Humor is a proxy for intelligence, and a vehicle for sexual selection.

It's a cliche, the hot girl with the inexplicably ugly guy. Why is she with him? "He makes me laugh".

We are all the products of runaway sexual selection, which selected for intelligence, by means of humor. Humor is the origin of human intellect. This same process selected, secondarily, for taking pleasure in hurmor: after all, it was the females who enjoyed humor the most who selected the funniest guys. They bore both the funniest and smartest guys, and the smartest girls who loved their guys the funniest. These outcompeted their duller contemporaries, both due to the intelligence for which humor is a pretty reliable marker, and because of the growing population-wide preference for funny men, resulting from this same process.

Just my theory.

There is no evidence that humour correlates with humour. It does have some relation to creativity though, but how significant that is is probably still a matter of research and investigation.

Creativity would likely still be a good marker for sexual selection, but I would also imagine too much difference in creativity between mates could cancel this out?

The question of all questions is: Is life funny?

The existentialist Albert Camus thought life's basically a waste of (precious) time - Sisyphus rolls the rock up the hill, it rolls down, Sisyhus rolls it up again, it rolls back down once more; lather, rinse, repeat! The so-called Nietzschean eternal recurrence. Camus then advises that we should "imagine Sisyphus happy". What does that mean? Is Sisyphus sporting a Buddha-like half-smile of nirvana or is he :rofl: ?

There is no evidence that humour correlates with humour. It does have some relation to creativity though, but how significant that is is probably still a matter of research and investigation. — I like sushi

You speak with authority, I guess you have conducted a comprehensive review of the relevant research. But a cursory search does not support your findings. Just an example, which cites multiple papers:

https://www.lifehack.org/378304/there-any-link-between-humor-and-intelligence

Correlation is not causation would have been a better way of putting it. Creativity has a tenuous relation to intelligence. So, my concern would be that it is the creative element in better humour rather than some underlying ‘sense of humour’.

Plus if some people have a bad sense of humour they still find each other funny and mate just as much.

Not to mention that ‘emotional/social intelligence’ is not actually ‘intelligence’ (as in the ‘g’ factor).

Correlation is not causation would have been a better way of putting it — I like sushi

Correlation is all that is required here

So, my concern would be that it is the creative element in better humour rather than some underlying ‘sense of humour’. — I like sushi

Except, they have studied both. Humor is more correlated

Plus if some people have a bad sense of humour they still find each other funny and mate just as much. — I like sushi

Unattractive people also mate, so what

Not to mention that ‘emotional/social intelligence’ is not actually ‘intelligence’ (as in the ‘g’ factor).
5h — I like sushi

Humor correlates with spatial, verbal, and logical intelligences

Except, they have studied both. Humor is more correlated — hypericin

Fair enough. Show me.

Humor correlates with spatial, verbal, and logical intelligences — hypericin

Show me please. Thanks.

Intelligence correlates poorly with creativity, well with humor:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20157303?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contentswo

Here is one which both describes the link between humor and verbal/logical reasoning, and... completely supports my theory!!
https://www.psychologytoday.com/sites/default/files/attachments/95822/humor-predicts-mating-success.pdf

Cool! Look for studies against it now. I have never really looked into humour as a trait before tbh.

You might find this one interesting: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/humor-2021-0054/html?lang=en

I am curious about measurements of humour. That is where my skepticism lies mainly. I know that other traits have been studied for extended periods of time and so there is significant amounts of data AND that can only give a rough outline because psychology is quite a soft science.

The question of all questions is: Is life funny? — Agent Smith

Everything is funny to someone.

What do you mean by life?

Everything is funny to someone. — Tom Storm

I agree.

What do you mean by life? — Tom Storm

Everything.

Wow! Thanks for all your replies.

In my original post I tried to point it out how it all started. I touched on some aspects of humour, true, but the main thrust of the post was to show how it may have started. I mean, sea urchins don't laugh and tigers have no sense of humour at all.

I contest though, that humour is an intellectual faculty. I have seen really dumb people make really good jokes. And my girlfriend of the distant past, Ruth, pointed out to me that the difference between domesticated animals and wild animals is that the domesticated ones "have a sense of humour". If you think about it, it's true. You can tease a dog or a cat, but you can't tease a chimpanzee or whale, because they will tear you to pieces in the end. And both of these two species are smarter than either of the other two species.

Many respondents raised some really good points, I'll read them all (sorry, I can't promise a response to each) in the next few days.

