While I think there are very serious concerns that advancing technologies, and AI in particular, raise (such as lack of control over these systems with could be a tremendous threat, reduction of agency, and the potential for extreme concentration of power), if we can keep these technologies well under control and pointed at the betterment of humanity (a big if) I don’t think they have to destroy meaning. Here’s why:

While some people do derive a lot of their sense of self-worth from their work (such as myself), and such people could be especially hard hit if they are replaced by technology, there are, thankfully, many things that humans intrinsically value, and therefore, lots of potential sources of meaning. By seeking and then (at least to a reasonable degree) creating what we intrinsically value, we create meaning.

So let’s have a quick look at different human intrinsic values (i.e., things people value for their own sake, not as a means to an end) and how advancing technology, such as AI, may impact each of them:

—

Spirituality and purity: there are no reasons I see that technology would have to interfere with spirituality, religion, or attempts to act purely. So these values could continue being a source of meaning.

Truth and learning: if anything, really effective technology can accelerate the search for truth and our ability to learn. At the same time, technology gone wrong could make the truth harder to discern (e.g., if technology facilitates misinformation outcompeting accurate information).

Achievement: this one could be hard hit by technology insofar as it’s related to doing things that eventually AI may do better than all of us. At the same time, humans find a lot of value in achievements regardless of non-human performance. For instance, people compete in sprints (even though cheetahs could easily outrun us) and find value in achievement in chess (despite AI being able to easily beat the best human). A lot of people also value personal achievement – merely doing the best you can, or improving to do better than your own previous results.

Freedom: while technology could impair freedom (e.g., if it concentrates power into the hands of certain actors, they might choose to limit freedom), there is also potential for technology to expand freedom a lot by allowing us to do many things that weren’t possible before, either because we didn’t know how to do them or because they were too costly before.

Pleasure, non-suffering, longevity: there is no fundamental tension between technology and these values, and technology may be able to improve these by reducing sources of suffering (such as disease), increasing lifespans, and making pleasure more easily accessible.

Happiness (as distinct from pleasure and non-suffering): This is a tricky one, because technology can cut both ways here. For instance, while it’s likely social media has increased some kinds of pleasure, it may well have reduced overall happiness for some people by making them more disconnected or impacting the way they see the world.

Caring, reputation, respect, loyalty, and virtue: these don’t have to be impacted by technology; we could continue valuing these in our relationships with others, even in a world where AI has replaced most work. The main threats I see here from technology are the ways that social media can cause people to spend less face-to-face time together, and the way that AI friends or “relationship” partners could take the place of human relationships.

Justice and fairness: this could go either way. Technology could concentrate power in a way that makes these worse or systematize bias. On the other hand, if the benefits of technology are distributed widely, they could create increased abundance. Technology also has the potential, if harnessed correctly, to reduce (currently commonplace) human bias.

Diversity: globalization tends to reduce diversity, and so technology could accelerate that trend. On the other hand, giving people more freedom through technology could end up increasing forms of diversity (such as how people choose to live their lives).

Protection: technology has the ability to make us safer, so while we may experience more protection (for ourselves and our loved ones), it also could mean that our own role of protecting others is reduced, which could reduce the meaning derived from providing protection. On the other hand, if technology is not developed thoughtfully, the world could feel increasingly chaotic and even become more unsafe, so protection could become even more important.

Nature: technology has a track record of destroying nature, so that trend may continue. However, it’s possible that with sufficiently advanced technology, that trend will go the opposite direction (e.g., cheap green energy makes it easier to protect nature). Technology often destroys nature either as a means to accelerate or as a side effect of acceleration, but sufficiently advanced technology may reduce that effect.

Beauty: technology has the possibility of increasing beauty in the world (making it easier to create and experience beauty), but also runs the risk of filling the world with generic slop.

Overall, while advancing technology may have a negative impact on some things that humans intrinsically value, as long as we don’t destroy the world with these technologies and avoid allowing extreme concentration of power from them, other intrinsic values may not be impacted or even be benefited by technology. As long as we can seek and (to a reasonable degree) create what we intrinsically value, there are sources of meaning available.

This piece was first written on November 16, 2025, and first appeared on my website on December 22, 2025.

