I read an interesting article in a philosophy journal once that hypothesised humour, or laughter specifically, as a 'false alarm' signal. That ties in with the subversion of expectation, but also gives a reason for the laugh itself. That might also explain why people laugh to dissolve tense situations, or why sometimes tension reaches such a point that they become funny (perhaps a defense system worked into some of us).
[I often smile/laugh in tense situations, which is rather vexing for other people of course. I'm not sure why I do it, or how to fix it. Hey, maybe INTPs are natural peacekeepers! Except it just drives everybody crazy.]
Humor is a communal thing. Something that's funny is compounded in the company of friends. Sitcoms have capitalized on this by adding laugh tracks to shows, so it gives the psychological affect that you are laughing along with a group of people.
There is also the idea of knocking public figures off of their high horses and pointing out the flaws in the accepted dogma of society: the idea behind satire. Humor can be a great equalizer. The Daily Show and Colbert Report do a good job of this (Jay Leno tries and fails - epically (see what I did there)). Satire is often where the old adage "it's funny because it's true" is a good formula. If anyone here has watched The Daily Show, they often don't even need to make a joke. Simply highlighting the flaws in our systems, media and public officials can be funny in itself (these things make fun of themselves).
This is exactly why I think humour is so dangerous. We like to say it's subversive, and indeed it can be, but it's also a great tool of stagnation, of thought and action. Those two paragraphs put together have worried me for a long time. Humour plays off the strength in numbers - it's a great reinforcer of community, so what you usually end up with is people having their thoughts, ideas, prejudices, worldview etc doubly validated, both by hearing them played out and by experiencing the high that comes from a positive, communal activity. The first type of validation would not be so bad if the arguments presented in the jokes were anything close to valid, but so often they're not. The comedian relies on charisma, timing, and superifical logical connections to get a laugh - which is fine when the superificiality is a part of the joke, but I'm talking about the frequent times it isn't.
Basically, it's not just logical manipulation, it's emotional as well, and the worst thing about it (especially satirical humour) is the way it's presented as Truth for 'clever' people. It convinces you of its truth by giving your brain little puzzles to solve along the way, such that you receive the natural pleasure of resolution*, along with the pleasure of superiority (the kind associated with superior knowledge/powers of perception),
along with the emotional validation/tribal bonding of group laughter. It's basic conflation! (I'm worried I may be doing something similar here actually - someone please fight me.) Your brain isn't going to naturally connect responses to the right sources - nor will that actually verify the logic of any chain of reasoning. And of course, being a communal activity, it's going to rest on commonly-held assumptions, which means it's simply further entrenching already-held beliefs under the guise of rebellion, subversion, independence, questioning of the establishment, etc. All these things may indeed happen, but there's very rarely any real independence of thought, it's simply a system turning on itself in a horribly predictive way.
Agent Intellect said:
Schadenfreude is popular for comedy. When someone is being mean-spirited, it can make us laugh. The character House from the show of the same name acts like a complete asshole to everyone, and if we knew someone like that in real life we'd despise them - but since he's doing it to other people, it's funny. Comedians like
Daniel Tosh have really capitalized on this phenomena.
I think there is something that people like about watching others do stupid things (an obvious statement). This is why shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and franchises like Jackass are so popular. Why this is the case, I'm not exactly sure. I'm wondering if there is something voyeuristic about knowing full well that this person/character shouldn't be doing it, and yet they still do - we have a special position to observe this behavior. In a way, I wonder if people almost envy the lack of judgment that such people/characters have, because shows like I listed often make it seem cheeky and fun. This might also fall under the absurd category, but this would be a very low-brow flavor of that broad category.
More of the same. Humour equalises, but often to the lowest common denominator. And then it reinforces it, and tells you it's ok.
The thing about humour that bothers me the most is the deception. I know that'll sound like shamefully extravagant criticism to a lot of people, and I'll be told to 'lighten up', 'just enjoy it', 'take it for what it is' and other such cliches (I don't term them that to dismiss them, but to note that while they probably bear further consideration, to simply accept them at face value would beg the question somewhat as that action would be completely at odds with my criticism in the first place). It isn't something you can really ignore though, once you've noticed it. I can't 'unsee' it now, although I may in time become reconciled to it. It's not intentionally deceptive, I'm sure, but it serves the same purpose by further handicapping people.
Of course the danger with all THIS is now
I think I know the truth. So the upshot of any of my thoughts is I can't totally commit to a single one of them, no matter what I may say or do (and bringing the external into alignment with the internal is still something I'm working on), because committing or believing closes you off to correction. I think. Bah.
It is fun for me to think though. That's at least a truth that is more or less irrefutable.
*I think a big part of art/music/literary/humour/etc appreciation involves the brain anticipating future steps and 'filling in blanks', an activity which is inherently pleasurable - which is why obvious jokes are never funny, pop songs generally don't bear much listening to (especially if you've listened to a lot of music - the music is just too predictable), etc.
*edit
I've been interested in how humour works for a long time, so I've got more thoughts on this (I think) but this is the first thing that came to mind; I don't *think* it's too off-topic but sorry if it is.