Everything is funny to someone. — Tom Storm

There are moods, as well, that fluctuate within an individual. One day life may seem funny, the other day, vexing, the third, sad. "You can't step into the same life twice."

I am curious about measurements of humour. — I like sushi

One measurement is the recipient's admittance to the level of the humour in a joke.
One other measurement how loud, long, and tearfully one laughs. Some people die during a good laughing session: their asphygos clams on their dorsal step muscles, they can't breath from being paralized, and they die.
One measurement is cross-cultural: tell an English joke to a Papuan, in original Sanskrit, and see if it makes him react any way, other than saying "do you wanna come over for dinner tonight at my house?"
One must account as well for Borons. Borons are boring morons. They think a joke, any joke, at any time, is a frivolous piece of despicable garbage. Thus was the owner of the Plenty of Fish website equipped. He was a stupid fucking idiot who deleted some of my BEST one-liners.

Here is one which both describes the link between humor and verbal/logical reasoning, and... completely supports my theory!! — hypericin

You've gotta be right. I met my present girlfriend six or seven years ago at a garage sale. I made a joke, everyone laughed, she too. I asked her out for breakfast. She has never done anything like that ever, but she accepted.

The thing was that the joke was not even all that funny, but the timing was good.

I think a good joke-teller exudes self-confidence and laisses-fartire or however it's spelled. A healthy dose of "I don't care attitude" that signals a healthy ego, while at the same time not beating up on your wife, or children, which is also a sign of strength and ability. In cavemen days, there was no TV or Internet, so the only form of entellectual entertainment was story telling. A good one-liner went a long way. Oh, and there was no alcohol, either. So if you wanted to engage in the only other activity available that passed the time, you had better pay your dues with hilarious jokes. Or poetry, actually, too.

This same process selected, secondarily, for taking pleasure in hurmor: after all, it was the females who enjoyed humor the most who selected the funniest guys. They bore both the funniest and smartest guys, and the smartest girls who loved their guys the funniest. These outcompeted their duller contemporaries, both due to the intelligence for which humor is a pretty reliable marker, and because of the growing population-wide preference for funny men, resulting from this same process.

Just my theory. — hypericin

This does make sense, exept for one glitch. The same glitch that all theories presented about selection of the survival of the fittest to fuck.

The problem is that less funny guys dated less good looking girls, and Borons (boring morons) dated ugly girls. They all had children, who survived to adulthood.

There is no indication that a pretty woman with a funny husband will have more children than a less attractive woman will with a boring and dull husband.

The trickle-down effect. Each person will find a partner who is available for the amount of "sex dollars" they are willing to or are capable to pay. And I believe everyone has a sexual socio-economic class to find a mate to reproduce with.

How numerous are these studies? I know that for personality tests and IQ they are decent markers because lots of data has been collected over century or more. For ‘humour’ tests I have no idea about the sample size?

First, your theory is less implausible than limited, and unless I get the whole picture, I can't really judge your theory. — Dawnstorm

I like this very much.

------------

I'll start with laughter. You say, laughter is the natural response to humour - so what's the relationship between laughter and humour? If I'm not mistaken, babies start laughing at around 3 to 4 months. I'm sure they're not old enough to understand narrative jokes, which your theory seems to rely on. Laughter seems to be more basic, to me, than what you seem to be interested in. — Dawnstorm

Laughter is an expression of delight. It could be due to many things, one being enjoying a joke that hits your funny bone.

As for the final quesiton: I think people shouldn't laugh at someone else's expense. — Dawnstorm

I was the acquaintance of a university professor who specialized in jokes. He categorized the morality of jokes into three sections. I forgot what the first two sections were, but his thesis hinged on these three things. And the last one was that there are some jokes that are not made on anyone's expense, they are kind, gentle jokes. I wrote back to him (we were in email correspondence as well as meeting once a month at secular humanists' meeting in town) and asked him to send me two gentle jokes that exemplify the "no victim". He was unable to, I suspect, and he never talked to me again. It hurts when one's life-work is shot down with one question or request.

I can see your theory making sense under a more abstract mother theory: for example - humour involves the unexpected - unexpected stuff can be dangerous - relief when it isn't. — Dawnstorm

I agree with this. I think the laughter at the peril TRANSMOGRIFIED into other senses of humour. I believe humour was STARTED with relief from danger; and the skill or trait became transferable and applicable to some (but not all) other reliefs.

