The Complexity of Jokes Is Limited by Cognitive Constraints on Mentalizing
- 2.2k Downloads
Although laughter is probably of deep evolutionary origin, the telling of jokes, being language-based, is likely to be of more recent origin within the human lineage. In language-based communication, speaker and listener are engaged in a process of mutually understanding each other’s intentions (mindstates), with a conversation minimally requiring three orders of intentionality. Mentalizing is cognitively more demanding than non-mentalizing cognition, and there is a well-attested limit at five orders in the levels of intentionality at which normal adult humans can work. Verbal jokes commonly involve commentary on the mindstates of third parties, and each such mindstate adds an additional level of intentionality and its corresponding cognitive load. We determined the number of mentalizing levels in a sample of jokes told by well-known professional comedians and show that most jokes involve either three or five orders of intentionality on the part of the comedian, depending on whether or not the joke involves other individuals’ mindstates. Within this limit there is a positive correlation between increasing levels of intentionality and subjective ratings of how funny the jokes are. The quality of jokes appears to peak when they include five or six levels of intentionality, which suggests that audiences appreciate higher mentalizing complexity whilst working within their natural cognitive constraints.
KeywordsMentalizing Jokes Intentionality Cognitive demand Mindstates
The research was supported by European Research Council Advanced Investigator grant #295663 to RD, and by the British Academy Centenary Research Project.
- Dunbar, R. I. M. (1998). Theory of mind and the evolution of language. In J. Hurford, M. Studdart-Kennedy, & C. Knight (Eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language (pp. 92–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Dunbar, R. I. M. (2014). Human evolution. London: Pelican.Google Scholar
- Dunbar, R.I.M., Baron, R., Frangou, A., Pearce, E., van Leeuwen, E.J.C., Stow, J., Partridge, P., MacDonald, I., Barra, V., & van Vugt, M. (2012). Social laughter is correlated with an elevated pain threshold. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, 279B, 1161–1167.Google Scholar
- Grammer, K., & Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1990). The ritualization of laughter. In W. Koch (Ed.), Naturlichkeit der Sprache und der Kultur: Acta colloquii (pp. 192–214). Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
- Hurley, M. M., Dennett, D. C., & Adams, R. B. (2011). Inside jokes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Provine, R. (1996). Laughter: A scientific investigation. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
- Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
- Steinberg, D. (1999). 100 Funniest Jokes of All Time. Accessible at http://web.archive.org/web/20110208194810/http://www.worldsbest.in/2011/01/100-funniest-jokes-of-all-time.html
- Suls, J. M. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons. In J. H. Goldstein (Ed.), The psychology of humor (pp. 81–100). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar