Are women Funny or Not? - Page 4

Originally posted by: *Woh Ajnabee*

But, I also read an article - you guys will get a kick out of this one, I promise 😆- that Brit humor in particular does actually have some genetic linkage. Brit humor is a result of genetic and environmental influences. I'm not exactly sure on how this genetic linkage works, but we all know that Brits are more appreciative of "negative" humor - such as teasing, racism, and sexist humiliation, all of which are considered, by some Americans, to be aggressively sarcastic and degrading. Anyways, regardless of what side you're on, its obvious that American humor and Brit humor are worlds apart. Steve Carell's character in The Office is supposedly much less insensitive in the UK version of the show. Anyways, The Office - regardless of which version - is not my cup of tea at all!

Humor appreciation is actually a cognitive thing. There is a region in our brain - the anterior frontal lobe- that defines our sense of humor. If this part of the brain is damaged, humor appreciation is impaired. What's really interesting is that people who's anterior frontal lobes are damaged only respond well to slapstick humor, and have less to no appreciation for any other kind of humor.

Originally posted by: angie.4u

The article on Brit humour was worth a 😆 😆

Talking about humour would laughter and humour always go together? Why do we laugh?

Originally posted by: *Woh Ajnabee*

After numerous studies, its has been concluded that humor has nothing to do with nature, and much to do with nurture. There is no "humor" gene that defines our sense of humor or our appreciation for different kinds of humors. These studies were conducted with identical twins, who most of the time don't share a common sense of humor (which they should if were going by the genetic theory).

But, I also read an article - you guys will get a kick out of this one, I promise 😆- that Brit humor in particular does actually have some genetic linkage. Brit humor is a result of genetic and environmental influences. I'm not exactly sure on how this genetic linkage works, but we all know that Brits are more appreciative of "negative" humor - such as teasing, racism, and sexist humiliation, all of which are considered, by some Americans, to be aggressively sarcastic and degrading. Anyways, regardless of what side you're on, its obvious that American humor and Brit humor are worlds apart. Steve Carell's character in The Office is supposedly much less insensitive in the UK version of the show. Anyways, The Office - regardless of which version - is not my cup of tea at all!

Isn't the underlined a contradiction, unless you mean it is a combination. What about British humor in people of non British genetic lineage. Is it a purely environmental phenomenon or a contrived effort to fit in with a different sense of humor? One must wonder how the stiff upper lip also came to be aggressively degrading.

Humor appreciation is actually a cognitive thing. There is a region in our brain - the anterior frontal lobe- that defines our sense of humor. If this part of the brain is damaged, humor appreciation is impaired. What's really interesting is that people who's anterior frontal lobes are damaged only respond well to slapstick humor, and have less to no appreciation for any other kind of humor.

Am I the only one her thinking that brain science has its own cruel sarcastic ways? 😆

Coming down to the differences between men and women- there is a difference between the style of humor men and women appreciate and initiate. There's a theory out there that suggests that men are generally funnier than women because of higher levels of testosterone in the male body. (Weird, right?) Initially, as a young boy who just hit puberty, guys get aggressive. Later, that aggressiveness "matures", if you will, and turns into wit. Anyways, just a theory, but definitely plausible.

There are also claims that men are generally funnier because of their role in society - because they have to woo women, make friends, etc (although I don't understand that at all since its also true for women) and because "patriarchal society" prevents women from opening up and being herself in society. Which again I find a load of bull - sounds like some feminist agenda hidden behind this theory that makes me roll my eyes!

But think about it - how many women actually say a quality they look for in a partner is a sense of humor and ability to make them laugh? Likewise how many men really place emphasis on women being funny? As a woman think of how you socialize and think on how much emphasis you give on non funny characteristics like empathy, maturity, reason, etc in friends - now think of men and how much being funny, being cool is high on their socialization agenda?

