What's music for...?
Always interested me this question, but I have never read any persuasive theory or even speculation as to why the human species has developed the capacity to create and appreciate something as practically useless as music. That is until recently.Emoticons
I am a firm believer in the theory of evolution, and have become fascinated by the ways that natural selection and sexual selection in our genetic past may have led to today's behaviours of human beings (a field of theory called 'evolutionary psychology).
I came across the following book, referenced in a publication that I was reading:
Essentially, the Zahavi brothers' theory is that displays of Dariwian fitness are an important part of sexual selection (ie how individuals choose their mates) across the animal kingdom. In many cases these "fitness indicators" extend into biological features that actually handicap the animal in terms of the energy they require to grow, maintain and carry. For example, the male peacock's tail is a display to potential peahen mates of just how much spare energy the peacock must have to generate such an impressive display. The peacock's tail has become so attractive to peahens precisely because it is so impractical.
In addition, by developing such complicated features as a peacock tail, an individual demonstrates its inherent general genetic fitness/healthiness.
Unsurprisingly research shows a correlation between the most impressive tails and mating success. Any peahen would want to provide it's offspring with the genes of a peacock who is genetically healthy enough to make the most impressive display around.
The Zahavis look at various "fitness indicators" in the animal kingdom that conform to their theory. Some of these fitness indicators include behavious, for example birds that compete among their fellow flock members to take dangerous look-out positions and call loudly (thus giving away their position) when predators approach. Again there is a proven correlation between birds who most often take up these perilous positions and mating success. The Zahavis claim that this is because being a successful lookout is a fitness indicator that increases both an individual's social status and mating chances.
It is also proposed that animal behaviours such as altruism have developed as fitness indicators (ie if an individual can afford to give away food then it must be fit enough to generate a surplus). The Zahavis point out that these kinds of altruistic behavioural displays are a preferable alternative to those involving fighting, as physical conflict is a risky business when it comes to survival chances without medical care.
The theory goes on to propose that the human brain has evolved for exactly the same reasons as the peacock's tail. The human brain, or more precisely the behaviours that it generates, is a feature that has evolved from being a functional solution to survival problems in our distant ancestors, to its current size solely to indicate an individual's fitness. Through various behaviours that demonstrate complixity beyond the functional: language, art, dance, music an individual can display that they:
1. Are genetically fit enough to carry a blueprint for such an effective brain and;
2. The are genetically fit enough to supply the calories and nutrition to have grown and sustain such a handicapping organ. (The human brain consumes a huge energy value during growth and day-to-day use.)
Beyond this, the Zahavis report that there are correlations between creativity in language, art, dance and music and IQ, suggesting that through creative pursuits one also demonstrates one's ability to solve problems.
We are emotionally charged to show off our brain size and fitness through displays of intelligence, music, language, dance and visual arts. And, as these are some of the currencies in which human's gague status and sexual attractiveness we have, in tandem, evolved the ability to appreciate them (socially/emotionally/sexually attractive) in others.
Anyway, it's the best theory that I've come across. Purely accademic interest of course, it effects my enjoyment of music not one jot...!
I am a firm believer in the theory of evolution, and have become fascinated by the ways that natural selection and sexual selection in our genetic past may have led to today's behaviours of human beings (a field of theory called 'evolutionary psychology).
I came across the following book, referenced in a publication that I was reading:
Essentially, the Zahavi brothers' theory is that displays of Dariwian fitness are an important part of sexual selection (ie how individuals choose their mates) across the animal kingdom. In many cases these "fitness indicators" extend into biological features that actually handicap the animal in terms of the energy they require to grow, maintain and carry. For example, the male peacock's tail is a display to potential peahen mates of just how much spare energy the peacock must have to generate such an impressive display. The peacock's tail has become so attractive to peahens precisely because it is so impractical.
In addition, by developing such complicated features as a peacock tail, an individual demonstrates its inherent general genetic fitness/healthiness.
Unsurprisingly research shows a correlation between the most impressive tails and mating success. Any peahen would want to provide it's offspring with the genes of a peacock who is genetically healthy enough to make the most impressive display around.
The Zahavis look at various "fitness indicators" in the animal kingdom that conform to their theory. Some of these fitness indicators include behavious, for example birds that compete among their fellow flock members to take dangerous look-out positions and call loudly (thus giving away their position) when predators approach. Again there is a proven correlation between birds who most often take up these perilous positions and mating success. The Zahavis claim that this is because being a successful lookout is a fitness indicator that increases both an individual's social status and mating chances.