The claim can be quite hard to argue against because it has a certain vagueness that makes it hard to pin down what (if anything non-trivial) is really being claimed. Regardless, here are eight arguments I put together against the idea that everything we do is “selfish” or just for our own pleasure:

1. There are many actions that we take automatically and thoughtlessly due to repetition – not because of wanting or pleasure. Consider habits like brushing our teeth or sticking our phone in (for example) our left pocket (as opposed to our right one) when we’re done using it . These sorts of behaviors can be so automatic that we forget immediately afterward whether or not we’ve done these things. The point is not that these habits aren’t useful, just that at some point, we come to do them automatically without even considering whether they benefit us or not (as you may dramatically learn as you drop your phone on the ground when wearing shorts without pockets, thoughtlessly executing the “phone in pocket” habit).

Some other examples of automatic behaviors that we usually do without having any apparent desire/wanting/pleasure/pain involved: breathing, continuing to walk (once we’ve begun to walk), balancing, swallowing (once food is chewed), looking towards a sound (when there is an unusual but non-threatening noise), and social mirroring of body language.

2. Evolution didn’t select for humans based on how much they did what they “wanted” or based on who maximized their own pleasure. Rather, it selected for those whose genes spread most. Selfishness and pleasure are important tools that evolution used, but not the ONLY motivator. For instance, genuine altruism and a sense of obligation towards kin and allies can provide substantial evolutionary advantages!

3. Which pleasure are we talking about? For instance, we clearly sometimes forgo more pleasure now in exchange for extra pleasure later (e.g., by getting work done early) and other times sacrifice long-term pleasure for the short term (e.g., playing video games instead of studying when you have a big test tomorrow). So if people are just maximizing for their own pleasure, which pleasure are they maximizing for?

You might be tempted to reply, “that’s because we’re just adding up the pleasure across time to decide what to do.” But it seems clear that some people aren’t doing this (e.g., drug addicts who know their life is being ruined but sacrifice everything for the next fix). Many experiments in behavioral science and behavioral economics also contradict the idea that people are merely happiness maximizers. It’s too simple to say we “just do what gives us pleasure.”

4. “Wanting” shouldn’t be conflated with something bringing pleasure or reducing pain. They are quite correlated (since we tend to want pleasurable things), but pleasure and wanting are distinct. There are things we can really want (e.g., to “one day understand a mysterious scientific principle,” or “to keep promises” or to have certain things happen after we die) which are not about our pleasure.

Some neuroscience papers claim that “wanting” and “liking” can even be separately stimulated in rat brains. Whether scientists know how to do this or not, it seems we sometimes want things because they bring pleasure, but other times we just WANT them, so wanting and pleasure are not identical.

5. If the claim is weakened to say that we humans always do things that we have SOME sort of motivation to do, then (interpreting “motivation” broadly) the claim is trivially true. But it also doesn’t say anything – it’s right just by definition. Motivation is not identical to pleasure or wanting. So defining “wanting” to do something as having ANY motivation to do a thing doesn’t work because it renders the argument trivial. Similarly, if “self-interest” or “wanting” is just defined to be any pattern of brain activity that causes us to act, or any form of motivation at all regardless of what sort it is, then it is true (by definition) but also adds no information. What’s the point of even making the claim if it’s true by definition? In those such cases the claim can be actively misleading because “self-interest” has connotations to most people (even if you try to define those connotations away).

6. People sometimes do things that they know will bring them more pain than pleasure. For instance, a protestor who uses gasoline to set himself on fire might feel a spark of pleasure just before he lights the match, but he knows he will tremendously suffer until death. Or consider someone who takes an action for a social cause even though they know it will likely lead to spending the rest of their life in prison. Clearly, the person is sacrificing more happiness than they are gaining by such an action, yet some people do act in this way.

7. If we imagine a person who is extremely altruistic because they love making others happy, and we claim they’re “selfish” because they are doing it just to feel good, this is a very non-standard way to use the word “selfish.” It insinuates their behavior is somehow less good and is misleading in conversation. Of course, we can define words however we want, but if we define them in a way that is different than how others use a word, it makes discussion difficult and confusing.

What work does the word “selfish” do to explain things here? It’s clearer to just say (in this case) “the person is motivated by their love of helping others” and leave it at that. Most people would call that “altruism” (not “selfishness”) upon knowing all the details.

8. When we try to make the claim precise, it’s hard to do so (and, unfortunately, few I’ve encountered making the claim bother to try). We’re clearly not always maximizing long-term pleasure, but nor are we always maximizing immediate pleasure. Claiming we “always do what we want” is not the same as claiming “we always do what is pleasurable.” So maybe we just try the former claim?

If we try to restrict the claim to not be about pleasure or pain and just say, “we do what we want,” then how do we explain our numerous subconscious behaviors? And how do we define “want”? People often say they didn’t do what they “wanted,” so we can’t use colloquial definitions.

