"By removing stipulations of content we have been forced to study the structures underlying any instance of humour, and it has become clear that it is not the content of the stimulus but the patterns underlying it that provide the potential for sources of humour. For patterns to exist it is necessary to have some form of content, but once that content exists, it is the level of the pattern at which humour operates and for which it delivers its rewards."

Previous theories have only ever applied to a small proportion of all instances of humour, many of them stipulating necessary content or social conditions either in the humour itself or around the individual experiencing it. But this doesn't explain why an individual can laugh at something when no one else around them does, nor why two people can laugh at the same stimulus for different reasons.

When a chord in your brain does a twist. When something it doesn't understand is seen to be clearly harmless/ The spring from a sudden relaxation of a tense thought. A relief, when your brain takes a breath after being dizzy, and finding a 'virtual' rail to hold it's self up.
If comedians knew how to work this twist, they would be a lot richer. Or at least they could have a lot more fun being poorer, still I'm only guessing.
When someone asks why you laughed, usually because it is funny is all you need to say. You could tell them more but they might just get confused.
You had to be there.

thank you for the great clip

"Pattern
Recognition answers how and why we find things funny, but it can not
say categorically what is funny since no content can be inherently more
or less funny than any other. The individual is of paramount importance
in determining what they find amusing, bringing memories, associations,
meta-meaning, disposition, their tendency to recognize patterns and
their comprehension of similarity to the equation"

damm it...guess we will have to figure that one on our own )