
Five-month-old babies know what’s funny - pepys
https://aeon.co/ideas/five-month-old-babies-know-whats-funny
======
droopybuns
Maybe the evolutionary basis for laughter is that the pleasure of unexpected
outcomes helps us cope with being wrong.

Laughter would be the body's mechanism for successfully managing an
input/output exception.

Jokes make us laugh because the punchline unexpectedly departs from the
expected outcome of the narrative. Our brains try to anticipate what will
happen and respond, but when the brain has been tricked, it has to reconcile
what happened. We're rewarded not with a core dump, but a feeling of pleasure.

If it wasn't pleasurable to be surprised, we'd have an existential crisis: Our
brain failed to anticipate the correct outcome. Now we have to figure out if
our senses are wrong or if there is a new phenomena to understand. The natural
reaction would probably be fear and flight.

That isn't the kind of behavior that moves the species forward- risk taking
and information gathering only endure if you are able to manage ambiguity.
Successful humans found pleasure in the unexpected. Laughter seems to be a
core component of our survival skill. Laughter also seems to be a common
symptom of schizophrenia. Maybe laughter is just the result of the brain's
garbage collector firing.

~~~
nopinsight
This sounds plausible enough. We tend not to laugh at things we expect to
happen.

Does this mean more intelligent people are less likely to laugh, esp on simple
jokes, as they can anticipate them? It takes more complex ideas/stories for
them to enjoy the surprise. Sometimes their jokes are also too complex for
others. This may partially cause a chasm between people with a wide gap in
cognitive skills/ability.

~~~
basseq
You're arguing the incongruous juxtaposition theory of humor, one of the three
primary theories of humor.

Intelligence wouldn't reduce the pleasure of simple jokes because it wouldn't
help you anticipate the unexpected—the whole point being that the punchline
_doesn 't_ logically follow.

Certainly there are some jokes that require more niche knowledge:

    
    
      If the Silver Surfer and Iron Man team up, they’d be alloys.
    

You have to know what an alloy is to laugh at that one.

~~~
csydas
> You have to know what an alloy is to laugh at that one.

I disagree. These types of jokes also tend to fall prey to interpretation by
association, that is, the audience may just recognize that it's supposed to be
funny and it's funny for scientific reasons, but they don't fully know what an
alloy is or couldn't explain it. It's less about the actual knowledge of the
joke and more that they to some degree have had the premise explained and find
it funny due to "insider knowledge".

A lot of more common science jokes tend to be like this - the joke isn't that
the setup or punchline are particularly good, it's the exclusivity that adds
to the value of the understanding. It's not that you get the joke that is
funny to many people, it's that others don't get the joke that adds value.

------
matt_wulfeck
I'm a new father and experiencing my son laugh for the first time has been one
of the most remarkable experiences I've ever had. Nothing I know of compares
to the feeling I get. It's like a gush of joy and happiness.

Here's an evolutional theory for the author: there's an unavoidable feeling of
regret that comes with introducing children into your life. There's late
crying, the destruction of personal time, there's moments of unstoppable
crying... but it all just sort of melts away the minute he looks at our silly
faces and cracks a grin. In that second all is forgiven and there's no regret.

~~~
a3n
> I'm a new father and experiencing my son laugh for the first time has been
> one of the most remarkable experiences I've ever had. Nothing I know of
> compares to the feeling I get. It's like a gush of joy and happiness.

My son's in college now, and I still haven't forgotten when he was not yet
walking, less than a year old, and we sat on the couch cracking each other up
every time I said the word "chicken." Who knows why it was funny? It was
hilarious to us.

Another time he was also not yet walking, and new to crawling (and I was new
to his crawling). I set him down on the floor, left the room, came back and he
wasn't there. Minor panic until I found him behind the couch. Then he cracked
up. He played a joke on me.

~~~
jerf
'My son's in college now, and I still haven't forgotten when he was not yet
walking, less than a year old, and we sat on the couch cracking each other up
every time I said the word "chicken." Who knows why it was funny?'

If you'd like, you can try bonding once again over the collegiate-level
telling of that joke:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL_-1d9OSdk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL_-1d9OSdk)

~~~
jrowley
Wow this is really fantastic. It really could make a great primer for how a
technical/research presentation should flow. I love at the end how he has a
prepared slide to answer the question. Good stuff

------
kogus
We have a 5.5 month old baby at home, and two older children as well. It's
really fun to watch the 'humor' aspect of their personality emerge. With
babies it's usually a big grin or a laugh at what I call a "friendly
surprise". A fun example on youtube
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjXi6X-moxE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjXi6X-moxE)).
This core of humor seems to persist all the way to adulthood, where it may
take the form of laughing at a surprising play on words, or slapstick comedy.

