The aforementioned couplet can represent any category of people who would normally not walk into a bar. The incongruity here is created, when the personalities don’t blend with each other. Not knowing makes us uncomfortable and makes our brains whirr. Our anxiety increases. Introduce the punch line—the rhetoric wordplay of the bartender, and the scatological turn of events resolves our anxiety. The new perspective leads to amusement. Mentally, we may have recoiled a bit; maybe because of the explicitness of the joke or maybe because of our own stupidity. The bar jokes are a spectacle of modern humour, with the first one dating back to the early 1950s. Endowed with a simple body design, the joke acts as a canvas for different shades of humour—puns, sarcasm, wordplay, etc. It represents one of the many pillars upon which we define humour and comedy. But humour, as we understand today, didn’t appear suddenly; it is a result of an evolutionary process dating back to our earliest times. Both humour and laughter are byproducts of complex cognitive processes taking place inside our brains, intertwining their evolutionary process with that of our mental sphere. In its earliest form, humour was associated with the grunting and panting sounds that occurred during ‘tickling and social play’, or ‘playful aggression’ among our ancient primate ancestors and early hominids. This is the pristine form of laughter, also known as Duchenne laughter or proto humour, whereas, its counterpart, the Non-Duchenne laughter—characterized by advance vocal and nervous functionalities, occurred in aggressive, nervous, or hierarchical contexts, functioning to signal, to appease, or to manipulate. Leap forward a million years or so. By the late 6th century BCE, the Greeks had institutionalized humour in the ritual known as comedy—an art that was performed in contrast to the dramatic form tragedy. Both these art forms highlighted the world as an entanglement of conflicting emotions where tragedy valorized serious, emotional engagement with life’s problems, comedy, in contrast, embodied an anti-heroic, pragmatic attitude towards the same. Tragedy and elitism went hand in hand, whereas comedy, as argued by Aristotle in his Poetics, was an imitation of common, inferior people. Its language imitated the common speech unlike the elevated speech of the aristocracy. While tragic heroes were emotionally engaged with their problems, comic protagonists displayed emotional disengagement.