you untangle this mess? — TheMadFool

It is a confusion of your own making. Undo it yourself.
I know you can :wink:

It is not that the irony or humor is hidden but that it is just not seen. — Fooloso4

Why is it not seen ?
It is not seen because it is hidden from view. Not seen due to a cloudy lens of ignorance. Or different perspective...

Perhaps not deliberately as a way to feel superior. But still isn't there a psychological pull to be a head above? The unveiling of meaning in philosophical tomes is a weighty and time-consuming business. Just look at the Wittgenstein threads. I think he would be amused. Probably has something to say on humour too...

It is about competition as you say. Not all play.

I think, as Dr. John Morreall suggests, there is often a gender difference in approaches to humour.
A tendency for men to be competitive, women co-operative.
Perhaps similar to approaches in discussion forums?
Just a thought. The difference between laughing at, and laughing with.