If “want” is broadened too much, then we’re back to just claiming that we do what we’re motivated to do; that is, we’re making a trivial definitional claim. So what is really being claimed by “we only ever do what we want”?
I think either nothing interesting or something false.

Now, all of this being said, clearly, people often DO act based on however they “want” to act (by a reasonable definition of “want”). And very often, people do act in such a way as to seek pleasure and avoid pain. It’s just that not all human actions fit that description, which is what the “everything is selfish” crowd claims.

To finish up, I’ll attempt to take the other side/steel-man the claim that “everything we do is something we want.” I think there is a psychological state of “desire for things to be a certain way” that drives many (though not all) of our actions. This desire for things to be a certain way is not the same as pleasure (though is often related to it) and the way we want the world to be is not always the way we think will make us happiest (though it often is). So, although I think that the generalization made by psychological egoism is false, I do think it’s approximately true, in a certain sense, a decent amount of the time.

This essay was first written on November 9, 2021, and first appeared on this site on November 12, 2021.

Part of what makes comedy so hard to describe is that it has such variety. While the boundaries between different types of humor are fuzzy, I think you can roughly divide them into six categories:

(I) CRITICAL, (II) INTELLIGENT, (III) UNEXPECTED, (IV) UNSEEMLY, (V) PHYSICAL, and (VI) CHILDLIKE

These can further be divided into subcategories, which I’ll call: (1) Self-deprecation, (2) Satire, (3) Group, (4) Sarcasm, (5) Repartee, (6) Nerd, (7) Wordplay, (8) Surreal, (9) Surprise, (10) Taboo, (11) Gross-out, (12) Humiliation, (13) Dark, (14) Revenge, (15) Slapstick, (16) Pun, and (17) Cute.

Below I’ve listed a bunch of example jokes from each of these 17 subcategories.

While no current theory of humor seems to be complete, and I certainly don’t have a unified theory to contribute, here’s a list I put together of basic principles that I think characterize many of the important aspects of humor:

(A) Communication: It’s an evolved form of social communication that exists in humans, as well as a few other primates (like chimps and bonobos), and possibly in some other animals too (though it’s harder to tell)

(B) Taboos: It can make it easier to talk about sensitive, forbidden, gross, and taboo subjects, and is often used specifically for that purpose

(C) Criticism: It often involves being critical of some person, group, or thing, and is also often used as a way to criticize powerful, threatening, or protected groups

(D) Protection: It socially safeguards us to a significant degree when we’re making criticisms, and so those making humorous critiques often can get away with saying more extreme criticism (and causing much less offense) than those making similar critiques non-humorously (hence why “I was only joking” is often used as a defense)

(E) Tension: It is sometimes used to reduce nervous tension between people when there is awkwardness (e.g., by making a joke about what an awkward situation it is, or by laughing in a friendly way when someone says something weird, as though you think they were making a joke, such as with nervous laughter)

(F) Status: It is often used as a means to raise or lower social status (e.g., to come across as likable, to signal intelligence/verbal ability/cleverness, to poke fun at or lower the status of specific people or groups)

(G) Play: It is often used to signal “play,” that is, what could be perceived as aggressiveness or danger is not actually a threat (e.g., a parent and child both laughing as the parent pretends to be a “monster” and chases their child around)

(H) Pleasure: It’s enjoyable for almost everyone, though people strongly disagree about which types of humor are pleasurable (e.g., some people love bathroom humor, some loathe it, some like edgy humor, some prefer it to be tame)

(I) Surprise: It usually involves something unexpected or unpredictable, and if a joke is too predictable, we may not find it funny at all

(J) Incongruity: It often involves contrasting two incongruous things with each other (e.g., two distinct meanings, or a contrast between tame and taboo or good and bad), and laughter is often the result of suddenly noticing the incongruity and resolving it towards the less immediately obvious or edgier meaning

(K) Sex: It is often used during flirtation, and many people find it sexually attractive when someone is funny, plus sex is often the subject of humor

(L) Problem: It often is about some kind of problem, danger, or bad thing

(M) Challenge: It is often a form of challenge or threat, but it’s a benign threat that the audience is supposed to know is not intended to be taken as actually threatening

(N) Subtlety: how funny something is depends on precise timing, wording, and tone of voice, as well as the setting and mood of the audience

(O) Exaggeration: It often involves exaggerating something real

With all these in mind, my best attempt to describe humor is to say that it’s:

“A pleasurable form of evolutionarily evolved social communication indicative of play (often affecting or relating to the social status and desirability of individuals and groups), that involves either surprise or the creation and then resolution of incongruity, and that is typically threatening, critical, danger related, challenging, subversive, disgusting, or taboo, but expressed in a manner that is intended to feel safe to both the originator and listener.”

