On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:30:24 -0800 (PST), Rusht...@aol.com wrote:
In 1996 V.S. Ramachandran proposed the "false alarm" theory of
laughter.

According to this theory laughter evolved to send a message that a
seemingly dangerous situation was in fact non threatening.  

Here's one of those exceptions to the "male" rule...
A snowstorm had disrupted air traffic in and out of Denver and
things were really out of control. Western Airlines was trying to
re-schedule their customers who had been grounded, earlier. The
lines were long and patience was thin. One obnoxious man pushed
to the head of the line and demanded that the ticket agent take
care of his problems, promptly. The ticket agent politely and
discretely told the guy he would have to wait in line. The guy
exploded and asked, "Do you know who I am?"  The ticket agent
calmly picked up her microphone and announced over the PA system,
"We need some help at ticket Counter 9. There is a guy here who
doesn't know who he is."

On 5 Jan, 19:58, Gordon <gordo...@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:30:24 -0800 (PST), Rusht...@aol.com wrote:
In 1996 V.S. Ramachandran proposed the "false alarm" theory of
laughter.
According to this theory laughter evolved to send a message that a
seemingly dangerous situation was in fact non threatening.  

large snip

Here's one of those exceptions to the "male" rule...
A snowstorm had disrupted air traffic in and out of Denver and
things were really out of control. Western Airlines was trying to
re-schedule their customers who had been grounded, earlier. The
lines were long and patience was thin. One obnoxious man pushed
to the head of the line and demanded that the ticket agent take
care of his problems, promptly. The ticket agent politely and
discretely told the guy he would have to wait in line. The guy
exploded and asked, "Do you know who I am?"  The ticket agent
calmly picked up her microphone and announced over the PA system,
"We need some help at ticket Counter 9. There is a guy here who
doesn't know who he is."

(A) Good one, Gordie! I'd have said it, had I been quick-witted
enough! (B) Funny! (C ) All the same, wit and humour are under-
determined by evolution.

It is hard to see how (B) 'Funny!', which I intend here to qualify
both (A) and (B) might have evolved in Darwinian fashion. We have so
little self-respect left, that someone will 'prove' I am wrong!

Anyway, always good to see you about the place! I know a few
existential jokes, though I am too busy to tell them now.
--
Yrs,
John.

In 1996 V.S. Ramachandran proposed the "false alarm" theory of
laughter.

According to this theory laughter evolved to send a message that a
seemingly dangerous situation was in fact non threatening. This
theory seemed to explain why jokes involved surprise followed by
feelings of superiority.

However the theory does not adequately explain why laughter is a trait
subject to Darwinian selection, or why most jokes do not involve
threats or danger.

The false alarm theory focuses on the wrong message. Laughter does
convey a message and that message is about the person laughing more
than the possible threat. The message is, "I'm still in control of the
situation; I've figured it out now."

Such a message enhances the "laughers" alpha male status and increases
the liklihood of genes for laughter being passed on to the next
generation.
("He makes me laugh")

(And I do mean Alpha "male"---most comedians are male).

Warning your companions (presumably kin) to not waste their time
responding to a non existent threat is unlikely to affect the
propagation of genes---the possible harm from running from no danger
would be balanced by the times that running was, just by chance, the
right response.

This explanation is more likly correct because most jokes do not
involve danger---they involve some inconguity or initial
misunderstanding---which when explained shows that the Alpha male is
still in control.

This theory also explains why people laugh harder at jokes made by
their superiors such as a judge or the boss.

Sometimes the punch line makes everyone feel superior and that too is
beneficial to the joke teller.

Here's one of those exceptions to the "male" rule...

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 13:44:18 -0800 (PST), "foolsrushin."





dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 5 Jan, 19:58, Gordon <gordo...@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:30:24 -0800 (PST), Rusht...@aol.com wrote:
In 1996 V.S. Ramachandran proposed the "false alarm" theory of
laughter.

According to this theory laughter evolved to send a message that a
seemingly dangerous situation was in fact non threatening. �

large snip

Here's one of those exceptions to the "male" rule...
A snowstorm had disrupted air traffic in and out of Denver and
things were really out of control. Western Airlines was trying to
re-schedule their customers who had been grounded, earlier. The
lines were long and patience was thin. One obnoxious man pushed
to the head of the line and demanded that the ticket agent take
care of his problems, promptly. The ticket agent politely and
discretely told the guy he would have to wait in line. The guy
exploded and asked, "Do you know who I am?" �The ticket agent
calmly picked up her microphone and announced over the PA system,
"We need some help at ticket Counter 9. There is a guy here who
doesn't know who he is."

