This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/21/ha-science-when-we-laugh-scott-weems-humour-noel-carroll-review

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Ha! The Science of When We Laugh and Why by Scott Weems, and Humour by Noël Carroll – review Ha! The Science of When We Laugh and Why by Scott Weems, and Humour by Noël Carroll – review
(about 5 hours later)
Trying to explain a joke has long been considered a paradigm of pedantic futility. That hasn't stopped thinkers through the ages erecting vast and subtle theories of comedy. But none of them had brain-scanners. Perhaps cognitive neuroscientist Scott Weems can explain once and for all why Louis CK is funny and David Cameron isn't.Trying to explain a joke has long been considered a paradigm of pedantic futility. That hasn't stopped thinkers through the ages erecting vast and subtle theories of comedy. But none of them had brain-scanners. Perhaps cognitive neuroscientist Scott Weems can explain once and for all why Louis CK is funny and David Cameron isn't.
Very early on, the book's ultramodern tone is set. We are invited to agree that no one could ever have properly known anything about a complex sociocultural phenomenon before lab volunteers started being rolled gently into fMRI tubes. "Humour has some very clear ingredients," Weems says, "ones that science is just now beginning to reveal." That sounds exciting. Let's see what they are. When people in scanners found certain cartoons funny, Weems explains, various parts of their brains increased in activation, and those parts are associated with the "dopamine reward circuit". What does this reveal to us about the nature of humour? Sweet FA, unless it had never occurred to you that it is pleasurable to be amused. The "dopamine reward circuit", according to other studies, also gets a jolly workout from cocaine, chocolate and video games. So: nothing new about humour here.Very early on, the book's ultramodern tone is set. We are invited to agree that no one could ever have properly known anything about a complex sociocultural phenomenon before lab volunteers started being rolled gently into fMRI tubes. "Humour has some very clear ingredients," Weems says, "ones that science is just now beginning to reveal." That sounds exciting. Let's see what they are. When people in scanners found certain cartoons funny, Weems explains, various parts of their brains increased in activation, and those parts are associated with the "dopamine reward circuit". What does this reveal to us about the nature of humour? Sweet FA, unless it had never occurred to you that it is pleasurable to be amused. The "dopamine reward circuit", according to other studies, also gets a jolly workout from cocaine, chocolate and video games. So: nothing new about humour here.
What else is science just now beginning to reveal? How about Weems's central thesis, which is that the appreciation of comedy involves resolution of cognitive conflict? Something surprising – a switch of frames, or a pun, or a transgression of cultural norms – happens at a joke's punchline. We mentally resolve the conflict and "get" the joke, and feel good. The book's blurb calls this a "provocative new model" of humour; it is in fact not new at all, but well known as the "incongruity theory", which dates back to Immanuel Kant and Henri Bergson. Neither of them is in Weems's index. Perhaps it's because they weren't 21st-century scientists that we can safely pretend their analyses never existed.What else is science just now beginning to reveal? How about Weems's central thesis, which is that the appreciation of comedy involves resolution of cognitive conflict? Something surprising – a switch of frames, or a pun, or a transgression of cultural norms – happens at a joke's punchline. We mentally resolve the conflict and "get" the joke, and feel good. The book's blurb calls this a "provocative new model" of humour; it is in fact not new at all, but well known as the "incongruity theory", which dates back to Immanuel Kant and Henri Bergson. Neither of them is in Weems's index. Perhaps it's because they weren't 21st-century scientists that we can safely pretend their analyses never existed.
The intellectual context, glibly ignored by Weems, is supplied by Noël Carroll's excellent introduction to thinking about humour, which also covers the (Platonic) superiority theory, the (Freudian) release theory, the play theory and others. Carroll himself favours a version of the incongruity theory spiced with useful bits of the others. As a philosopher, he makes a far greater variety of useful distinctions, and notices far more subtle problems of interpretation, than Weems's gung-ho scientism is able to contemplate.The intellectual context, glibly ignored by Weems, is supplied by Noël Carroll's excellent introduction to thinking about humour, which also covers the (Platonic) superiority theory, the (Freudian) release theory, the play theory and others. Carroll himself favours a version of the incongruity theory spiced with useful bits of the others. As a philosopher, he makes a far greater variety of useful distinctions, and notices far more subtle problems of interpretation, than Weems's gung-ho scientism is able to contemplate.
It's not that there is nothing interesting in Weems's book. There is a fascinating discussion of the stages of brain activity during what are called "insight problems" – the kinds that lead to an "Aha!" response. There is some evidence that part of the brain has the job of suppressing wrong answers and keeping the field open for the eventual solution. As with most pop-neuroscience literature, this involves a lot of dodgy anthropomorphising of brain regions ("the anterior cingulate is in a perfect position to oversee the rest of the brain"), but it seems plausible as a model.It's not that there is nothing interesting in Weems's book. There is a fascinating discussion of the stages of brain activity during what are called "insight problems" – the kinds that lead to an "Aha!" response. There is some evidence that part of the brain has the job of suppressing wrong answers and keeping the field open for the eventual solution. As with most pop-neuroscience literature, this involves a lot of dodgy anthropomorphising of brain regions ("the anterior cingulate is in a perfect position to oversee the rest of the brain"), but it seems plausible as a model.
