Idiot Brain (27 page)

Independent variables need to be reliable in invoking the desired response, for example, the completion of a test. And here's where a problem arises; in order to study effectively how humor works in the brain, your subjects need to experience humor. So ideally, you'd need something that
everyone, no matter who they are, is guaranteed to find funny
. Anyone who can come up with such a thing probably won't be a scientist for very long, as they'd soon be getting vast sums from television companies desperate to exploit this skill. Professional comedians work for years to achieve this, but there's never been a comedian that
everyone
likes.

It gets worse, because surprise is a big element of comedy and humor. People will laugh when they first hear a joke they like, but not so much the second, third, fourth or more times they hear it, because now they know it. So any attempt to repeat the experiment
^#
will need yet another 100 percent reliable way to make people laugh.

There's
also the setting to consider. Most laboratories are very sterile, regulated environments, designed to minimize risks and prevent anything from interfering with experiments. This is great for science, but not for encouraging a state of merriment. And if you're scanning the brain, it's even harder; MRI scans, for example, involve being confined in a tight chilly tube while a massive magnet makes very weird noises all around you. This isn't the best way to put someone in the mood for knock-knock jokes.

But still, a number of scientists haven't let these fairly considerable obstacles stop them investigating the workings of humor, although they've had to adopt some odd strategies. Take Professor Sam Shuster, who looked into the workings of humor and how it differs between groups of people.
²⁰
He did this by riding a unicycle in busy public areas of Newcastle, England, and recording the types of reactions this provoked. While an innovative form of research, on a list of potential candidates for things everybody finds amusing, “unicycles” is unlikely to be in the top ten.

There's also a study by Professor Nancy Bell of Washington State University,
²¹
whereby a deliberately bad joke was regularly dropped into casual conversations, in order to determine the nature of people's reactions to poor attempts at humor. The joke used was: “What did the big chimney say to the little chimney? Nothing. Chimneys can't talk.”

The responses ranged from awkward to outright hostile. Overall though, it seems nobody actually
liked
the joke, so
whether this even counts as a study into humor is debatable.

These tests technically look at humor indirectly, via reactions and behavior towards people attempting it.
Why
do we find things funny? What's going on in the brain to make us respond to certain occurrences with involuntary laughter? Scientists to philosophers have chewed this over. Nietzsche argued that laughter is a reaction to the sense of existential loneliness and mortality that humans feel, although judging by much of his output Nietzsche wasn't that familiar with laughter. Sigmund Freud theorized that laughter is caused by the release of “psychic energy,” or tension. This approach has developed and been labeled the “relief ” theory of humor.
²²
The underlying argument is that the brain senses some form of danger or risk (to ourselves or others), and once it is resolved harmlessly, laughter occurs to release the pent-up tension and reinforce the positive outcome. The “danger” can be physical in nature, or something inexplicable or unpredictable like the twisted logic of a joke scenario, or suppression of responses or desires due to social constraints (offensive or taboo jokes often get a potent laugh, possibly because of this). This theory seems particularly relevant when applied to slapstick; someone slipping on a banana skin and ending up dazed is humorous, whereas someone slipping on a banana skin, cracking their skull and dying is certainly not, because the danger is “real.”

A theory by D. Hayworth in the 1920s builds on this,
²³
arguing that the actual physical process of laughter evolved as a way for humans to let each other know that the danger has passed and all is well. Where this leaves people who claim to “laugh in the face of danger” is anyone's guess.

Philosophers as far back as Plato suggested that laughter is an expression of superiority. When someone falls over, or
does or says something stupid, this pleases us because they have lowered their status compared with ours. We laugh because we enjoy the feeling of superiority and to emphasize the other person's failings. This would certainly explain the enjoyment of
Schadenfreude
, but when you see internationally famous comedians strutting about on stage performing to thousands of laughing people in stadiums, it's unlikely the entire audience is thinking, “That person is stupid. I am better than them!” So again, this isn't the whole story.

Most theories concerning humor highlight the role of inconsistency and disrupted expectations. The brain is constantly trying to keep track of what's going on both externally and internally, in the world around us and inside our heads. To facilitate this, it has a number of systems to make things easier, such as schemas. Schemas are specific ways that our brains think and organize information. Particular schemas are often applied to specific contexts—in a restaurant, at the beach, in a job interview, or when interacting with certain individuals/types of people. We expect these situations to pan out in certain ways and for a limited range of things to transpire. We also have detailed memories and experiences that suggest how things are “meant” to occur in recognizable circumstances and scenarios.

The theory is that humor results when our expectations are violated. A verbal joke uses twisted logic, where events don't occur as we believe they should. Nobody has ever gone to the doctor because they feel like a pair of curtains. Un-attended horses seldom walk into bars. Humor potentially comes from being faced with these logical or contextual inconsistencies as they cause uncertainty. The brain isn't good at uncertainty, especially if it means the systems it uses to construct and predict our world view are potentially flawed (the
brain expects something to happen in a certain way, but it doesn't, which suggests underlying issues with its crucial predictive or analytical functions). Then the inconsistency is resolved or defused by the “punchline,” or equivalent. Why the long face? A horse has a long face, but that's a question asked to miserable people! It's wordplay! I understand wordplay! The resolution is a positive sensation for the brain as the inconsistency is neutralized, and maybe something is learned. We signal our approval of resolution via laughter, which also has numerous social benefits.

This also helps explain why surprise is so important, and why a joke is never as funny when repeated; the inconsistency that caused the humor originally is no longer unfamiliar, so the impact is dulled. The brain now remembers this set-up, is aware that it is harmless, so isn't as affected by it.

