Understanding the World: Animal Humor and Scientific Reluctance
The Tendency Toward Rigidity and Fear of Anthropomorphism in Scientific Inquiry
Note: This essay was prepared with the research assistance and ghostwriting of ChatGPT 4.0.
Author's Preface
I've long been fascinated by animal behavior. While I studied psychology and attended graduate school with a focus on human behavior, my interest in animal behavior has remained a lifelong passion. Over the many decades of my life, I’ve read countless works by ethologists, primatologists, and animal behaviorists. Although I’ve lost track of the specific titles, the influential figures stand out: Konrad Lorenz, Nikolaas Tinbergen, and Frans de Waal have all shaped my understanding. I’ve also been strongly influenced by the pioneering work of Jane Goodall, Biruté Galdikas, and Dian Fossey, each of whom made remarkable contributions to our understanding of primates. Additionally, Gareth Patterson's work with South African elephants and Penny Patterson's research with gorillas, particularly her famous work with Koko the gorilla, have deeply influenced my thinking. I must also acknowledge the work of Donald Griffin, who raised chimpanzees and conducted research into their ability to acquire speech. While the studies of chimpanzees learning to speak faced many limitations, they opened the door to further exploration of animal communication. Researchers like Duane Rumbaugh, who developed the lexigram system for symbolic communication, and Allen and Beatrix Gardner, who taught the chimpanzee Washoe American Sign Language, further advanced our understanding of primate cognition. David Premack’s work with Sarah, a chimpanzee who learned to communicate using plastic tokens, also played a critical role in this field. These groundbreaking studies in primate communication and cognition have greatly expanded our understanding of the emotional and intellectual capacities of non-human primates.
Not long ago, I came across a YouTube video featuring an orangutan observing a simple magic trick performed by a man through a glass partition. The man in a clumsy fashion made a ball disappear, hiding it in a cup in a way that confused the orangutan. What happened next was remarkable—the orangutan looked perplexed, then burst into what can only be described as laughter, rolling on the floor, clearly amused. This was not a casual reaction. Any observer would recognize it as laughter. While most viewers may have found the video cute and moved on, I found it profound. It struck me that we often overlook the possibility of humor in animals.
Frans de Waal has explored rich emotional lives in animals, particularly primates, but humor is still an area that hasn't received the attention it deserves. Researchers like Gareth Patterson have similarly delved into animal cognition and emotions, albeit with a focus on elephants. Still, many in the scientific community tend to dismiss studies of animal behavior and emotional expression as anthropomorphic, just as research into animal language has been critiqued. Dismissing such findings as biased or unscientific, simply because they seem to attribute human-like cognition to animals, is, in my view, a mistake. We should not be so quick to reject the possibility that animals, like humans, can experience joy, amusement, and humor.
Introduction
In the scientific study of animal behavior, there exists a delicate balance between maintaining rigorous objectivity and acknowledging the complex emotional and cognitive lives of animals. This balance is often disrupted by the pervasive fear of anthropomorphism, the tendency to attribute human-like qualities to non-human animals. For decades, scientists have approached animal behavior cautiously, wary of projecting human emotions onto their subjects, yet this caution can sometimes result in the dismissal of compelling evidence. Nowhere is this tension more evident than in the study of animal humor.
While many of us, through common-sense observation, recognize the capacity for amusement in animals—particularly in great apes—the scientific community has often been reluctant to explore this possibility deeply. Despite decades of research on animal cognition, studies on animal humor remain sparse. This essay examines the reluctance of scientists to engage fully with the idea that animals may experience humor, and how this reluctance may stem from a broader rigidity within scientific paradigms. Drawing on the work of renowned researchers such as Frans de Waal, Penny Patterson, and others who have studied primates and their communication abilities, we will explore the implications of overlooking animal humor and the potential for a more open-minded approach to studying non-human cognition.
The Evidence for Animal Humor
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the mounting evidence that animals, particularly cognitively sophisticated species like great apes, may indeed experience something akin to humor. A widely circulated video, for example, shows an orangutan reacting with what seems like laughter after witnessing a simple magic trick. The orangutan appears to understand that something unexpected has occurred and seems genuinely amused by it, rolling on the floor and producing vocalizations that strongly resemble laughter (de Waal, 2001).