—

Here’s my typology of types of humor with examples of each type:

— — (I) CRITICAL HUMOR — —

(1) Self-deprecation – critiquing oneself

“They all laughed when I said I’d become a comedian. Well, they’re not laughing now.” -Bob Monkhouse.

“My esteem in this country has gone up substantially. It is very nice now when people wave at me, they use all their fingers.” -Jimmy Carter.

What’s worse than someone who isn’t funny telling you a bad joke?

Someone who isn’t funny is telling you a bad joke in a 2000-word Facebook post about being funny.

—

(2) Satire – critiquing society, institutions, trends

“Twenty years ago, we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope, and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope, and no Jobs. Please don’t let Kevin Bacon die.” – Bill Murray.

Instagram: My life is a party
Snapchat: My life is a quirky TV show
Facebook: My life turned out great!
Twitter: We’re all going to die.
-Mikel Jollett

“Horror movies with jump scares are like if a comedian went into the audience and tickled everyone. ‘Technically, you laughed! I’m funny!” -Jeremy Kaplowitz.

“How to be a grown-up at work: replace ‘f*ck you’ with ‘ok, great’”

What do you call chimpanzees when they are capable of destroying the world? Humans.

—

(3) Group – nationality, race, ethnicity, gender, identity, etc.

“What is the scariest thing about a white person in prison? You know he did it.”

“According to hetero dating law, the girl shouldn’t pay for her meal, which, logically, means that if two girls go on a date together, nobody pays, and they get everything for free, but the catch is that they have to stand the whole time because no one can pull out a chair” -Leofitzisms.

“What do a clitoris, an anniversary, and a toilet have in common? Men usually miss them.”

How many times cooler are programmers than mathematicians? Trick question, you can’t divide by zero.

—

(4) Sarcasm – deadpan, contemptuous, mocking, ironic, faux serious

“My wife just stopped and said to me, ‘You weren’t even listening, were you?’ I thought, ‘That’s a pretty weird way to start a conversation.’”

“Apparently, I snore so loudly that it scares everyone in the car I’m driving.”

Teacher: “Can anyone tell me what ended in 1896?” Student: “1895.’”

When I tell a joke, I want people to take it seriously. That’s why I make sure nobody laughs.

— — (II) INTELLIGENT HUMOR — —

(5) Repartee – intellectual one-upmanship, comebacks

Nancy: “Winston, if you were my husband, I’d put poison in your coffee.” Churchill: “Nancy, if you were my wife, I’d drink it.”

An unknown singer: “You know, my dear, I insured my voice for fifty thousand dollars.” Hopkins: “That’s wonderful. And what did you do with the money?”

Oscar Wilde: “I wish I’d said that.” Whistler: “You will, Oscar, you will.”

—

(6) Nerd – knowledge, intelligence signaling, inside joke

“There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don’t.”

“A cop pulls Heisenberg over and asks him, ‘Do you know how fast you were going?’ Heisenberg replies, ‘No, but I know where I am.’”

Who has sex infinitely many times in an hour? Two young fractals in love.

—

(7) Wordplay – clever double meanings, cleverness, quick thinking,

“Why is it a penny for your thoughts, but you have to put your two cents in? Somebody’s making a penny.” -Steven Wright.

“So two snare drums and a cymbal fall off a cliff… Ba Dum Tssss!”

“The King: tell a joke about me, Fool. The Fool: I’m sorry, sire, but the King is not a subject.”

“I bought some shoes from a drug dealer. I don’t know what he laced them with, but I can’t stop tripping.”

“I think it’s wrong that only one company makes the game Monopoly.” – Steven Wright.

‘They’ say birds of a feather flock together, yet opposites attract. ‘They’ say absence makes the heart grow fonder, yet out of sight, out of mind. Have you ever considered whether…maybe…just maybe… ’they’ are morons?

It seems like a mighty strange coincidence that God created the first dog. Makes you wonder if Mom created herself.

— — (III) UNEXPECTED HUMOR — —

(8) Surreal – absurd, ridiculous, nonsensical, strange, wacky

“I called the wrong number today. I said ‘Hello, is Joey there?’ A woman answered, and she said, ‘Yes, he is.’ And I said, ‘Can I speak to him, please?’ She said, ‘No, he can’t talk right now, he’s only two months old.’ I said ‘Alright, I’ll wait.” -Steven Wright.