(A) Good one, Gordie! I'd have said it, had I been quick-witted
enough! (B) Funny! (C ) All the same, wit and humour are under-
determined by evolution.

It is hard to see how (B) 'Funny!', which I intend here to qualify
both (A) and (B) might have evolved in Darwinian fashion. We have so
little self-respect left, that someone will 'prove' I am wrong!

Anyway, always good to see you about the place! I know a few
existential jokes, though I am too busy to tell them now.

John, I also think that wit/humor/charm/etc. are very closely
related, and probably do have some Darwinian qualities. An early
days hominid of either gender who could respond appropriately,
with a bit of charm/wit/humor, etc. would more likely be the
choice mate of a similar person of the other gender.

These same traits surely would play a part in the selection of
tribal leaders, and others who would stand a much better chance
of reproducing abundantly. But, I don't think this was/is gender
specific. I see to many examples like the ticket lady, to go
along with a gender specific implication.

A cave woman some 30,000 years ago who handled a tense situation
with this level of charm, wit, and raw intelligence would surely
be a keeper for some male in the tribe. And, the male who won her
heart would likely be the one who best matched her wit and charm.

I would guess that the ticket lady had the whole line at her
counter rolling in laughter. This probably brightened their
otherwise dismal situation of having been snowed in and unable to
get to their destination on time. There were probably a great
many in that line who would have given her a sincere hug and a
pat on the back, had they been able to do so. I know I would have
at least given her a thumbs-up salute.

Gordon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 5 Jan, 19:58, Gordon <gordo...@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:30:24 -0800 (PST), Rusht...@aol.com wrote:
In 1996 V.S. Ramachandran proposed the "false alarm" theory of
laughter.

According to this theory laughter evolved to send a message that a
seemingly dangerous situation was in fact non threatening.  

large snip

Here's one of those exceptions to the "male" rule...
A snowstorm had disrupted air traffic in and out of Denver and
things were really out of control. Western Airlines was trying to
re-schedule their customers who had been grounded, earlier. The
lines were long and patience was thin. One obnoxious man pushed
to the head of the line and demanded that the ticket agent take
care of his problems, promptly. The ticket agent politely and
discretely told the guy he would have to wait in line. The guy
exploded and asked, "Do you know who I am?"  The ticket agent
calmly picked up her microphone and announced over the PA system,
"We need some help at ticket Counter 9. There is a guy here who
doesn't know who he is."

(A) Good one, Gordie! I'd have said it, had I been quick-witted
enough! (B) Funny! (C ) All the same, wit and humour are under-
determined by evolution.

It is hard to see how (B) 'Funny!', which I intend here to qualify
both (A) and (B) might have evolved in Darwinian fashion. We have so
little self-respect left, that someone will 'prove' I am wrong!

Anyway, always good to see you about the place! I know a few
existential jokes, though I am too busy to tell them now.

John, I also think that wit/humor/charm/etc. are very closely

In 1996 V.S. Ramachandran proposed the "false alarm" theory of
laughter.

According to this theory laughter evolved to send a message that a
seemingly dangerous situation was in fact non threatening.  This
theory seemed to explain why jokes involved surprise followed by
feelings of superiority.

However the theory does not adequately explain why laughter is a trait
subject to Darwinian selection, or why most jokes do not involve
threats or danger.

The false alarm theory focuses on the wrong message.  Laughter does
convey a message and that message is about the person laughing more
than the possible threat. The message is, "I'm still in control of the
situation; I've figured it out now."

Such a message enhances the "laughers" alpha male status and increases
the liklihood of genes for laughter being passed on to the next
generation.
("He makes me laugh")

(And I do mean Alpha "male"---most comedians are male).

Warning your companions (presumably kin) to not waste their time
responding to a non existent threat is unlikely to affect the
propagation of genes---the possible harm from running from no danger
would be balanced by the times that running was, just by chance, the
right response.

This explanation is more likly correct because most jokes do not
involve danger---they involve some inconguity or initial
misunderstanding---which when explained shows that the Alpha male is
still in control.

This theory also explains why people laugh harder at jokes made by
their superiors such as a judge or the boss.

Sometimes the punch line makes everyone feel superior and that too is
beneficial to the joke teller.

On 5 Jan, 19:58, Gordon <gordo...@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:30:24 -0800 (PST), Rusht...@aol.com wrote:
In 1996 V.S. Ramachandran proposed the "false alarm" theory of
laughter.
According to this theory laughter evolved to send a message that a
seemingly dangerous situation was in fact non threatening.

large snip

Here's one of those exceptions to the "male" rule...
A snowstorm had disrupted air traffic in and out of Denver and
things were really out of control. Western Airlines was trying to
re-schedule their customers who had been grounded, earlier. The
lines were long and patience was thin. One obnoxious man pushed
to the head of the line and demanded that the ticket agent take
care of his problems, promptly. The ticket agent politely and
discretely told the guy he would have to wait in line. The guy
exploded and asked, "Do you know who I am?" The ticket agent
calmly picked up her microphone and announced over the PA system,
"We need some help at ticket Counter 9. There is a guy here who
doesn't know who he is."

