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.