“How many surrealists does it take to change a light bulb? A fish.”

“Anna: I wanna be a reverse tooth fairy where I rob people and then scatter human teeth on their bed.” “Bob: You mean a dentist?” “Carly: I don’t know what your dentist is doing to you, but I think you need to go to the police.”

When people call you names, you don’t take it to spleen. So why, when they call you names, do you take it to heart?

—

(9) Surprise – unusual, twist, expectations violated

“There is nothing like the sound of a child’s laughter to remind you that your apartment is haunted.” -Howard Mittelmark.

“Air horn sound. Second air horn sound. Me: ‘This isn’t deodorant.” -Stephen Molloy.

“‘Hey nerd, who brings a friggin book to a bar?’ My eyes narrow as I close my worn copy of Advanced Techniques for Winning Barroom Brawls.” -Ygrene.

“If you’re being chased by a police dog, try not to go through a tunnel, and then over a little see-saw, then jump through a hoop of fire. They’re trained for that.” – Milton Jones.

Different religions don’t agree about much, but they do agree that you should “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”

Isn’t it kind of weird that wise people want us to have so many body parts? They keep telling us that many hands make light work, two heads are better than one, and we should be all ears.

— — (IV) UNSEEMLY HUMOR — —

(10) Taboo – sexuality, sacrilege, anti-tradition, norm violation

“Learning to dislike children at an early age saves a lot of expense and aggravation later in life” -Jimmy Carr.

“What is worse than ants in your pants? Uncles”

“How many Freudian psychiatrists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Two. One to screw in the lightbulb and one to hold the penis. Ladder! Hold the ladder.”

—

(11) Gross-out – bodily functions, disgusting, bathroom humor

“What’s the difference between a chickpea and a garbanzo bean? Nobody has ever paid to have a garbanzo bean on their face.”

“For Christmas last year, I got given Sudoku toilet paper. It’s useless. You can only fill it in with number ones and number twos.” -Bec Hill.

—

(12) Humiliation – status lowering, embarrassment

“At a state dinner, [George HW] Bush unexpectedly fainted, fell face-first into [Prime Minister] Miyazawa’s crotch, and then vommed all over the poor guy’s lap…Not only did Bush’s embarrassing attempt at bile-based diplomacy become comedic fodder in the US, but it also made headlines across Japan, too. For a while in the 1990s, young Japanese even had a whole new slang word for chundering: Bushusuru (ブッシュする), meaning ‘to do a bush’.”

—

(13) Dark – death, fear, nihilism, meaninglessness, futility, failure

“Give a man a match, and he’ll be warm for a few hours. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.” -Terry Pratchett.

“What’s Blonde and dead in a closet? The Hide and Seek Champion from 1995.”

“It’s sad that a family can be torn apart by something as simple as wild dogs.” -Jack Handey.

“If you want to make God laugh, tell him about your plans.” -Woody Allen.

“What do you get when you cross the Atlantic with the Titanic? About halfway.”

Feeling bad about the precarious state of civilization today? Don’t worry, it will all be over soon.

—

(14) Revenge – payback, karma

“A truck driver stopped at a truck stop and ordered a cheeseburger. As he was ready to eat, a motorcycle gang pulled up. One of the gang members insulted him and ate his cheeseburger. The truck driver walked out of the truck stop.  A gang member said to the waitress, “He’s not much of a man, is he?” She said, “He’s not much of a driver either. He just backed his 18-wheeler over 6 motorcycles.”

“Billboard in a city:
Hi Steven, do I have your attention now?
I know all about her, you dirty, sneaky, immoral, unfaithful, poorly endowed slimeball.
Everything’s caught on tape.
Your (soon-to-be-ex) Wife, Emily
p.s. I paid for this billboard from OUR joint bank account.”

— — (V) PHYSICAL HUMOR — —

(15) Slapstick -clumsiness, injury, mime, clowning, failure, unexpected calamity, stunts, funny faces

“There was the time in Austria when [President Gerald] Ford stepped off Air Force One, slipped on the wet stairs, and went tumbling headlong into the assembled dignitaries below, presumably while the waiting band played comedy sound effects in the background.”

“The most famous scene from Duck Soup is the mirror gag between Harpo and Groucho, but the best bit of slapstick is the fight between Marco, Chico, and the lemonade vendor that sees an innocent man bullied within an inch of his life. Hats are swapped, lemonade is squirted, hats are swapped again, legs are kicked, and hats are set on fire. In other words, it’s not a good day to be either a hat or a lemonade vendor in this particular corner of Freedonia.”