(A) Good one, Gordie! I'd have said it, had I been quick-witted
enough! (B) Funny! (C ) All the same, wit and humour are under-
determined by evolution.

It is hard to see how (B) 'Funny!', which I intend here to qualify
both (A) and (B) might have evolved in Darwinian fashion. We have so
little self-respect left, that someone will 'prove' I am wrong!

Anyway, always good to see you about the place! I know a few
existential jokes, though I am too busy to tell them now.
--
Yrs,
John.

In 1996 V.S. Ramachandran proposed the "false alarm" theory of
laughter.

According to this theory laughter evolved to send a message that a
seemingly dangerous situation was in fact non threatening. This
theory seemed to explain why jokes involved surprise followed by
feelings of superiority.

However the theory does not adequately explain why laughter is a trait
subject to Darwinian selection, or why most jokes do not involve
threats or danger.

Rushtown@aol.com wrote:

In 1996 V.S. Ramachandran proposed the "false alarm" theory of
laughter.

According to this theory laughter evolved to send a message that a
seemingly dangerous situation was in fact non threatening. This
theory seemed to explain why jokes involved surprise followed by
feelings of superiority.

I suppose it depends on the situation. In times past, when the danger
involved something like getting eaten by a lion, its doubtful that a
quick wit would dissuade the beast. On the other hand, this may be where
the Henny Youngman bit about, "Take my wife. Please." originated. But
that wouldn't seem helpful in propagating the species.

However the theory does not adequately explain why laughter is a trait
subject to Darwinian selection, or why most jokes do not involve
threats or danger.

In more recent times, a good sense of humor is more likely an indicator
of a quick wit. Physical strength matters less and less in modern
society while intelligence matters more. Demonstrating ones wit is an
indicator of higher intelligence.

In ancient times, wit and humor was probably more important

In 1996 V.S. Ramachandran proposed the "false alarm" theory of
laughter.

According to this theory laughter evolved to send a message that a
seemingly dangerous situation was in fact non threatening.

This
theory seemed to explain why jokes involved surprise followed by
feelings of superiority.

However the theory does not adequately explain why laughter is a trait
subject to Darwinian selection, or why most jokes do not involve
threats or danger.

The false alarm theory focuses on the wrong message. Laughter does
convey a message and that message is about the person laughing more
than the possible threat. The message is, "I'm still in control of the
situation; I've figured it out now."

Such a message enhances the "laughers" alpha male status and increases
the liklihood of genes for laughter being passed on to the next
generation.
("He makes me laugh")

(And I do mean Alpha "male"---most comedians are male).

Warning your companions (presumably kin) to not waste their time
responding to a non existent threat is unlikely to affect the
propagation of genes---the possible harm from running from no danger
would be balanced by the times that running was, just by chance, the
right response.

This explanation is more likly correct because most jokes do not
involve danger---they involve some inconguity or initial
misunderstanding---which when explained shows that the Alpha male is
still in control.

This theory also explains why people laugh harder at jokes made by
their superiors such as a judge or the boss.

Sometimes the punch line makes everyone feel superior and that too is
beneficial to the joke teller.

Rusht...@aol.com wrote:
In 1996 V.S. Ramachandran proposed the "false alarm" theory of
laughter.

According to this theory laughter evolved to send a message that a
seemingly dangerous situation was in fact non threatening.

nonsense. Laughter is a deep neurologial autonomic response.
Start with that fact and then "bloviate" ? Maybe you will
get a grant!! while the rest of us starve...



This
theory seemed to explain why jokes involved surprise followed by
feelings of superiority.

However the theory does not adequately explain why laughter is a trait
subject to Darwinian selection, or why most jokes do not involve
threats or danger.

The false alarm theory focuses on the wrong message. �Laughter does
convey a message and that message is about the person laughing more
than the possible threat. The message is, "I'm still in control of the
situation; I've figured it out now."

Such a message enhances the "laughers" alpha male status and increases
the liklihood of genes for laughter being passed on to the next
generation.
("He makes me laugh")

(And I do mean Alpha "male"---most comedians are male).

Warning your companions (presumably kin) to not waste their time
responding to a non existent threat is unlikely to affect the
propagation of genes---the possible harm from running from no danger
would be balanced by the times that running was, just by chance, the
right response.