------------------

Dawn, I liked your response the best. You

1. dealt with my proposition and you did not use the post to promote your own theory
2. did not use quotes, jargon or theory already uttered or established by philosophers but used your own brain and explained from a reasonable point of view that has not been gleaned from years of study, but was gleaned (to me obviously) by thinking about the topic
3. stated your criticism not as judgment, but as a series of objections, well explained, and finally
4. put your opinions in a format that were easily answerable by their enticing response.

Thanks!!

How numerous are these studies? — I like sushi

Sorry, Sushi; my "measurement of humour" were ad-hoc ideas by myself. Humour is an art form as well as a form of pushing the limits of good taste; both have marks at different levels by each human being.

I don't think there is a metric to measure humour. My measurements were taken from American sit-coms, from high-school giggles in class, and from actually generating laugher in crowd. The measurements I offered were not scientific or objective, because humour is an art form, and the humour lies in the eye of the beholder.

whoever wrote that humour and IQ are correlated: how did they measure the humour level of a joke? Unless that is established, correlation can't be established. (Thanks, Sushi, for the insight.)

So, are fat people legitimate targets of humor? — Bitter Crank

in the Dilbert cartoon strip, the head of HR explains to the employees whom they can't discriminate against: "disability, religion, age, political views, education level, racial or ethnic origin, first language spoken, and sex or sexual orientation; gender."
Somebody pipes up in the audience: "So we can still discriminate against poor people?" The presenter looks at her list, and says, "Yep, they are not on the list. You can also discriminate against fat people, short people and ugly people. They are fair game for discrimination." Wally, a character in the strip, who is fat, ugly and short, says as he is walking out of the meeting with his buddy, "Well, that is a nice how-do-you-do."

How do you make a handkerchief dance?
Put a little boogie in it. — Hanover

I think the recipient of the joke's "hurt" is the audience himself or herself. The relief comes from not hurting that much actually. The audience feels that the joke and the joke teller outsmarted him or her... and the relief comes from the fact that it's not really antagonistic but rather friendly.

I don’t see how it makes any sense to suggest that physical exhaustion is a precursor to laughter. We do know that hyperventilation can induce certain states, and that physical exertion can create a certain high. In what you are saying there is a very tenuous link at best. — I like sushi

It was a precursor at the time when humour developed. Strenuous exercise before laughter is not a prerequisite any more. Although laughing audiences at comedy clubs will tell you that it is heavy physical and mental labour to listen to comedians who are not funny, and you feel compelled to laugh.

think the recipient of the joke's "hurt" is the audience himself or herself. The relief comes from not hurting that much actually. The audience feels that the joke and the joke teller outsmarted him or her... and the relief comes from the fact that it's not really antagonistic but rather friendly. — god must be atheist

Sounds like some projection perhaps on your part. Not everyone is braced for impact when the comedian comes on stage. I can think that might be the case with some comedians, but think of Barney telling jokes to kids. There would be no edge there

The problem is that less funny guys dated less good looking girls, and Borons (boring morons) dated ugly girls. They all had children, who survived to adulthood. — god must be atheist

Modern conditions are a mere blip, and irrelevant to our evolutionary history. This might be true today, where huge, concentrated populations, and monogamy, are the norms.

But we evolved as tiny, polygamous populations. There, fucking of the fittest reigns.

There are lots to be said for monogamous marriages in the evolutionary line. One thought is that it takes a long time to raise a human child; two are quite a handful, when resources are scanty; people coupled up to raise children.

Polygamous marriages gained popularity with the emergence of civilization, where there were enough resources to keep some people in the population idle.

But there is evidence that there had been both poly- and monogamous marriages in our pre-historic past (before agriculture). They measured the gonads of chimpanzees and of gorillas. Chimpanzees are promiscuous, gorillas are polygamous. Chimpanzees have much larger gonads in proportion to their bodies than gorillas. Humans? they are halfway between chimps and gorrs in this aspect. So human beings tend to have covered both lifestyles.

Barney's jokes were.... not violent? I don't know Barney(*). Looked in members' list but he must have got out in time.

I still maintain that puns hurt. You hear that all the time. Groaners, too. They are normally not violent, but they do cause pain with their forcing incongruency on the audience, because that is one thing humans don't abide by: self-contradiction, incongruency, atavism, coupling of ideas or things in impossible ways.

(*) I am only half-joking. I actually don't know who Barney is / was as a celebrity. I did not grow up in Canada. The entire childhood and babyhood culture is wasted on me, and references to it don't tell me anything... not your fault, it's just that that's how it is. I was 18 when I came to Canada, and had no language skills in English whatsoever.

actually don't know who Barney is / was as a celebrity. — god must be atheist