“Modern Times portrays Chaplin in his Tramp persona as a factory worker employed on an assembly line. There, he is subjected to such indignities as being force-fed by a malfunctioning “feeding machine” and an accelerating assembly line where he screws nuts at an ever-increasing rate onto pieces of machinery. He finally suffers a nervous breakdown and runs amok, getting stuck within a machine and throwing the factory into chaos. He is sent to a hospital. Following his recovery, the now-unemployed factory worker is mistakenly arrested as an instigator in a Communist demonstration. In jail, he accidentally ingests smuggled cocaine, mistaking it for salt.”

— — (VI) CHILDLIKE HUMOR — —

(16) Pun – multiple words with one sound

“Were you there when the TV repairman got married? The reception was excellent.”

“What do you call a veterinarian with laryngitis? A hoarse doctor.”

“eBay is so useless. I tried to look up lighters, and all they had were 13,749 matches.” -therap321

—

(17) Cute – misunderstanding, silly, helpless, confused, adorable

“Q: Can a kangaroo jump higher than the Empire State Building? A: Of course. The Empire State Building can’t jump.”

“’Your waffle iron isn’t working, dear!’ ‘Please just stay away from my laptop, grandma!!!’”

“I love you from my head tomatoes”

“What did the grape say when it was crushed? Nothing. It just let out a little wine.”

— — — — — — — — — —

THEORIES OF HUMOR

There are many theories of humor. For instance:

(1) Relief Theory – humor is a release of “psychological tension” or “nervous energy” that has been “wrongly mobilized by incorrect or false expectations” as a way to “overcome sociocultural inhibitions and reveal suppressed desires.”

What I think it gets right:

-Humor can make it easier to talk about sensitive subjects and is often used for that purpose

-Humor can reduce nervous tension between people when there is awkwardness

(2) Social Status Theory – a social game to raise your own social status or the social status of your group, by signaling your own positive traits (e.g., intelligence or knowledge) or by lowering the status of other people or groups (e.g., by poking fun at them).

What I think it gets right:

-Humor is often used to put down other people or groups

-Humor is attractive socially and makes people seem likable and intelligent

(3) Play theory – a form of communication that we use to indicate or to acknowledge that “we’re just playing right now” in cases that otherwise might be interpreted as serious, aggressive, or dangerous. For instance, we can laugh when we act aggressively to show that it is just play aggression, and we can laugh when others act aggressively to show that we interpret their aggression as just play. Or if we trip and fall, we can laugh to show we are not actually hurt.

What I think it gets right:

-Humor is sometimes used to communicate that a potentially aggressive-seeming behavior is just play, and not intended aggressively, like someone laughing after they throw a snowball at a friend

-Humor is sometimes used to communicate that something has not been interpreted aggressively, for instance, when someone laughs good-naturedly after someone else says something that might be taken as an insult

-Humor is sometimes used to communicate that we don’t interpret something as a threat, for instance, if someone laughs at someone else who is attempting to punch them (indicating that the attack is feeble and not worth taking seriously)

(4) Superiority Theory – a joyful way to relish in our superiority over others as we point out their shortcomings.

What I think it gets right:

-People do find it enjoyable to make or hear humorous remarks about people and groups they dislike

-People do use humor as a way to critique others

(5) Incongruity-resolution Theory – what we experience when we find incongruity between a concept and the “real objects thought to be in some relation to the concept,” or “the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing.”

What I think it gets right:

-Humor often involves contrasting two incongruous things with each other

(6) Collision Theory – what results when a collision is engineered to occur between two different frames of reference

What I think it gets right:

-Humor often involves ways of looking at things that are different than the usual frame you’d apply by default

(7) Semantic Theory – a verbal or written joke is what occurs when there are two different opposing understandings of what was said that are bound together, and the audience then experiences a sudden realization, causing them to flip from one understanding to the other (e.g., via a punchline or by reinterpreting a word as a different one with a similar sound). The oppositional meanings could be normal vs. abnormal, good vs. bad, tame vs. obscene, etc.

What I think it gets right:

-Jokes often involve saying things with multiple (incongruous) interpretations, and people do often seem to laugh when the second meaning suddenly occurs to them

(8) Ontic-epistemic Theory – what happens when we’re forced to suddenly confront the fact that social reality (e.g., social identity or social standing), which we usually take to be as real as physical reality, does not actually match physical reality, or when different elements of social reality contradict each other.