Many brain regions have been implicated in the processing of humor, such as the mesolimbic reward pathway, given that it produces the reward of laughter. The hippocampus and amygdala are involved, as we need to have memories of what
should
happen to have these anticipations thwarted, and strong emotional responses to this occurring. Numerous frontal cortex regions play a role, as much of humor comes from expectations and logic being disrupted, which engage our higher executive functions. There are also parietal lobe regions involved in language processing, as much comedy is drawn from wordplay or violating the norms of speech and delivery.

This language-processing role of humor and comedy is more integral than many may think. Delivery, tone, emphasis, timing, all of these can make or break a joke. A particularly interesting finding concerns the laughing habits of deaf people who communicate via sign language. In a standard vocal
conversation where someone tells a joke or a humorous story, people laugh (if it's funny) during the pauses, at the ends of sentences, basically in the gaps where laughing will not obscure the telling of the joke. This is important because laughter and joke-telling are usually both sound-based. This isn't the same for sign-language speakers. Someone could laugh throughout a joke or story told via sign language and not obscure anything. But they don't. Studies show that deaf people laugh at the same pauses and gaps during a signed joke, even if the noise of laughter isn't a factor.
²⁴
Language and speech processing clearly influence when we feel it's time to laugh, so it's not necessarily as spontaneous as we think.

As far as we currently know, there is no specific “laughter center” in the brain; our sense of humor seems to arise from myriad connections and processes that are the result of our development, personal preferences and numerous experiences. This would explain why everyone has his or her own seemingly unique sense of humor.

Despite the apparent individuality of a person's tastes in comedy and humor, we can prove that it is heavily influenced by the presence and reactions of others. That laughing has a strong social function is undeniable; humans can experience many emotions as suddenly and intensely as humor, but the majority of these emotions don't result in loud uncontrolled (often incapacitating) spasms (i.e. laughter). There is benefit to making your amused state public knowledge, because people have evolved to do this whether they want to or not.

Studies such as those by Robert Provine of the University of Maryland suggest that you are thirty times as likely to laugh when you're part of a group as when you're alone.
²⁵
People laugh more often and freely when with friends, even if they're
not telling jokes; it can be observations, shared memories, or very mundane-sounding anecdotes about a mutual acquaintance. It's a lot easier to laugh when part of a group, which is why stand-up comedy is rarely a one-to-one practice. Another interesting point about the social-interaction qualities of humor: the human brain appears to be very good at distinguishing between real laughter and fake laughter. Research by Sophie Scott has revealed people to be extremely accurate when it comes to identifying someone laughing genuinely and someone pretending, even if they sound very similar.
²⁶
Have you ever been inexplicably annoyed by obvious canned laughter on a cheesy sitcom? People respond to laughter very strongly, and they invariably object to this response being manipulated.

When an attempt to make you laugh fails, it fails
hard
.

When someone tells you a joke, they are making it clear that they are intending to make you laugh. They have concluded that they know your humor and are able to make you laugh, and are thereby asserting that they are able to control you, so are superior to you. If they're doing this in front of people, then they're really emphasizing their superiority. So it had better be worth it.

But then it's not. The joke falls flat. This is basically a betrayal, one that offends on several (largely subconscious) levels. It's no wonder people often get angry (for examples of this, just ask any aspiring comedian, anywhere, ever). But to appreciate this fully, you have to appreciate the extent to which interactions with others influence the workings of our brains. And that needs a chapter of its own to do it justice.

Only then can it really be grasped, as the actress said to the bishop.

_____________

*
As an aside, it's worth noting that studies into anger report doing things like “presenting subjects with stimuli designed to raise levels of anger,” but a lot of the time this means they're basically just insulting the volunteers. It's understandable why they would not want to reveal this too openly; psychological experiments invariably rely on people volunteering to take part, and they're less likely to do that if they find it involves being strapped to a scanner while a scientist uses colorful metaphors to tell you how fat your mother is.

^†
The same studies demonstrated that anger hinders performance on complex cognitive tasks, showing how anger means you can't “think straight.” Not always helpful, but it would inevitably feed into the same system. You could calmly assess all the properties of the threat you encounter and decide that, overall, it's too risky to deal with. But anger hinders this rational thinking, messing up the delicate analysis that leads to you avoid the issue and compels you to go right at it, fists flailing.

^‡
Aggression can also happen without anger. Contact sports such as rugby or football often involve aggression, but no anger is required; it's just the desire to win at the expense of the other team that motivates it.

^§
Exactly why this “runner's high” occurs is uncertain. Some say it's using up the muscles' oxygen supplies, triggering anaerobic respiration (oxygen-free cellular activity, which produces acid by-products that can cause pain, such as cramps or a “stitch”), which the brain responds to by releasing endorphins, the pain-killing pleasure-inducing transmitters. Others say it's more to do with elevated body temperature, or constant rhythmic activity providing a sense of well-being that the brain wants to encourage. Marathon runners often report this runner's high, which as a rewarding sensation seems to come second only to telling people, “I'm training for a marathon you know,” given how often they find excuses to do this.

^¶
Freud still has a lot of influence and many adhere to his theories, even a century later. This may seem odd. Granted, he did largely usher in the whole concept of psychoanalysis and should be lauded for it, but this doesn't mean his original theories are automatically correct. It is the diffuse and uncertain nature of psychology and psychiatry that means he still wields such influence today; it's hard to disprove things conclusively. Yes, Freud founded the whole field, but the Wright brothers invented aeroplanes, and while they'll always be remembered for this, we don't still use aircraft that they designed for long-haul flights to South America. Times move on, and all that.