There is no doubt that there is a physiological element to laughter and whenever there is something built in, the temptation is always there to try to explain it in terms of natural selection. Alastair Clarke, for example, makes the case that humor is the brain's way of rewarding itself for seeing new patterns.
?The development of pattern recognition as displayed in humour could form the basis of humankind?s instinctive linguistic ability. Syntax and grammar function in fundamental patterns for which a child has an innate facility. All that differs from one individual to the next is the content of those patterns in terms of vocabulary.?
It is an interesting conjecture, but like so much evolutionary psychology, little more than a just-so story.
It is certainly the case that certain heritable properties have been selected for in terms of their ability to aid in survival and reproduction, but that does not mean that every trait for which we can find advantageous was itself selected for. It may be an evolutionary free rider, that is, something that came along with other traits that were selected for.
There is no doubt that certain kinds of humor are as Clarke points out connected with intellectual abilities that would have given our ancestors certain advantages. Although I'm not sure that finding someone else's slipping on a banana peel and falling into a large pile of lion dung only to have a chimp pelt him with rotten fruit while on a hunt in the jungle necessarily conveys anything useful, but it would certainly be recounted around the fire for years to howls of approval.
The historical developmental case would have to be made with evidence that may or may not be there. These sorts of claims are notoriously difficult to establish, but it is certainly possible. Finding things funny does develop alongside language, so the question of what is responsible for what and what was the trait actually selected for is an interesting one. Either way, it certainly is natural.
- Doing Biology Without Darwin
A student asked a good one as my Darwin class wrapped up last week. He asked, "Can you do biology now without Darwin?" If the question asks whether one can be a working biologist without believing in speciation by evolution, the answer is a trivial yes....
- Evolution And Degradation Of Language
So, at a wonderful BBQ at YKW's place, the conversation turned to language. I mentioned that the short people had discovered MadLibs at the same time I was grading student papers, and this led me to think about parts of speech. I remarked how the...
- On Borat, Crushes, And The Easy Way To Look Really, Really Smart
Let's start by taking a stab at the first three questions this go 'round. R. Porter asks, "Why do people think Sacha Cohen is funny and/or talented?"I think that Gwydion is exactly right in his comment that what Cohen does best is something extremely...
- Altruism And Multiculturalism
Bill asks, "Is there such a thing as altruism? Or does all apparent altruism reduce to enlightened (or instinct-driven) self-interest?" The basis for the question here is that for any act, we can always -- if we work hard enough -- find some advantage...
- Michael Shermer - The Patterns Behind Self-deception
If you have a small child, ask him what he sees in the picture to the side if he looks closely enough. Your apprehension to do this betrays what a pervert you are, but your innocent child will see something radically different... and put you to shame...