What I think it gets right:

-Humor often challenges assumptions made by social norms or rules, or challenges existing power dynamics and social status

(9) Sexual Selection Theory – a way for humans to signal other survival-related traits (e.g., intelligence or detection of reasoning mistakes), that originally was sexually desirable for its survival value, but which eventually ended up in a runaway sexual selection spiral (like the tail of the peacock), where it is evolutionarily desirable merely because others find it desirable

What I think it gets right:

-Some people do seem to find it sexually attractive when people are humorous or make them laugh

-People, I think, seem to find humorous people intelligent

(10) Benign Violation Theory – humor occurs when simultaneously (1) something threatens one’s sense of how things “ought to be,” (2) the threat seems benign, and (3) both interpretations are perceived simultaneously.

What I think it gets right:

-Humor often does involve a threat of some form, whether it’s a criticism, injury, or insult

-Humor is specifically supposed not to be “taken seriously,” and hence, in that sense, when it is a threat, it is a benign one

-Humor does often involve seeing multiple interpretations of something simultaneously that are incongruous

-It can help explain why we laugh when we’re tickled

(11) Tragedy Theory – comedy = tragedy + time

What I think it gets right:

-Tragedies and problems do seem to become more of a target of humor as more time passes

(12) Bergson’s theory – situations are comic because they “give the impression that life is subject to rigidity, automatism, and mechanism…somebody is laughable when he or she gives the impression of being a thing or a machine.”

What I think it gets right:

-People do sometimes find it funny when people act stupidly or unthinkingly

(13) Defense mechanism theory – a way to talk about and explore ideas that are too unpleasant, terrible, or socially unacceptable to normally discuss.

What I think it gets right:

-Humor often grapples with unpleasant or socially unacceptable topics

This piece was first written on July 6, 2019, and first appeared on my website on February 12, 2026.

One remarkable benefit to such a state is that it allows for a level of optimal allocation of resources that can be otherwise difficult to achieve. If there is one cookie left on the cookie tray, the member of the pair who enjoys that type of cookie more will take it. The other will be pleased, knowing that more pleasure will be had by his partner than he would get if he ate it himself. And even if this last-cookie-on-a-tray situation occurs ten nights in a row, the same total happiness maximizing result will occur, with the member who benefits most eating the treat each time. No negotiation of “if I let you have this cookie, what will you do for me later?” need occur, and so the optimal result (from the point of view of maximizing total benefit) is achieved even when tit-for-tat exchanges aren’t possible.

A more striking example occurs when one member of a pair becomes needy for a long period of time. This could be due, for instance, to sickness or mental illness. With something approaching symbiogenesis, the non-sick member will be there to help the sick member, which likely maximizes the sum of the utility of both parties. This state may be hard to attain for selfish actors: the non-sick member of the pair could calculate that the cost of helping is not worth the benefits to himself, or that these benefits could be still achieved without making such a large sacrifice. He might choose to abandon the sick member altogether, or to only put in a minimal effort to maintain the relationship until the sickness passes and the relationship again becomes selfishly beneficial.

If you were given the choice to enter into symbiogenesis with another person, would you? It might seem problematic that you could end up sacrificing yourself for the other person (and, in fact, that you would want to do so, if such a sacrifice helped the other person enough). But, the other person would also sacrifice themselves for you. You would sit with them while they were sick, but you would also be taken care of when you are sick. You would miss out on the oatmeal raisin cookies, which are her favorites, but would get more chocolate chip cookies, which are yours.

Given the highly social nature of our species, and the fact that people have different skills and preferences, two people are usually better at achieving two people’s goals than one person is at achieving his own. Two people can provide each other with the basic human needs of love, companionship, physical contact and conversation that a person cannot provide himself. The member of the pair who is better at job interviews can help the other one prepare for them, and the member who is a great cook can share his meals. The member of the pair who is more socially skilled can help the second solve his social problems, while the one who is more financially savvy can help the first make better investment decisions. Plus, both parties can feel safe, and protected, knowing that the other member of their pair is looking out for them unselfishly.

For all its benefits, symbiogenesis can be dangerous when one side of it is faked or faulty. If another person’s happiness makes you happy, but yours does not do the same for him, you are in danger. You will probably start to sacrifice and give, while that person is likely to benefit from your generosity and take. The more the other person gets used to taking, the more natural it will seem to him to do so. You will be risking sitting by someone’s bedside for months when they are very sick, without simultaneously being assured of someone sitting by yours if you need it. Half-symbiogenesis can be extremely damaging. So when you notice the state of symbiogenesis forming, you need to be cautious, making sure that neither person’s feelings of aligned incentives are developing substantially faster than the other. If the feelings develop in near synchrony, the pair will remain protected, and the arrangement will have the best chance of being mutually beneficial.

