Anti-humour- the new craze that’s sweeping the globe

Q: How many Italian immigrants does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: One.

Q: How do you know if a Frenchman has been inside your house?
A: You don't, really, unless you were there to see him or your neighbour saw him and then told you about it later. I wouldn't worry about it really.

A Catholic priest and a Jew are walking down an alley. Both have silly belief systems and they aren't even embarrassed about it.

A blonde, a brunette, and a redhead are in a plane that is going to crash. There is engine trouble, and one of the wings catches fire. The plane starts to go down. Luckily, there are enough parachutes for everyone. Evacuation is orderly.

A man walks into a pub.
He is an alcoholic whose drink problem is destroying his family.

Knock, knock.
Who's there?
The police. I'm afraid there's been an accident. Your husband is in hospital.

Two men are sitting in a pub.
One man turns to the other and says: 'Last night I saw lots of strange men coming in and out of your wife's house.'
The other man replies: 'Yes, she has become a prostitute to subsidise her drug habit.'

Two cows are in a field. Suddenly, from behind a bush, a rabbit leaps out and runs away. One cow looks round a bit, eats some grass and then wanders off.

Worry Machines

A READER WRITES: “I am amazed that you have not taken the opportunity to heal the masses or at least alleviate their post-budget trauma by a few well-chosen philosophical adages. Are you neglecting your mission?”

BB SAYS: So the masses are suffering from post-budget trauma. Why? What are they worrying about? There is nothing to worry about. Human beings are designed to worry – we are created in order to be fearful and anxious. We have evolved to notice bad news and to ignore good news. Often the bad news is not even bad news at all.

Psychologists call this human trait Negativity Bias – this is the psychological phenomenon by which humans pay more attention to and give more weight to negative than positive experiences and information. Negativity bias is the biggest source of human misery in the world. Some people literally worry themselves to death, mostly over nothing. Most of the fear and anxiety we experience is completely unnecessary.

Why do humans suffer from negativity bias? Because we have evolved that way – during the most of our evolutionary development, the potential cost of not noticing something bad, far exceeded the potential cost of not noticing something good. The people who spent all their time worrying were less likely to be eaten by tigers.

The environment in which we humans evolved was much more dangerous than the environment we now live in. Thanks to efforts of our stressed-out ancestors, we actually live in the safest period ever in human history. There is higher life-expectancy, much less violence, much less hunger, much less disease and much less suffering than there ever has been before. But you wouldn’t know this by reading the newspapers would you? There is actually much less need to worry about anything than ever before in history. But are people worrying less? Like hell they are. They still have the same brains that they had during the hundreds of thousands of years of evolution when there was a predator around every corner, and when life-expectancy was about 30. But our ability to assess risk is hopeless.

Here is a small list of things that people spend their time worrying about, even though there is no need to worry about any of them: the recession, terrorism, religion, unemployment, crime, illness, careers, nuclear warfare, the environment. Expand the list for yourself. Doing so will brighten up your week.

There is too much worrying in the world, and there will continue to be too much worrying. A deficit of worrying is not our problem. So the wise thing to do is this: stand back and let other people do the worrying.

Christian Reader thinks Brian Barrington might be engaging in "Tribal Apologetics"

A READER WRITES: A popular suburban myth has it that when asked, many primitive tribes identify themselve simply as "The People." They assume that their own tribe is set apart from all others, that they are human in some innately superior way.

I thought of this after reading Brian’s post called "tribal mentality versus humanist mentality”. Brian begins his post as follows:

"Humans can broadly be divided into two types - those with a Tribal Mentality and those with a Humanist Mentality. Both mentalities exist in most people to varying degrees."

Brian is a smart fellow, and presents his argument with grace and wit. My question is, could his argument ultimately be an exercise in tribal self-justification?

The term "humanist" often can describe a tribe, rather than the cosmopolitan brotherhood Brian refers to. It may refer to a (1) late Medieval movement in literature; (2) the vaguely progressive "Enlightenment" project and its modern disciples; (3) "secular humanism" in the sense set out by Paul Kurtz, for example -- the assumption that there is no God, death is the end, but we should therefore care for ourselves and for others (which itself splits into hundreds of tribes); or (4) the assumption that "all men (and women) are brothers & sisters . . . no man is an island." (5) There is also something called "Christian humanism," a subset of 4.