This explanation is more likly correct because most jokes do not
involve danger---they involve some inconguity or initial
misunderstanding---which when explained shows that the Alpha male is
still in control.

This theory also explains why people laugh harder at jokes made by
their superiors such as a judge or the boss.

Sometimes the punch line makes everyone feel superior and that too is
beneficial to the joke teller.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jan 8, 9:57�pm, LMO <rend...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Rusht...@aol.com wrote:
In 1996 V.S. Ramachandran proposed the "false alarm" theory of
laughter.

According to this theory laughter evolved to send a message that a
seemingly dangerous situation was in fact non threatening.

nonsense. Laughter is a deep neurologial autonomic response.
Start with that fact and then "bloviate" ? Maybe you will
get a grant!! while the rest of us starve...



This
theory seemed to explain why jokes involved surprise followed by
feelings of superiority.

However the theory does not adequately explain why laughter is a trait
subject to Darwinian selection, or why most jokes do not involve
threats or danger.

The false alarm theory focuses on the wrong message. �Laughter does
convey a message and that message is about the person laughing more
than the possible threat. The message is, "I'm still in control of the
situation; I've figured it out now."

Such a message enhances the "laughers" alpha male status and increases
the liklihood of genes for laughter being passed on to the next
generation.
("He makes me laugh")

(And I do mean Alpha "male"---most comedians are male).

Warning your companions (presumably kin) to not waste their time
responding to a non existent threat is unlikely to affect the
propagation of genes---the possible harm from running from no danger
would be balanced by the times that running was, just by chance, the
right response.

This explanation is more likly correct because most jokes do not
involve danger---they involve some inconguity or initial
misunderstanding---which when explained shows that the Alpha male is
still in control.

This theory also explains why people laugh harder at jokes made by
their superiors such as a judge or the boss.

Sometimes the punch line makes everyone feel superior and that too is
beneficial to the joke teller.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're so cocksure of the explanation for laughter that you label any
other theory nonsense.
I'm sure the same thing applies to "theories of everything" which
don't agree with the recieved wisdom you have.

Rushtownwrote:
On Jan 8, 9:57�pm, LMO <rend...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Rusht...@aol.com wrote:
In 1996 V.S. Ramachandran proposed the "false alarm" theory of
laughter.

According to this theory laughter evolved to send a message that a
seemingly dangerous situation was in fact non threatening.

nonsense. Laughter is a deep neurologial autonomic response.
Start with that fact and then "bloviate" ? Maybe you will
get a grant!! while the rest of us starve...

This
theory seemed to explain why jokes involved surprise followed by
feelings of superiority.

However the theory does not adequately explain why laughter is a trait
subject to Darwinian selection, or why most jokes do not involve
threats or danger.

The false alarm theory focuses on the wrong message. �Laughter does
convey a message and that message is about the person laughing more
than the possible threat. The message is, "I'm still in control of the
situation; I've figured it out now."

Such a message enhances the "laughers" alpha male status and increases
the liklihood of genes for laughter being passed on to the next
generation.
("He makes me laugh")

(And I do mean Alpha "male"---most comedians are male).

Warning your companions (presumably kin) to not waste their time
responding to a non existent threat is unlikely to affect the
propagation of genes---the possible harm from running from no danger
would be balanced by the times that running was, just by chance, the
right response.

This explanation is more likly correct because most jokes do not
involve danger---they involve some inconguity or initial
misunderstanding---which when explained shows that the Alpha male is
still in control.

This theory also explains why people laugh harder at jokes made by
their superiors such as a judge or the boss.

Sometimes the punch line makes everyone feel superior and that too is
beneficial to the joke teller.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're so cocksure of the explanation for laughter that you label any
other theory nonsense.
I'm sure the same thing applies to "theories of everything" which
don't agree with the recieved wisdom you have.

No brain sure. You are "cock" sure. Laughter is a deep autonomic response.
Everyone (but you) knows that.
Googel it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jan 11, 1:26 am, gas <N3o2...@mchsi.com> wrote:
(snip)

Of course it is "a deep automatic response" and of course everyone
knows that.
That does not answer the question of why humans laugh.

To an Alien landing on Earth it would not seem obvious that getting
the girl to laugh will help a man socially. Laughter will look like a
strange automatic response where hominids emit a series of stacatto
bursts of air in response to a very restricted set of stimuli----a set
that involves some anomaly and then some clearing up of that anomaly.

So it is a very interesting and legitimate question as to why humans
evolved this very strange behavior. And it doesn't enlighten any
readers of this group to say "It's an automatic response and everyone
knows that."

Some questions will remain unanswerable until we understand a LOT