What Weems doesn't offer, though, is any kind of neurological reason for why an "Aha!" response is different from a "Haha!" response. Perhaps something like what he calls the stages of "constructing", "reckoning" and "resolving" must be occurring when we are processing humour (Carroll tells a similar story), but as Weems says himself, they are also characteristic of "all aspects of complex thinking". So humour in particular is not explained. Why is it satisfying to solve a puzzle, but amusing to get a joke? "When we try to hold two or more inconsistent ideas at once," Weems writes, "our brains know of only one thing to do – laugh." I admit I laughed at that, but it was more of an incredulous snort.What Weems doesn't offer, though, is any kind of neurological reason for why an "Aha!" response is different from a "Haha!" response. Perhaps something like what he calls the stages of "constructing", "reckoning" and "resolving" must be occurring when we are processing humour (Carroll tells a similar story), but as Weems says himself, they are also characteristic of "all aspects of complex thinking". So humour in particular is not explained. Why is it satisfying to solve a puzzle, but amusing to get a joke? "When we try to hold two or more inconsistent ideas at once," Weems writes, "our brains know of only one thing to do – laugh." I admit I laughed at that, but it was more of an incredulous snort.
Another aspect of humour supposedly revealed by science, but which will surprise precisely no one, is that comedy is fundamentally a social business. Weems's attempts to scientise this non-insight involve a devotion to speculative neurological reductionism that becomes outright hilarious ("spindle cells are responsible for social awareness"). But he is also noticeably shy about getting stuck into the dark side of comedy. He claims that xenophobic humour tends to target people on the periphery of the in-group rather than true outsiders – as though this mitigates the harm, even if true – and then presses swiftly on.Another aspect of humour supposedly revealed by science, but which will surprise precisely no one, is that comedy is fundamentally a social business. Weems's attempts to scientise this non-insight involve a devotion to speculative neurological reductionism that becomes outright hilarious ("spindle cells are responsible for social awareness"). But he is also noticeably shy about getting stuck into the dark side of comedy. He claims that xenophobic humour tends to target people on the periphery of the in-group rather than true outsiders – as though this mitigates the harm, even if true – and then presses swiftly on.
Carroll, by contrast, recognises that humour can be really nasty and dangerous. Call a joke "type" the actual words of a given joke, and a "token" of that type a particular instance of it being told. A joke can be immoral – even, Carroll says, "evil" – or not, depending on the context of its particular tokening. (Thus a racist joke told by a member of the group targeted is one thing, but the same joke told by a neo-Nazi is quite another.) And yet, Carroll argues – rightly, it seems to me – one can also laugh at a joke predicated on malicious propositions without necessarily thereby endorsing those propositions: one can merely "imaginatively entertain" them for the purpose of enjoying the joke's formal elegance. Carroll, by contrast, recognises that humour can be really nasty and dangerous. He calls the actual words of a given joke the joke's "type"; an instance of it being told is one "token" of this type. A joke can be immoral – even, Carroll says, "evil" – or not, depending on the context of its particular tokening. (Thus a racist joke told by a member of the group targeted is one thing, but the same joke told by a neo-Nazi is quite another.) And yet, Carroll argues – rightly, it seems to me – one can also laugh at a joke predicated on malicious propositions without necessarily thereby endorsing those propositions: one can merely "imaginatively entertain" them for the purpose of enjoying the joke's formal elegance.
Such moral questions about comedy are, of course, simply not amenable to neuroscientific explanations, which may be why Weems skates gaily past them. At one revealing point, indeed, he admits that responsibility for actually understanding what a joke means is "shared across our entire brain". Again, this will be news to nobody at all. But the problem for his whole enterprise is worse than that. It's not just that a particular region of the brain can't find a joke funny. Even a whole brain can't find a joke funny. Only a person can.Such moral questions about comedy are, of course, simply not amenable to neuroscientific explanations, which may be why Weems skates gaily past them. At one revealing point, indeed, he admits that responsibility for actually understanding what a joke means is "shared across our entire brain". Again, this will be news to nobody at all. But the problem for his whole enterprise is worse than that. It's not just that a particular region of the brain can't find a joke funny. Even a whole brain can't find a joke funny. Only a person can.
• To order Ha! The Science of When We Laugh and Why for £17.99 with free UK p&p, and Humour: A Very Short Introduction for £6.39 with free UK p&p, call Guardian book service on 0330 333 6846 or go to guardianbookshop.co.uk.• To order Ha! The Science of When We Laugh and Why for £17.99 with free UK p&p, and Humour: A Very Short Introduction for £6.39 with free UK p&p, call Guardian book service on 0330 333 6846 or go to guardianbookshop.co.uk.