The theory of comedy that I find the most convincing is that things we find “funny” are non-threatening violations of social mores. According to that theory being funny isn’t so much about being rational, but understanding the unwritten rules that govern society. More specifically it’s about understanding when breaking social rules is actually acceptable. It’s kind of like speeding. It’s theoretically illegal to go 26 in a 25 mph zone. But as a practical matter, no cop is going to pull you over for it. I’m not sure that an especially detailed understanding of social norms is directly useful to becoming more rational. Maybe to the extent that you’re more consciously aware of them and how they influence your thinking.
“Non-threatening violations of social mores” seems to underspecify what things are funny. Most non-threatening norm violations lead to other reactions like cringe, annoyance, sympathy, contempt, confusion, or indifference rather than comedy. Curb Your Enthusiasm and Mr. Bean had lots of funny scenes which involved norm violations, but if their creators were less talented then people would’ve cringed instead of laughing (and some people do that anyways). I don’t think their talent consists primarily of ‘finding ways to violate social mores’ or ‘figuring out how to make that benign’.
“Norm violations” and “non-threatening” also seem like generalizations that aren’t true of all humor. “The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw” and referencing movies don’t seem like norm violations. Gallows humor and bullies laughing at their victim don’t seem threat-free.