I think Brian may have a good point about psychology types. But I am wondering if he confuses some of these meanings, and philosophical positions that he happens to hold, and social groupings that he happens to feel comfortable in, with the characteristics of a nascent psychological Ubervolk -- "We are the people."

As a Christian, I feel I can identify with people of all ideological tribes, Marxist, Buddhist, Hindu, neo-Platonist, Stoic, Muslim, or, yes, secular humanists, on many levels. We are all created in the Image of God. We are all sinners. And each of these ideologies carries some implicit shadow of the divine Logos, some "seed of the Word," that as a Christian I affirm and respect. While I think it is necessary to fight Osama bin Laden, I don't question his humanity, and we might be able to talk (if one of us were held captive by the other, maybe) a common theological language that would seem foreign to many "cosmopolitan" humanists.

So what is the relationship between skepticism and humanism? Is there any relationship? Might there sometimes be an inverse relationship, and those who are most inclined to see all humanity as one, be those who reject materialism, or even political liberalism?

BB SAYS: I think the Tribalist\Humanist distinction is an attempt at a personality distinction, not unlike the extrovert\introvert distinction. Introverts and extroverts are found in most groups. So are Tribalists and Humanists. Now, there are Christian introverts and Christian extroverts. Similarly, there are Christian Tribalists and Christian Humanists. And the same can be said of most large, diverse complex societies and groups.

Now, your question is: can you have a Tribal Humanist? Well, can you have an introverted extrovert? You can’t.

Personality theorists think there are five big personality distinctions: introvert\extrovert; agreeable\disagreeable; conscientious\not conscientous; stable\neurotic and open-to-experience\closed-to-experience.

The Tribalist\Humanist distinction is closest to the closed-to-experience\open-to-experience distinction. People with low scores on openness tend to have more conventional, traditional interests, they prefer familiarity over novelty, they are loyal to their own group. People with high scores tend to be the opposite. This is not an exact parallel with what I mean by Tribalist and Humanist but perhaps there is some overlap.

The Tribal Mentality versus the Humanist Mentality

A READER WRITES: “Dear Brian, When I started to read your blog you were promising me increased happiness which I badly needed. Now I am getting increasingly unhappy listening to these intolerant and aggressive exchanges. How can I recover my equilibrium with reds under the beds, Islamists under the carpets and Steyn fans in fear and trembling and a frenzy of hatred. Normally when I feel upset I go to some Buddhist meditation classes but maybe the Buddhists are trying to take over the world so I dont know what to do now and am looking to you for some kind of an injection of happiness, goodwill to all men, restoration of faith in human nature etc. Please help. Unhappy but trying”

BB SAYS: The philosopher Spinoza says: “Do not weep; do not wax indignant. Understand.”

Humans can broadly be divided into two types – those with a Tribal Mentality and those with a Humanist Mentality. Both mentalities exist in most people to varying degrees.

Tribalists tend to be loyal to their own group, community or society. They tend to be nationalist and conservative. In extreme cases Tribalists dehumanise and demonise outgroups. They tend to focus on the conflicts of interest that can exist between various groups. They suffer from what behavioural psychologists call the outgroup homogeneity bias (individuals tend to see members of their own group as being relatively more varied than members of other groups).

Humanists tend to look at people as individuals, and to see the similarities that exist between different societies, rather than the differences. They tend to be cosmopolitan and progressive. They tend to focus on co-operation between groups, rather than conflicts of interest.

People with a Tribal Mentality regard those with a Humanist Mentality as treacherous, cowardly and naïve. People with a Humanist Mentality regard those with a Tribal Mentality as bigoted, narrow-minded and irrational.

