My thought exactly. Humour is a way to validate assumptions about other people. It is a way to probe them in search of common hermeneutical grounds. If we can laugh together and eat the same things, then chances are we can also have a constructive relationship together. I think its main evolutionary purpose is the production of pleasant shared experiences, to add positive feelings to the memories of others - and others' memories of us. I have a better chance of our relationship being beneficial to me if you remember laughing every time you see me. And if I can make a lot of people laugh on the regular, then I stand a better chance of building beneficial relationships with my peers than those who can't, thus increasing my chances of survival.

I believe humour is one of those evolutionary attractors, a sort of inevitable side-effect of the coexistence of communication and play. Obviously it has been rendered way more complex and nuanced through our development of language and all our social rituals, but most animals we regard as highly intelligent seem capable of both play and humour. They are both ways of testing different behaviours in safe contexts, as well as ways of getting to know other individuals. Humour lets me simultaneously play with a social situation (thus learning about its intricacies and trying new things), produce a pleasant memory of me in the other's mind (thus increasing my chances of building a beneficial relationship with them) and probe them to garner information on their culture, idiosyncrasies and reputation (thus making my relationship with them potentially safer).

These three direct benefits of humour are reason enough for this behaviour to have taken evolutionary roots. Starting from there, the behaviour has evolved through culture, like many other social behaviours, to become a sort of fractalized version (or, more exactly, versions) of itself. Now, humour feeds on itself ad infinitum into ever more incongruous and bizarre regressions. That's how we get memes that are surreal versions of sarcastic memes, that were themselves parodies of other popular memes laughing at completely ordinary real world situations.

Overconfidence leads to a higher rate of being wrong. You should discuss things more before making assumptions. I'll attempt to rephrase my point so you can better understand it.

The biological product of an extremely thorough process of trial and error, your biological design, cannot see. You can see, but you as a consciousness are not your body. The reason your body does not consult your eyes is because it is aware, most likely through the aformentioned process of trial and error, that your conscious mind is not fully perceptive. You might not know there are people watching you or within earshot.

I suspect the reason this is optimal is because breaking engagement with the thing making you laugh means you lose the information it is providing whilst you look to see if anyone is nearby, which would then warrant laughter.

Possibly more importantly, if we had to do a paremeter sweep before laughing, the source of the information / novelty / laughter might have expired by the time we've drawn other people to it. Laughter is immediate and distinct.

From the perspective of designing a biological organism in an optimal way, this makes a lot more sense than having to engage the conscious mind in a decision making process and commit its attention to another task (seeking peers to draw the attention of).

​

On your points about yourself, you sound like you might be an extreme outlier. In my moderate life experience I've not met a single person who could consciously decide when to laugh, what to find funny and how loudly to laugh. People have some restraint, to a degree, in specific situations, but what you're reporting is completely unheard of in the human race to my knowledge. A comedian might learn how to not laugh at things they find funny, but laughing is still an instinctive behaviour.

I'm not sure how your comment onf Mastication is relevant.