Some activities are highly theoretical: you learn the principles of operation, and maybe how they break down into elements, practice briefly, and then execute at a high level.

Other activities are highly practical: you can learn the theory via a brief rundown, but executing at a high level takes years to decades of practice.

My theory of theory of humour is that humour is in the latter category.

It's kinda like music theory - if you're already a talented composer, music theory helps clarify a few technical mysteries and sheds light on other composers' work. But it tells you nothing about creating interesting music, and it's typically apparent when a composer writes according to theory rather than according to their own ears.

Likewise I think some sophisticated humorists would benefit from reading philosophies of satire, psychology of slapstick, etc, to help hone their craft. But those are not how-to guides.

> Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process

No, any consist theory of humor cannot explain all humor. Gerbils' Incompleteness Theorem.