Some people use a marriage contract as an attempt to force some of the benefits of symbiogenesis. Duty, and social pressure tell us that if our husband is sick we are supposed to take care of him, even if it has become unpleasant to do so. And that we are supposed to earn enough money to make our wife comfortable, even if we hate our job. Marriage contracts, like symbiogenesis, reduce people’s fear of being alone, unprotected, and unloved. Ideally, marriage actually contains symbiogenesis, so that the couple takes care of each other not because they feel like they must, but because it makes them happy to do so. So help is given happily, not begrudgingly.

To help maximize happiness and minimize risk, symbiogenesis should be a goal of ours in our romances, friendships, and familial relationships. We should try to cultivate genuine pleasure in the pleasure of those we like when they are willing to do so for us as well.

If one of your goals in life is to run a triathlon, and it is the day before the big race, you probably will feel excited. The day after the race is over, you will likely feel proud with a highly elevated mood. Months, and perhaps even years later, you will still probably feel good when you reflect on the fact that you completed the race. And yet, the fact that you ran that triathlon is very unlikely to impact your day-to-day mood long after the event. Most of us spend only a small percentage of our time reflecting on past memories and achievements, and even in moments of reflection the triathlon would represent just one of a great many possible things to reflect on. If you are lucky, the triathlon experience might have positive effects on your personality, increasing your confidence or perseverance, and give you a sense of accomplishment. All of these things are great. But you should also not expect the fact that you ran one two years ago to be determining how you feel on a day-to-day basis today, or to be making up for a life that currently lacks fulfillment. In other words, accomplishments are great, and you should strive for them. But you also shouldn’t expect them to benefit you that much on your typical days. But typical days are the content of most of your existence. Typical days matter most in terms of your average happiness because they are so abundant.

So in addition to thinking about the things you’d like to accomplish in your life, it can be helpful to also ask yourself:

• What would my ideal, ordinary week be like?

Ideal, in the sense that it would reflect a life that would make you happy (both helping you maintain a significantly positive average mood, keeping you feeling fulfilled, and including meaningful connections). Ordinary, in the sense that it is the sort of thing that you could actually repeat week after week for years. So base jumping is out, unless you don’t plan on surviving for very long. Eating $200 tasting menus every night is out, unless you plan on making a large sum of money first (and anyway, they would quickly become boring). And going on a roller coaster every week is out, because after six months of that most of the thrill would be gone (unless you are truly a roller coaster aficionado). To construct your ideal ordinary week, it may help to ask yourself questions like:

• What living situation would help keep me in a good mood?
• What activities give me a sense of fulfillment or purpose?
• What excites me that would still excite me if I did it weekly for years?
• What job would fit into this ideal week, providing the income to support this lifestyle while simultaneously adding to my positive mood and good feeling about life?

Don’t think in terms of achieving certain milestones, but rather in terms of how the hours in the week are spent. You can fill in these details about your ideal ordinary week with questions like:

• How much time would you spend watching TV per day? It may not be zero minutes, but your happiness is probably not maximized by watching more than an hour either.
• How much time would you spend reading or learning per day? What would you learn about and how would you go about learning it?
• How much time would you spend socializing? What sorts of people would you socialize with?
• How much time would you spend on hobbies? What might these hobbies be (making sure to choose things that wouldn’t grow boring over the years)?
• How much time would you spend doing altruistic things (keeping in mind that altruism increases both our sense of fulfillment and raises our mood, in addition to its direct benefits on the world)? Who would you be helping in this time?
• How many hours would you spend at work (keeping in mind that this job must support the lifestyle of your ideal week plus give you sufficient savings)? What would you want your hours spent at work to be like (being realistic about what you could get paid to do)? What sort of tasks would you be doing and what sort of people would you be working with that would be good for you, week to week?
• What would your romantic life be like? How would time with a romantic partner be spent?

Once you have determined what your ideal ordinary week would be like, consider how you can nudge your current life in that direction. What are you doing more of than would be your ideal, and what are you doing less of? Can you cut back on the former and increase the latter?

Milestones are important and worthwhile. But rather than thinking just in terms of what milestones you want to achieve in your life, think also about what you want your daily existence to consist of. Based on what you know about yourself, think about how you can fill your hours so that you regularly have a positive mood and a feeling of real satisfaction. Figure out what your ideal ordinary week would be like, and then ask yourself what you can change today to make your life more like that ideal.

Influences: Kenneth Chen (A Practical Guide to Defining Your Supergoals)