Ten Things We Don't Know About Humans

[Wowbagger]

Perhaps laughter was orginally a signal for a mis indentified danger and a way to signal "Sorry guys my bad, thats not a lion, its a log"

Eh, that seems unlikely to me, for some reason. Though, I can't explain exactly why.

Given that laughter is often the result of surprising findings, I suspect it originated out of other things, and only became a "symbol" of something "funny" or mistaken, later on.

 

[The Man]

Yeah I have a feeling it relates to the scouts of the troop - most primates I have seen moving in a group have out riders checking on things. Perhaps laughter was orginally a signal for a mis indentified danger and a way to signal "Sorry guys my bad, thats not a lion, its a log"

So maybe that was the first joke, some scout baboon mistakenly signaling “holy crap, run for it there’s a lion in the grass”. Than laughing his bare monkey arse off as they all dive into the crocodile infested watering hole to escape.

 

[MG1962]

Eh, that seems unlikely to me, for some reason. Though, I can't explain exactly why.

Given that laughter is often the result of surprising findings, I suspect it originated out of other things, and only became a "symbol" of something "funny" or mistaken, later on.

Well I am thinking back to alarm signals of chimps etc. They often look like a laugh, lips pulled back across the gum etc etc.

Another thing in the back of my mind. At horror movies, after a particular frightful momment, you can often hear nervous tittering laughter in the audience....Almost like the body down checking from the emotional surge created by the scare

 

[Geezer]

<snip>

In the days when humans only lived to be about 30 or 40 or something, teenagers would basically be the adults. Today, they still live with their parents. So we have a situation where an animal evolved to be wild, but is now kept in a cage....
<snip>

I'm not sure it has to do with lifespan but rather as someone said, the teenager is a cultural invention.
From a biological aspect surely it's puberty that decides if one is adult or not.(young adult is still an adult, no?)

 

[MG1962]

So maybe that was the first joke, some scout baboon mistakenly signaling “holy crap, run for it there’s a lion in the grass”. Than laughing his bare monkey arse off as they all dive into the crocodile infested watering hole to escape.

The only problem with that is it does not fit into current evolutionary models. Cause unlike much that appears as modern comedy, its actually funny

 

[The Man]

The only problem with that is it does not fit into current evolutionary models. Cause unlike much that appears as modern comedy, its actually funny

Well I guess it is a pretty bad testament if the evolution of comedy peaked before anyone knew what it was.

 

[The Man]

<snip>
In the days when humans only lived to be about 30 or 40 or something, teenagers would basically be the adults. Today, they still live with their parents. So we have a situation where an animal evolved to be wild, but is now kept in a cage.... <snip>

Some 30 to 40 year olds today are still living with their parents even though the cage door has been open for some time.


On a (somewhat) more serious note extended family (multi generation cohabitation) living was far more common in the past and with the current economic trend may gain popularity again.

 

[Wowbagger]

the teenager is a cultural invention.

Partly cultural. The natural course of human development still has a lot of influence on that, of course.

From a biological aspect surely it's puberty that decides if one is adult or not.(young adult is still an adult, no?)

Right. Hence the rebellion. Though, some of that might be more "testing the limits" than of more "serious", actual rebellion. If you know what I mean.

Some 30 to 40 year olds today are still living with their parents even though the cage door has been open for some time.

Even when living at home, they still typically make decisions independently of what their parents might want.

Actual living quarters of the person has little to do with it.

 

[RandFan]

Eh, that seems unlikely to me, for some reason. Though, I can't explain exactly why.

I think it is in line with current sociobiological (evolutionary psychology) CW.

Given that laughter is often the result of surprising findings, I suspect it originated out of other things, and only became a "symbol" of something "funny" or mistaken, later on.

I don't see this as that far off of the concept. Further I doubt that the underpinnings are so discrete. Laughter and the underlying emotions, like so many other behaviors and emotions are likely the result of complex variables. I seriously doubt that we can be so certain to rule out with certainty such variables.

In any event there are some thoughts on the subject by serious scientists. Laughter: A Scientific Investigation

 

[Mr.D]

I suspect laughter started out as something else, that eventually evolved into something useful for social bonds. Though, I can't remember what that "something else" was. It might have been related to muscle spasms after the brain sees or hears something unexpected and believed NOT to be dangerous (though not necessarily "funny", in the beginning. The concept of "funny" emerged over time, as well).

You might be on to something. Consider laughter's association with "fun" and "play" behavior and the role such behaviors play in young social animals' learning survival skills.

In that context, laughter as a social signal for a positive (non sexual, non food) shared experience makes sense, as does its connection to surprise without danger.

How does the concept extend to language reaction though (jokes, puns etc)?

 

[GreyICE]

Let me explain it in three simple words:

Screw. Evolutionary. Psychology.

It's not science. Idiots need to shut up. Evolution is not some master plan. It didn't really guide every aspect of our existence so much as 'enough to survive, prosper and procreate a lot.'

 

[RandFan]

Let me explain it in three simple words:

Screw. Evolutionary. Biology.

Not a clue dude as to what that is supposed to mean or how it explains anything or rebuts anything. Are you attacking evolutionary biology? 'cause no one is discussing evolutionary biology. Did you mean evolutionary psychology (sociobiology)? If so then that ship has sailed. It is science. E.O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, et al put that baby to bed at least a decade ago.