This behavior is not unique to orangutans. Other great apes, such as chimpanzees, gorillas, and bonobos, have been observed engaging in playful interactions that suggest they understand the concept of teasing and surprise (Bekoff, 2007). These behaviors, often seen in juvenile apes, involve actions designed to provoke reactions, which align closely with the kind of humor and play we observe in humans. Despite this, the scientific literature frequently categorizes these behaviors as mere "play" or "social interaction" rather than humor, largely due to concerns about anthropomorphism (de Waal, 2001; Bekoff, 2007).
The Reluctance to Confront Animal Humor
The scientific community’s reluctance to acknowledge animal humor stems from a deeply ingrained fear of anthropomorphism. While avoiding anthropomorphism is a legitimate concern, as projecting human emotions onto animals can lead to biased or inaccurate interpretations, this fear has sometimes led to an overly rigid approach. Many researchers are hesitant to even entertain the idea that animals might experience emotions like humor, lest they be seen as engaging in unscientific speculation (Bekoff, 2007).
This caution is rooted in historical efforts to separate scientific observation from emotional projection. Early ethologists such as Konrad Lorenz and Nikolaas Tinbergen warned against anthropomorphizing animals, arguing that such projections could distort our understanding of animal behavior (Lorenz, 1950; Tinbergen, 1951). While these concerns are valid, the pendulum has arguably swung too far in the opposite direction. Today, the reluctance to acknowledge animal humor reflects an intellectual conservatism that limits scientific inquiry (de Waal, 2001).
Rigidity in Science and Its Consequences
It is important to avoid overstating this critique. Not all scientists dismiss the possibility of animal humor, and fields such as cognitive ethology are making significant strides in understanding the emotional lives of animals (de Waal, 2001). However, the broader scientific community remains largely constrained by conventional paradigms that resist the notion of animals having rich emotional lives similar to humans. This reluctance is not a deliberate denial of evidence but rather an adherence to established frameworks that prioritize caution over exploration (Bekoff, 2007).
The rigidity in scientific thinking can sometimes result in missed opportunities to deepen our understanding of animal cognition and emotion. As Thomas Kuhn famously argued in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, scientific paradigms are slow to change, often resisting new ideas until overwhelming evidence forces a shift (Kuhn, 1962). The reluctance to consider animal humor may be an example of such paradigm rigidity, where researchers are constrained by the need to fit new findings into old frameworks (Bekoff, 2007).
Misinformation and Paradigmatic Blind Spots
Just as in other fields, science is not immune to misinformation and entrenched beliefs. The fear of anthropomorphism, while rooted in legitimate concerns, has sometimes become a kind of dogma that prevents researchers from acknowledging what is plainly evident to the average observer. Scientists, like anyone else, are influenced by the prevailing paradigms of their time, and these paradigms can sometimes obscure important truths (Kuhn, 1962).
The reluctance to recognize animal humor is a case in point. By adhering too rigidly to the notion that attributing human emotions to animals is unscientific, researchers risk overlooking behaviors that could provide valuable insights into the emotional and cognitive lives of animals. This intellectual blind spot is not just a problem of scientific rigor; it is a reflection of the broader challenge of balancing caution with openness to new ideas (de Waal, 2001; Bekoff, 2007).
Summary
This essay has explored the tension between scientific caution and the need for openness to new ideas, particularly in the context of animal cognition and humor. While the avoidance of anthropomorphism is a necessary safeguard against bias, there is a real tendency in the scientific community to become overly rigid in this regard, sometimes to the detriment of common-sense observation. The reluctance to acknowledge behaviors like humor in animals may reflect a broader issue of paradigmatic rigidity in science, where conventional beliefs can limit progress. By embracing a more open-minded approach, scientists could advance our understanding of animal behavior while challenging entrenched paradigms that no longer serve the field.
