You really should write that book; you always make complete sense to me.Skip wrote:Humour is also a social tool. What makes Zambians roll in the aisles might leave a Japanese audience bewildered. And, of course, there is the great variety in what expressions and responses to humour are deemed appropriate in each culture, age group, gender and class.
So, what we each consider a good sense of humour in another person is: They laugh at our jokes... or at least to the same things that make us laugh. Because levity is an important stress- and aggression-reliever, you want to be in a social environment where your humour works. You want to share leisure time amusements with friends and a mate. Of course, this also brings in the cultural references you have in common - perhaps even more importantly what subjects you each consider laughing matter - and thus, how closely aligned your world-view can be.
Someone's use of humour gives you a pretty good measure of their intelligence, their creativity, linguistic facility, mental agility and intellectual scope - all of which will determine how well you communicate.
Perhaps I am biased...hmmm...
So, you see humour as more functional than aesthetic? Equally?
What do you think the term 'non-aesthetic' means...a practical use of humour - or simply not 'funny' as in humourous practices?
Ya see, I'm having difficulty with this...
But more later...