Baz

Introduction In this essay I hypothesize that the laughter elicited by the processing of what we characterize as humorous events is an exapted vocal fight-or-flight displacement response. The circumstances in which displacement activities and laughing occur, and their general physiological effects, are compared, and neurophysiological evidence connecting laughter to "fight or flight" responses is presented. The relationship between laughter and humor is examined and an argument put forward against the use of the word "humor" other than as a heading of a general study as it defies any clear definition that can be meaningfully applied outside its cultural usage. The nature of the basic conflicts that cause animals and humans to indulge in displacement activities is considered in the context of joke structure, content and emotive effects. The endorphin/ laughter controversy is discussed and a possible explanation of laughter's immunological effects is given. For the full essay go to: https://sites.google.com/site/basilhughhall/anewtheoryoflaughterandhumor

Galapagos, did you read my essay, re-entered below, because if you did you would have seen that Clarke makes the same mistakes as most writers on the topics of laughter and humor. Below is my reply posted to the original releasers of the news. Clarke said: "For some time now it's been assumed that a global theory of humour is impossible. This theory changes thousands of years of incorrect analyses and mini-theories that have applied to only a small proportion of instances of humour. It offers a vital answer as to why humour exists in every human society" A global theory is impossible, and remains impossible, because a scientifically acceptable definition of the word "humour" is impossible: as is a scientifically acceptable definition of the word "funny". There is a lack of logic in Clarke's statement that humour is fundamental to our success as a species : His argument as I see it. a) Pattern recognition is vital to our survival [it is, in fact, vital and present in virtually all animals] :) Humour can be viewed as a process utilising pattern recognition. c) Therefore humour is fundamental to our success as a species. I cannot see the book as anything other than a description of a universal phenomenon (pattern recognition) linked to the idea that humour depends on pattern recognition, which is only a rewording of the old incongruity theory. If you would like to read a full critique of theories of the kind above please go to my annotated essay:Laughing and crying as displacement activities: the implications for humor theory. at: BasilHughHall - ******* Humor And Laughter Research Basil

Humor research has been handicapped by the lines of approached applied by thinkers from antiquity to the present day. The main one being, using the word "humor" on a neurological level when it is merely a construct that has a vague, general meaning only applicable in cultural intercourse. I have posted an essay on a Google Page: Laughing and crying as displacement activities: the implications for humor theory. Go to the site below, scroll down until you see the elephant and blind men, and click on "A new theory of humor". Academic on HumorLinks I have attempted to show that viewing laughter as a displacement activity (defined in the essay) and explaining why it is confusing to use the term humor in certain contexts, answers the major problems encountered by humor researchers. I think you will enjoy the read. Tell me what you think. Basil

Hello fellow laughter lovers, If you would like to view an essay that puts forward a new theory of humor and points out where many researchers have gone wrong in their attempt to fathom its nature, go to the link below and scroll down to the picture of the blind men and the elephant. Academic on HumorLinks (You will also find an overview of the topic below my contribution "The philosophy of humor".) Laughing and crying as displacement activities: the implications for humor theory. IN THE VEIN OF GODFREY SAXE’S POEM ABOUT THE BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT IT WAS THREE MEN, OF THOUGHTFUL BENT, TO LEARNING MUCH INCLINED, WHO TRIED TO PLUMB THE HUMOROUS TO SEE WHAT THEY WOULD FIND. AND EACH ONE CONTRIVED AN ANSWER TO SATISFY HIS MIND. THE FIRST CRIED, “I’VE FOUND AGGRESSION; THE THING IS BASED ON SPITE, AND CRASS SUPERIORITY. I’M SURE THAT I AM RIGHT.” “I SEE“, QUOTHED HE,”THAT HUMOUR IS VERY LIKE A FIGHT!” THE SECOND SAID, “THERE ARE TO ENDS THE ANSWER’S IN THE MIDDLE, IT’S BASED ON INCONGRUITY, A COMPLEX MENTAL FIDDLE”, “I SEE”, QUOTHED HE, “THAT HUMOUR IS VERY LIKE A RIDDLE.” THE THIRD ONE SAID, “IT IS RELIEF THAT IS AT HUMOUR’S HEART, IT’S THE VOIDING OF A BUILD-UP. I KNOW BECAUSE I’M SMART. “I SEE“, QUOTHED HE, “THAT HUMOUR IS VERY LIKE A FART.” AND SO THE MEN OF THOUGHTFUL BENT DISPUTED LOUD AND LONG, EACH IN HIS OWN OPINION EXCEEDING STIFF AND STRONG, THOUGH EACH WAS PARTLY IN THE RIGHT AND ALL WERE IN THE WRONG. In this speculative essay I question the widely accepted views concerning the natures of laughing, crying and pleasure. I also highlight what I see as an erroneous approach to humor theory that has led to the wrong questions being asked and hindered the exposition of a coherent theory covering all aspects of the phenomenon we know as laughter. Baz

Hello fellow truth seekers. I am in New Zealand, where I have spent half of my 68 years - the other half in England. I have a Bsc in Zoology and my scientific interests are concerned with every aspect of our existence. My other interests are art and poetry, sport and laughing at the antics of my grandchildren. Cheers Baz