From apes to birds, animal species that “laugh”
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Must have been the funniest thing they ever saw.
A zebra walked past the elephant and the elephant whacked the zebra on the butt with his trunk. The zebra got a fight and jumped and ran off, which prompted the elephant to throw his trunk in air, throw his head back, and make a noise.
I’ve always thought that was the elephant laughing at scaring the zebra.
I have seen videos on YouTube where a bull elephant will toss or trample an elephant calf and throw their trunk in the air with the head back and make a noise.
I would argue, laughter can be a dominance signal. The stronger laughs at the weaker one.
On the bright side, the article this article is about seems to contain at least the list of animals, see table 1: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/05/from-apes-to-birds-t...
This table of 65 animals is "play vocalizations", though, and includes animals like domestic cats and dogs. I've never seen a cat laugh at a situation, in real life or on the Internet, so it seems this arstecchnica article about "laughing animals" should be taken with a few grains of salt and is really more about playing and making a noise to indicate that they're playing (and shouldn't feel attacked) to their playmates.
I do like that humans are categorized with the great apes.
[1] https://www.bl.uk/the-language-of-birds/articles/alarm-and-m...
[2] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/nuthatche...
[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobbing_(animal_behavior)
EDIT: Just for completeness, he's a Mitered Conure. Conure's are probably the most gregarious parrots I've encountered.
Sometimes, when hosting a meeting, I find myself laughing through a sentance when there's really nothing funny at all. I wonder to myself "what the hell was that?".
According to this article, it's probably my subconscious/instinct trying to put the audiance at ease or make the subject matter more "playful" than dry business and communicate that "it's OK to communicate freely - you're not going to be reprimanded".
However, that can also have reverse consequences when people subconsciously over-react and interpret that laugh that you think the subject work is a game and not serious, or that your role is a bit of a joke and they don't have to take you seriously. I will definitely keep this in mind going forward and try to control that awkward trait.
It's as you say, some people work hard to ensure everyone else feels at ease.
I’m trying to rationalize this now... I guess I think of it as tension defusing? Definitely going to be more cognizant of this.
But when there is an issue of some kind, or I'm getting frustrated, that's when grins can make the situation worse. Sometimes there is a language barrier and the other party is not sure why there is frustration, and the default smile reaction (because they are nervous or to defuse the situation with a smile) is counterproductive.
This is also known and the "benign-violation theory"[1]. Things are funny when they should offend or violate (even at some simplistic level) but don't. Someone slips and falls? It can be funny as long as we judge them to be mostly unharmed.
Back into your context, and to reinforce what you said: it's possible you're instinctively trying to communicate that, as dry as the communication is, you're trying to add levity to the subject matter.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/funny-h...
For more, ethologist (animal-behaviorist) Frans de Waal writes engaging books (primates), as does Patricia McConnell (dogs), Jennifer Ackerman (birds), and Bernd Heinrich (insects, birds), amongst many others. Any you suggest?
Laughter can be caused by the comprehension of an absurdity, a frustrated intention or by something that violates a norm. I would not readily ascribe this sort of comprehension to the aforementioned animals and would be careful not to anthropomorphize other species, as tempting as it might be.
Karl Popper's four functions of language might help here. Language has an expressive function, a signaling function, a descriptive function and an argumentative function. No other animal besides Man shows any sign of the anything but the first two, but it's the second two that require abstract concepts. These animals may very well possess imagination, but imagination is essentially concrete. You don't imagine Triangularity, but rather specific triangles (though in human beings, by virtue of having an intellect, the image of a triangle is "accompanied by" the concept of Triangularity).
I was left in no doubt -- none whatsoever -- that they were laughing at the absurdity of what I evidently considered "swimming".
Maybe I'm anthropomorphizing them... but I'm pretty sure they were dolphopomorphizing me first, and it was cracking them up.
Anyhow, those dolphins were a bunch of punks.
There have a been a few knows cases of it. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/nov/24/internationa...
I just think it is really fun to see every time he smiles and he does it pretty much daily, often when it's time for a walk or a run.
This is one of those things I read just before I had my first child, and I'm very glad I did. It made communicating with him easier -- him, obviously, not knowing English yet.
We have phrases like "laughing at you" where the default assumption is negative, not positive.
If laughter communicates "I wanna play", then laughing while someone is afraid, or sad, or disturbed actually communicates something very sinister: "I wanna play, and you're my toy".
I suspect this angle is why in horror movies seeing playing children in odd contexts, or creepy dolls, or phrases like "wanna play a game" in Saw and so on is so effective. There's nothing more dehumanizing than realizing you're a plaything in the hands of a higher power that has zero regard for you as a life.
Playful laughter indeed means "not going at someones throat"
(unless very psychopathic behavior)
For the purpose of communicating with a human baby (which is effectively like communicating with an exceptionally slow-witted chimpanzee) the simplistic idea served me well.
Too arbitrary to search only for audible laughter. As though laughter were inconceivable amongst say humans without the capacity for vocalisation.
I would characterise laughter as a patterned break in any measurable intra-species communication channel. Immediately followed by reestablished communication at lowered tension. Laughter has to be cathartic.
Not easy to get enough big data, and labelling those patterns would be problematic. Yet it could be feasible. I imagine that we'd eventually be remarking upon species that lacked laughter as being exceptional.
Such an approach might help address long-term failures such as dolphin NLP. Rather than aiming to solve an entire species, instead aim to solve common communication patterns across many species.
The clip description gets it wrong but some comments recognize it. The laughing bit is near the end.
Youtube should be a gold mine for ethologists, maybe not for concrete data but at least for ideas for research.