References
Bekoff, M. (2007). The emotional lives of animals: A leading scientist explores animal joy, sorrow, and empathy—and why they matter. New World Library. https://www.amazon.ca/Emotional-Lives-Animals-Scientist-Explores/dp/1577316290
Bekoff explores the emotional complexities of animals, advocating for a more compassionate approach to understanding their behaviors, including humor.
de Waal, F. (2001). The ape and the sushi master: Cultural reflections of a primatologist. Basic Books. https://www.amazon.ca/Emotional-Lives-Animals-Scientist-Explores/dp/1577316290
De Waal delves into the rich emotional and cognitive lives of primates, challenging conventional views of animal behavior and highlighting the blurred lines between human and non-human animal emotions.
Gardner, R. A., & Gardner, B. T. (1969). Teaching sign language to a chimpanzee. Science, 165(3894), 664–672. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5793972/
Allen and Beatrix Gardner's groundbreaking work on teaching American Sign Language (ASL) to Washoe, the chimpanzee, demonstrates the cognitive abilities of primates to use language in a human-like way.
Goodall, J. (1986). The chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of behavior. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-tropical-ecology/article/j-goodall-1986-the-chimpanzees-of-gombe-patterns-of-behavior-harvard-university-press-cambridge-massachusetts-673-pages-isbn-0674116496-price-1995-hardback/AF382B43F751A2AAD964D29445A06D98
Jane Goodall’s extensive fieldwork in Gombe laid the foundation for modern primatology, offering detailed observations of chimpanzee behavior, including communication, emotions, and social structures.
Fossey, D. (1983). Gorillas in the mist. Houghton Mifflin. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-tropical-ecology/article/j-goodall-1986-the-chimpanzees-of-gombe-patterns-of-behavior-harvard-university-press-cambridge-massachusetts-673-pages-isbn-0674116496-price-1995-hardback/AF382B43F751A2AAD964D29445A06D98
Dian Fossey’s work on mountain gorillas provides critical insights into the lives, social dynamics, and communication patterns of one of our closest relatives.
Galdikas, B. M. F. (1995). Reflections of Eden: My years with the orangutans of Borneo. Little, Brown. https://www.amazon.ca/Reflections-Eden-Years-Orangutans-Borneo/dp/0316301868
Galdikas’ research focuses on the behavior, communication, and conservation of orangutans, revealing their emotional complexity and social intelligence.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press. https://www.amazon.ca/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083
Kuhn's classic work outlines how scientific paradigms shift and how established beliefs can sometimes inhibit the acceptance of new ideas, a framework applicable to the study of animal emotions and cognition.
Lorenz, K. (1950). Man meets dog. Methuen. https://www.amazon.ca/Man-Meets-Dog-Konrad-Lorenz/dp/0415267455
Lorenz explores human-animal relationships, emphasizing the importance of observing animal behavior without anthropomorphic bias while also acknowledging the emotional complexity of animals.
Patterson, F. G., & Linden, E. (1981). The education of Koko. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. https://www.amazon.ca/Education-Koko-Francine-Patterson/dp/0030461014
Penny Patterson's work with Koko, the gorilla who learned to communicate using American Sign Language, expands our understanding of animal cognition and language capabilities.
Premack, D. (1971). Language in chimpanzee? Science, 172(3985), 808–822. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1971-28552-001
David Premack’s work with the chimpanzee Sarah, who used symbols to communicate, significantly advanced the study of non-human primate cognition and language acquisition.
Rumbaugh, D. M. (1977). Language learning by a chimpanzee: The LANA project. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=611479Academic Press.
Rumbaugh’s research on the use of lexigrams by the chimpanzee Lana illustrates the potential for non-human primates to use symbolic language systems, paving the way for later studies with Kanzi the bonobo.
Tinbergen, N. (1951). The study of instinct. Clarendon Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-study-of-instinct-9780198577225?prevSortField=1&facet_narrowbyprice_facet=under15&lang=en&cc=hr
Tinbergen’s foundational work on ethology cautions against projecting human emotions onto animals, while offering insights into the instinctual behaviors of animals and their relevance to broader cognitive patterns.