It's not science. Idiots need to shut up. Evolution is not some master plan. It didn't really guide every aspect of our existence so much as 'enough to survive, prosper and procreate a lot.'

Who are you arguing with? Who said evolution was some master plan? I think you've wandered into this thread with unfounded preconceptions.

 

[JihadJane]

Where's the fur?

 

[Wowbagger]

Screw. Evolutionary. Psychology.

For the record, I would not "screw" evolutionary psychology completely. Perhaps many of its current crop of concepts are inaccurate approximations of better-founded hard science. But, psychology is, itself, the product of an evolutionary process. Someday, with enough scrutiny and study, the evolutionary psychologists will get it more correct.

 

[GreyICE]

For the record, I would not "screw" evolutionary psychology completely. Perhaps many of its current crop of concepts are inaccurate approximations of better-founded hard science. But, psychology is, itself, the product of an evolutionary process. Someday, with enough scrutiny and study, the evolutionary psychologists will get it more correct.

I'd say 95% of it is woo. I think RandFan's claim above that we can discuss why something evolved without even knowing what it does is the final summary of the 'science.' It's about as meaningful as Deepak Chopra at the moment. Most people would like to know what tonsils do before they speculate on why they would evolve, if you put an evolutionary psychologist in charge of it, they'd be mouth testicles.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Some 30 to 40 year olds today are still living with their parents even though the cage door has been open for some time.

Don't they know that they are supposted to build an addition onto the family hut when they do that?

 

[Miss_Kitt]

I would like to mention, as a reminder, that in any case evolution does not 'create' things, it merely weeds out things that are detrimental to survival and reinforces things that are advantageous. Thus, laughter could be something that does no harm but also has no particular advantage--but happened to be present in the group(s) that survived for other reasons.

Not everything has to have an evolutionary advantage to be present. For example, look at the variety of hair colors and eye colors found in humans! Any biological issue involved in the selection of same was long ago buried in the genetic mixing that came with significant means of travel. With perhaps a few exceptions in the deep rainforests or among the Aborigines, we are all 'mutts' whose forebears come from multiple continents.

It is surprising to me that people often forget this when discussing evolutionary basis and selection of traits. Some things are neither advantageous nor costly, they just are. Genetic drift can cause some of these "arbitrary" traits to be more or less common without there being any selective pressure based upon the trait.

Just my thoughts, MK

 

[RandFan]

I'd say 95% of it is woo. I think RandFan's claim above that we can discuss why something evolved without even knowing what it does is the final summary of the 'science.'

"final summary of the science"? Science isn't in the business of declaring what is and isn't appropriate for discussion or inquiry. Hell, even Randi admits that while there has been no progress in supernatuarl research that it not appropriate to declare that no one should ever investigate it.

We could have a perfectly valid discussion about metaphysical concepts even if none of us gave it any weight. Given that the field of sociobiology has in fact been validated by the likes of Dawkins, Pinker, Wilson and others your stance becomes absurd in the extreme.

It's about as meaningful as Deepak Chopra at the moment. Most people would like to know what tonsils do before they speculate on why they would evolve, if you put an evolutionary psychologist in charge of it, they'd be mouth testicles.

Rhetorical and nonsense. And Pinker clearly demonstrates that there is objective means to gauge evolutionary psychology (sociobiology). The criticism were put to bed years if not decades ago by the likes of E.O. Wilson, Dawkins, Pinker and other sociobiologists. I'm sorry if you don't like it but you are simply asserting things that while they appeal to your world view have no basis in fact.

 

[RandFan]

I would like to mention, as a reminder, that in any case evolution does not 'create' things, it merely weeds out things that are detrimental to survival and reinforces things that are advantageous. Thus, laughter could be something that does no harm but also has no particular advantage--but happened to be present in the group(s) that survived for other reasons.

Not everything has to have an evolutionary advantage to be present. For example, look at the variety of hair colors and eye colors found in humans! Any biological issue involved in the selection of same was long ago buried in the genetic mixing that came with significant means of travel. With perhaps a few exceptions in the deep rainforests or among the Aborigines, we are all 'mutts' whose forebears come from multiple continents.

It is surprising to me that people often forget this when discussing evolutionary basis and selection of traits. Some things are neither advantageous nor costly, they just are. Genetic drift can cause some of these "arbitrary" traits to be more or less common without there being any selective pressure based upon the trait.

Just my thoughts, MK

Agreed. However, we can't say with certainty that any phenotype is arbitrary since we have often found, through hindsight, that many that were believed at one time to be insignificant or simply a bi-product were in actuality significant.

 

[jmcvann]

How about "nervous laughter"? I see there were two studies about laughter cited above, but I will admit not having taken the time (yet - I will, I promise!) to read them.

I am an actor, and a couple years ago I was in a production of "Long Day's Journey Into Night." While there is some comedy in the play, it is mostly a horror story. The majority of our audiences recognized that. But one night, you would have thought we were doing a comedy. There was laughter almost throughout the play. Even in the final scenes, when the men are eviscerating each other and Mary enters totally strung out on morphine, the laughter just kept coming. It was one of the oddest nights I've ever had on stage.