> Actually food is used to define social hierarchy in many groups and societies - mainly the order in which it is eaten. The head of the family eats first and gets the largest piece of the chicken.

So you're saying that the hierarchy would not exist except for the food? The OP's post said that humor, like food, _reflects_ an existing hierarchy, and, as far as I can see, this dinner table hierarchy would exist regardless of the food.

The telegraphs summary seems like your standard effort to simplify a complex signaling action into a simpler action.

Real research, on things like game theory, actually has shown how a single signal can have multiple functions that vary depending on the context. This "research" is clearly not aware of these modern advances...

Uh, and the funniest thing is that the only article in the "Journal Of Pragmatics" that I could find said just the opposite: "Humor serves a wide range of functions at work, one of which is to foster collegiality. An analysis of interactions in New Zealand workplaces showed that one of the most important functions of humor was the construction and maintenance of good relations with fellow workers. " ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi... )

When integrating dogs into a new group, trainers often intentionally create a specific hierarchy. This serves to keep the dogs from creating it themselves via fighting, and can allow for one dog to be a leader, for example if you need them to cooperate in pulling a sled.

One of the key ways of creating the hierarchy is to feed the alpha dog first, and only feed the other dogs when the alpha dog is done. This is of course not the only way to create a hierarchy, and as you point out one would exist even if food was so abundant that it wasn't an issue.

The hierarchy would exist - yes. But the order in which food is eaten reinforces the hierarchy - no?

No.

The order in which the food is eaten is simply a reflection of the hierarchy. One eats first because one is the king. One does not become the king by eating first.

You can certainly signal your intent to assume the position by eating ahead of your position. And if you do get away with it, chances are you will be the next king.

Same with humor. Review the material on the use of pornography and humor in the French Revolution.

[edit grammar]

In many groups, the head of the family eats last and gets the smallest piece of the chicken.

P.S. I'm using humour for self-defence.

I think I remember that Leeeeeroy Jenkins was not the leader of the group, but he was the only one to have chicken.

In my experience, the head of the family feeds the kids first, eats a salad and a breadstick, then eats a full meal off of what's left on the kids' plates.