Examples of very Tribalist groups would include German Neo-Nazis, Russian nationalists, Japanese supremacists, Muslim fundamentalists, extremist Irish Catholic Nationalists, American Exceptionalists and so forth. The point is: the tribal mentality is found in all societies. In Sri Lanka, many Buddhist monasteries are hotbeds of ultranationalist, reactionary, anti-Tamil extremism. So even a peaceful religion like Buddhism can be co-opted by Tribalists. All these tribalist groups tend to be xenophobic, but the irony is that they have much more in common with each other than they do with Humanists. For example, an American Exceptionalist has more in common with a Muslim fundamentalist, than either type does with a Humanist – because both the American Exceptionalist and the Muslim fundamentalist have a Tribal Mentality.

Often, the anger of Tribalists is not focused on other tribes, but on what they call “the Liberal Elite” (i.e. Humanists). Humanists also exist in all societies and, what is more, they tend to agree with each other even though they are from different societies. In other words, Humanists everywhere in the world form alliances in a way that Tribalists cannot. The real danger for Tribalists comes not from other tribes (extremists need opposing extremists in order to exist) – the real danger comes from Humanists, who tend to be shrewd. Hence the diatribes from Tribalists about the “Liberal Elites” whom they suspect of trying to take over the world by taking control of universities, internationalist institutions, the media, human rights organisations and so forth. In one sense, the Tribalists are correct – the Enlightenment revolution in philosophy, with its humanist concepts of human rights, democracy, rationality and personal freedom, has made great progress in taking over the world. Humanism has a universal appeal that transcends any particular tribalism. So don’t worry, if anyone is going to take over the world, it is not going to be any particular group of Tribalists – it will be the Humanists. So be happy!

Do YOU have a problem? Leave an anonymous comment, or send your problem in confidence to brianbarrington@gmail.com

Lily Allen: “Fame has not brought me happiness”

LILY ALLEN WRITES: “I read your interview with Paris Hilton and I enjoyed it immensely. I regard myself as a more sophisticated celebrity than Paris Hilton. As a famous person myself, I note that all my fame has not made me happy (I refer you to the semi-ironic lyrics of my new song The Fear). What would the great philosophers have to say about this?”

BRIAN BARRINGTON, PHILOSOPHICAL COUNSELLOR TO THE STARS, REPLIES: Hi Lily. Yes, as one becomes more famous, diminishing returns set in. The famous become trapped in an ever-escalating struggle to achieve more fame. They become addicts. Have you ever met a person who once achieved fame and then lost it? They are the living dead. Nothing in their lives can compensate for the loss of the attention that they once had. Even worse, the currently famous need to engage in a desperate struggle to protect the fame they have, for fear that it will slip away from them. They live in terror, prisoners to their immoderate lust for rewards and honours. Fame is the most fickle of possessions. It can only be truly enjoyed by those who do not need it, since only they do not fear losing it. As the philosopher Spinoza said: “Fame has also this great drawback, that if we pursue it, we must direct our lives so as to please the fancy of men.”

However, the philosopher Hegel used the example of a professor of history who claims that Alexander the Great had a pathological love of fame and power. The professor proves that he himself does not suffer from this pathology, because he himself has not conquered Asia. Hegel says:

Alexander the Great is alleged to have acted from a craving for fame, for conquest; and the proof that these were the impelling motives is that he did that which resulted in fame. What pedagogue has not demonstrated of Alexander the Great - of Julius Caesar - that they were instigated by such passions, and were consequently immoral men, - whence the conclusion immediately follows that he, the pedagogue, is a better man than they, because he has not such passions; a proof of which lies in the fact that he does not conquer Asia.

I think Hegel is making an interesting point here: most human beings would, if given the choice, choose to be famous. The evidence of this is the omnipresence of envy and resentment towards famous people. Those who really believe that the famous have nothing worth possessing will be more likely to feel pity or indifference towards the famous, rather than envy. But, if we observe most humans, we see that they do envy famous and that their attempts to argue that the famous do not possess anything worthwhile are mostly attempts to console themselves for that fact that they have neither the ability nor the good fortune to be famous themselves.

So enjoy your fame while it lasts Lily. If thou didst not want it, then thou wouldst not seek it.