And Ajnu, how many things have you found funny or snickered over that you would not say out openly lest you be offensive or politically incorrect ? How many men double think what they say, they would blurt it out. Its not some feminist agenda or evil patriarchal thing, but the fact is women are conditioned to be more restrained than men.

I don't think its true that women, in general everyday places, can't be funny or extroverted or outgoing, but I honestly cannot stand female stand-up comedians. They don't make me laugh at all!

Seriously not one of them makes you laugh? But then as the guy said they are all dykes and jews, both whom you are not supposed to appreciate 😆 (That was an un PC stereotyping there)

I think its the whole yin-yang situation at work here. If its true men are funnier, it is also true that women are the one who laugh a lot more than men do, so perhaps the have a greater appreciation of humor? Who knows.

I don't know if women laugh more, but they do seem to suffer from uncontrollable giggling and laughing over nothing. I mean even on the forum women here put 😆 & 🤣 in places that make me go 😕.

On the whole I don't think women or men are funny or less funny than the other. Styles and context are different, and certain social norms are different thats all.

Post edited: So this is where my Manson essay got posted. It should have been in the Say What You want thread. Jeez! It has nothing whatsoever to do with men or women being funny. In fact its not funny, it's a bit serious. I did repost it in the right  thread after thinking that I am hallucinating posting. The fact is I am losing it posting things in the wrong thread. But what beats me most is why Angie liked it. 😆

ScienceDaily (Aug. 9, 2010) — What makes something funny? Philosophers have been tossing that question around since Plato. Now two psychological scientists think they've come up with the formula: humor comes from a violation or threat to the way the world ought to be that is, at the same time, benign.

To test their hypothesis, the researchers presented various situations to volunteers they rewarded with candy bars. In one experiment, the volunteers read pairs of situations—for example, one where Jimmy Dean hired a rabbi as spokesman for their new line of pork products, and one where Jimmy Dean hired a farmer as spokesman for their new line of pork products. The situation with a moral violation—having a rabbi promote pork—was both more likely to be seen as wrong and more likely to make the reader laugh.

The other part of the study tested whether benign appraisals of a moral violation made it funnier. For one experiment, participants read a scenario in which either a church or a credit union raffles off an SUV to attract new members. The participants were disgusted when the church attracted members with a raffle, but not the credit union. But whether they were amused by the church depended in part on whether they went to church themselves; non-churchgoers were more likely to think that was funny. The researchers think this is because the non-churchgoers are "not particularly committed to the sanctity of churches," says McGraw—so for them, the moral violation seems benign. Another experiment confirmed that people who have more psychological distance from a moral violation are more likely to be amused. The research is published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

"We laugh when Moe hits Larry because we know that Larry's not really being hurt," says McGraw, referring to humorous slapstick. "It's a violation of social norms. You don't hit people, especially a friend. But it's okay because it's not real." He points out a recent example, an internet video of a chain-smoking Indonesian toddler. "When I was first told about that, I laughed, because it seems unreal—what parent would let their kids smoke cigarettes? The fact that the situation seemed unbelievable made it benign. Then when I saw the video of this kid smoking, it was no longer possible to laugh about it."

McGraw thinks the theory works for other kinds of humor, like puns, which break a linguistic convention or rule but are still okay because they adhere to another rule, so the sentence still makes sense. It also explains why dramas and action movies play better outside of their home countries than comedies do. "It's hard to find a comedy that's funny cross-culturally because the ways that violations can be benign differ from culture to culture. The comedy that is funny cross-culturally tends to involve a lot of physical humor. The violations are clear no matter who you are," he says.

Originally posted by: Simi_PagalLadki

Ask anyone.. I'm funny.. 😆

And I'm sure I'm not boring

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Post edited: So this is where my Manson essay got posted. It should have been in the Say What You want thread. Jeez! It has nothing whatsoever to do with men or women being funny. In fact its not funny, it's a bit serious. I did repost it in the right  thread after thinking that I am hallucinating posting. The fact is I am losing it posting things in the wrong thread. But what beats me most is why Angie liked it. 😆