The nature of "what makes something funny" is one of those questions that is
actually really hard to answer when you get into it.

~~~
hacker_9
> The nature of "what makes something funny" is one of those questions that is
> actually really hard to answer when you get into it.

All humour can be explained by an incorrect connection in the brain being
corrected. For example, a play on words has one meaning that you make the
connection with by default, but then you see the meaning they was actually
intended and this correction induces laughter. In a slapstick comedy, actors
may hit each other violently, so you expect a violent reaction, but then
little physical damage is actually done, and this correction makes you laugh
again.

Summing up, humour is when the brain gets something wrong, corrects itself,
then produces a physical reaction to tell others 'I was wrong'. Showing
weakness like this is likely a development of the 'social brain'. The feel
good factor is also likely a reward for bonding with the group.

~~~
falsedan
You're describing the catastrophe model of humour, where the sudden switch or
reversal of understanding a situation overcomes the fear/anxiety and the
relief from the resolution generated emotional energy.

------
skybrian
There's a theory I read somewhere that laughter evolved as an "all clear"
signal to the group - something has to appear weird or possibly even
threatening, but then you see it's okay.

~~~
gukov
A laughing track makes any TV show, no matter how bad or unfunny, funny.

~~~
voidz
Not to me, not to a whole lot of people I know. I think it's due to being
aware that it's fake laughter. Who needs that unless things aren't really
funny?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Laughter is social. Sitting alone hearing jokes people are less inclined to
laugh than they are if others are laughing. There's a feedback loop too. A
laughter track is used to give people permission to laugh out loud. People who
don't like them, I hypothesise, are those that don't like emotional music in
films 'telling me what to feel'.

~~~
voidz
Judgment much? Utter nonsense. I love music. I don't love fake laughter.

------
khedoros1
The interesting thing with my son was that he caught on to the tone of voice
that I use for dry, adult humor very early on. I'd say some risque double
entendre in a matter-of-fact kind of way, his mother covers up her mouth (out
of his view), and the 6 month old cracks up.

~~~
gukov
I'd say males, in general, have an easier time not taking things like dry
humor literally.

~~~
khedoros1
That may be so. I tend to take things more literally than my wife. She's a
master of tricking me with deadpan delivery. My son's almost two now, and
still not putting together intelligible sentences. I hope he's been reacting
to subtler indications of dirty jokes than the actual meanings of the words in
the last year and a half. Otherwise I'm sure I'll get some interesting calls
from his school in a couple years.

------
1024core
When our daughter was born, I used to try to catch her attention by going
"woof! woof!". Even at the age of about 2 months, she found it funny.

~~~
forinti
I had tons of fun imitating animals to my kids when they were babies. Each had
their favorite. The eldest liked donkeys, the youngest liked horses. I would
do this while I changed their diapers. Their laughter was sublime.

------
coldtea
> _Five-month-old babies know what’s funny_

So at which point do people lose that knowledge again, and start watching Adam
Sandler movies?

------
woodandsteel
I think part of why studies like this are important is their relevance to
political philosophies, like democratic liberalism versus fascism versus
communism versus islamism.

A large part of why these philosophies differ is they have different views of
human nature, starting with infant psychology. They were free to have
different views because these matters are hard to get good information about.

But in recent decades there has been a whole lot of excellent research, and we
now know a great deal more about infant and child psychology. From what I
understand, what the scientists have found fits most closely with the
psychological assumptions of democratic liberalism, at least a version of it.

~~~
wufufufu
Could you elaborate on what the different infant psychological models for each
of those philosophies (fascism, communism, islam - and other religions)?

~~~
woodandsteel
It's complicated, but here are some overall ideas.

Islamism has a view of human nature as basically evil and sinful, and believes
that people can be moral only if guided by religion. The same goes for other
fundamentalist religious views.

Fascism has a basically tribalistic view of human nature. We are good if we
belong to the right racial tribe, bad if we belong to any other one. People
are incapable of guiding their lives unless lead by a powerful leader, and
they love warfare.

Marxism has an idealistic view of human nature as naturally peaceful and
cooperative. However, authoritarian communism as actually practiced in the
Soviet Union or Mao's China implicitly assumes human beings are naturally
irrational and selfish, and need a powerful regime to force them to be good
citizens.

Liberalism has a more mixed view of human nature. Humans are seen as having a
variety of motivations, some self-oriented, others more concerned with the
well-being of others. They are capable of being rational or irrational,
depending on the circumstances, and ditto whether they behave in a cooperative
or win-lose manner. Human nature is designed for life in small foraging bands,
as described by the evolutionary psychologist.

Let me add, liberalism explains human nature as the product of natural forces,
as described by various sciences. The other philosophies at least implicitly
assume it was created by supernatural forces.