Bringing Up Children

A READER WRITES: “As a mother of two young children with lives as busy as my own, I am constantly trying to do more than I can achieve. Sometimes with all of the multitasking, school runs, thank you notes and household responsibilities, not to mention my professional life, I feel like I am doing so many things, none of them as well as I could. My main priority, far and above anything else in my life, is my children, their happiness, stability, individualism and well-being. In your opinion, what are the most effective ways to be with one’s children? What is most important in terms of their emotional and mental development? Are there specific things we can do to help them grow up to reach their full potential?”

BB SAYS: Do the children of working mothers turn out differently to the children of non-working mothers? Answer: according to the studies, on average, there is no difference.

Spend time with your children because you love them. Spend time with them because they are a joy and a blessing. But don’t expect to be able to mould them as you please. Ultimately, their destiny is not in your hands.

According to the best evidence, parenting style has little or no influence on how children turn out. People find this idea outrageous, and even get angry at the mere suggestion of it. We are accustomed to thinking that every little move by a parent is going to have some massive effect on how their children turn out. This is a modern myth, that has unfortunately made parents neurotic and nervous. But Judith Rich Harris and Steven Pinker have provided considerable evidence and arguments, to the effect that how parents rear a child has few or no long-term effects on the child's personality, intelligence, or mental health. Here is what Pinker says:

“Hundreds of studies have measured correlations between the practices of parents and the way their children turn out. For example, parents who talk a lot to their children have kids with better language skills, parents who spank have children who grow up to be violent, parents who are neither too authoritarian or too lenient have children who are well-adjusted, and so on. Most of the parenting expert industry and a lot of government policy turn these correlations into advice to parents, and blame the parents when children don't turn out as they would have liked. But correlation does not imply causation. Parents provide their children with genes as well as an environment, so the fact that talkative parents have kids with good language skills could simply mean that the same genes that make parents talkative make children articulate. Until those studies are replicated with adopted children, who don't get their genes from the people who bring them up, we don't know whether the correlations reflect the effects of parenting, the effects of shared genes, or some mixture. When those studies are done, the results are that the parenting style has little or no influence.

We know that genes matter in the formation of personalities. Probably about half of the variation in personality can be attributed to differences in genes. People then conclude, well the other half must come from the way your parents brought you up: half heredity, half environment, a nice compromise. Right? Wrong. The other 50% of the variation turns out not to be explained by which family you've been brought up in. Concretely, here's what the behavioural geneticists have found. Everyone knows about the identical twins separated at birth that have all of these remarkable similarities: they score similarly on personality tests, they have similar tests in music, similar political opinions, and so on. But the other discovery, which is just as important, though less well appreciated, is that the twins separated at birth are no more different than the twins who are brought up together in the same house with the same parents, the same number of TV sets in the house, same number of books, same number of guns, and so on. Growing up together doesn't make you more similar in intelligence or in personality over the long run. A corroborating finding is that adopted siblings, who grow up in the same house but don't share genes, are not correlated at all. They are no more similar than two people plucked off the street at random. So no, it's not all in the genes, but what isn't in the genes isn't in the family environment either. It can't be explained in terms of the overall personalities or the child-rearing practices of parents.

So what are the non-genetic determinants of personality and intelligence, given that they almost certainly are not the family environment? Many people, still groping for a way to put parents back into the picture, assume that differences among siblings must come from differences in the way parents treat their different children. Forget it. The best studies have shown that when parents treat their kids differently, it's because the kids are different to begin with, just as anyone reacts differently to different people depending on their personalities. Any parent of more than one child knows that children are little people, born with personalities.”

For more details of how these conclusions were arrived at, and on the real factors that determine how children turn out, check out this link:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/harris_children/harris_p2.html

“How can I get a promotion in the office?”

A READER WRITES: “I keep on getting passed over for promotion in the office. My boss is driving me mad. What can I do to improve my career?”

BB SAYS: Corporations are essentially feudal organisations – they are private tyrannies and deeply hierarchical. Your bosses completely control your destiny within the organisation. Hence, there is only one way to progress within any institution or organisation: suck up to your superiors. This rule applies in all organisations, whether companies, clubs, schools, political parties, universities or whatever.

According to the philosopher Aristotle: the great-souled man is insolent to his superiors, but gently ironic towards his inferiors. The great-souled man resents authority – he has what is now known as a “problem with authority”. Similarly, the great-souled man behaves with kindness towards his inferiors, since he does not feel threatened by them. The great-souled man is magnanimous.

In order to succeed in an organisation you need to follow a very simple rule: be the opposite of Aristotle’s great-souled man. Be a small-souled man, or a mean-spirited man. Be servile and submissive to your bosses. Flatter them. Grovel before them. Snivel. Humiliate yourself before them. In contrast, bully and harass your own sub-ordinates. Terrorise them.

If you follow these rules, you will certainly get a promotion. Then you will have a new boss, and the process can begin all over again.

The peculiar sexual magnetism of stand-up comedians

A READER WRITES: “On Sunday evening my girlfriend and I attended a comedy show by the up-and-coming comedian David O’Doherty, who is known for his whimsical humour and for his use of novelty keyboards. As the show proceeded, I became aware that Mr. O’Doherty was exercising a strange sexual hold over the female members of the audience. My girlfriend even confessed to me that she found him ‘stunningly attractive’ and another woman wondered aloud whether Mr. O’Doherty was ‘in a long-term relationship or not’. I found this odd, given that Mr O'Doherty is rather scruffy looking. Can you explain?”

BB SAYS: It is, indeed, a strange one. If you look at the singles pages of any publication, people always say that they want their potential partners to have a GSOH. What is the explanation for this? Since I have no sense of humour myself, I have always found this especially perplexing. I rely on my raw, male physical appeal and my handsome features to attract women (see photo at top of this page). But I have noted that men who are far less physically attractive than me often have more success with women.

According to evolutionary psychologists, making people laugh is a way to advertise sexual fitness to potential mates. It is a fitness display. Human beings are highly social animals. In order to succeed in life and attain status, one must have good social skills. Having a good sense of humour indicates a high level of social intelligence. In order to make people laugh, one must be able to set up a mental expectation, and then knock it down. So a good sense of humour requires a keen understanding of human nature. It also requires confidence and energy, and an ability to understand what other people are thinking or feeling. All of these are useful skills in the struggle for social status and power. Social and emotional intelligence is heritable – if a person has social intelligence, he or she is likely to pass it on to any off-spring they may have. For this reason, people find people with a Good Sense of Humour attractive. They think “This person has good genes. I want to have sex with them”.

According to evolutionary psychologists, human beings are social animals who compete with each other to attain power and prestige. Every human society ever analysed has unequal distributions of power and status. As Steven Pinker puts it:

People everywhere strive for a ghostly substance called authority, cachet, dignity, dominance, eminence, esteem, face, position, pre-eminence, prestige, rank, regard, repute, respect, standing, stature, or status.

In social animals like human beings, possessing power and status within one’s group, increases one’s chances of survival and reproduction. It is therefore an adaptive advantage. Pinker continues:

In all societies people recognise a kind of dominance hierarchy, particularly among men. High-ranking men are deferred to, have a greater voice in group decisions, usually have a greater share of the group’s resources, and always have more wives, more lovers, and more affairs with other men’s wives

Power increases a human’s ability to influence affairs to his own advantage. Status is also a fitness indicator to potential mates. By flaunting one’s status, one tries to demonstrate that one has better genes than one’s competitors, and thereby increase one’s attractiveness to potential mates. A display of status advertises biological fitness and is part of sexual selection. Humour is one way of doing this.

But the struggle for status, power and prestige is a zero-sum game that involves winners and losers. As Pinker puts it:

There are only so many hours in the day, and sycophants must choose whom to fawn over, so status is a limited resource. If A has more, B must have less, and they must compete.

Everybody wants to be above average, whether in looks, intelligence, popularity, fame, or wealth. But, by definition, it is not possible for everyone to be above average. Some must win and some must lose. And this is why the struggle for prestige is a zero-sum game. Conflicts of interest are inevitable.

In conclusion, women are attracted to men who are funny, because being funny is one way of indicating status, and women are attracted to high-status males.