It is also proposed that animal behaviours such as altruism have developed as fitness indicators (ie if an individual can afford to give away food then it must be fit enough to generate a surplus). The Zahavis point out that these kinds of altruistic behavioural displays are a preferable alternative to those involving fighting, as physical conflict is a risky business when it comes to survival chances without medical care.
The theory goes on to propose that the human brain has evolved for exactly the same reasons as the peacock's tail. The human brain, or more precisely the behaviours that it generates, is a feature that has evolved from being a functional solution to survival problems in our distant ancestors, to its current size solely to indicate an individual's fitness. Through various behaviours that demonstrate complixity beyond the functional: language, art, dance, music an individual can display that they:
1. Are genetically fit enough to carry a blueprint for such an effective brain and;
2. The are genetically fit enough to supply the calories and nutrition to have grown and sustain such a handicapping organ. (The human brain consumes a huge energy value during growth and day-to-day use.)
Beyond this, the Zahavis report that there are correlations between creativity in language, art, dance and music and IQ, suggesting that through creative pursuits one also demonstrates one's ability to solve problems.
We are emotionally charged to show off our brain size and fitness through displays of intelligence, music, language, dance and visual arts. And, as these are some of the currencies in which human's gague status and sexual attractiveness we have, in tandem, evolved the ability to appreciate them (socially/emotionally/sexually attractive) in others.
Anyway, it's the best theory that I've come across. Purely accademic interest of course, it effects my enjoyment of music not one jot...!
Comments
It's possible that (low level) musical performance and appreciation evolved 200,000 years ago as part of the human genome due to the handicap principle. (Though really when one speaks of the human genome it really a generailty, as beyond identical twins, everyone's genome is unique.) Those that are unusually gifted today (or in the not too distant past) and are able to become professional musicians represent the extreme of what humans are capable of musically. They are in essence freaks.
The point I'm making here is that when the human species arrived on the african savannah one thing that defined all mentally normal humans, and so the species as a whole, was a brain capable of pointless and handicapping frivolities such as music, art, humour, etc.,... at a level at which most of us are proficient. All of these things are common to all known human cultures, and appear to be part of inate human psychology and behaviour. Humming, whistling, singing, clapping and moving in time to a pulse, etc.,... were and are adverts of how our genomes and brains have energy to waste on functionless activties that serve no survival purpose.
First off perhaps I should put the 'fitness indicators' thing in context.
The 'natural selection' part of Darwinian theory is well known. Less well known is the 'sexual selection' part. Essentially Darwin, and his followers believe that there is more to the evolution of genomes (tho of course Darwin himself didn't know about the role of genomes in heredity) than the selection of genes that best aid survival. Given that most most genomes reproduce sexually, a genome once it survives to adulthood, must attract a mate. Ie it must be selected by a member of the opposite sex of its species. And it is in the interests of an individual animal/genome to be selected by the best/fitest member of the opposite sex available (so that any resulting offspring are as fit as possible). The details are different for males and females (females must be more choosy as their opportunities for reproduction are generally fewer and more costly over a lifetime), but this usually only a question of degree.
This is why 'fitness indicators' are important. They are signals (usually biological features or behaviours) that are costly to an animal. From a human perspective, the behaviours listed in this thread (altrusim, musical and artisitic ability, gsoh, etc.,...) are all products of an oversized, complex energy hungry organ. As such they are perceived by others as qualities that add to the attractiveness of an individual, and so improve reproductive chances.
There is also a 2nd tier to this that might get even closer to a possible answer your question Alan. The behaviours listed in this thread also tend to increase a person's status within their peer group generally, (as well as his or her direct attractiveness to individual members of the opposite sex). Higher status individuals tend to enjoy improved reproductive opportunities. This indirect selection pressure is more complicated, but may also have played a part in the evolution of the human genome. I certainly think it is one of the reasons why Internet forums (or any forum) exist, and are especially attractive to men, for whom status matters most.
Men "compete" for status in many many ways that use fitness indicators as currency: Physical prowess, technical skill, etc.,... but also in ways that are centred on the human brain as a fitness indicator. I suppose that these may include:
1. Information acquisition, retention and application;
2. Reasoned argument;
3. Humour...
...and probably other things.
Clearly there are other likely drivers/selection pressures behind communication. For example, basic information exchange through talking certainly has a survival benefit (e.g. "I'll tell you where the nearest water supply is if you tell me where you caught that byson"). Communication may also assist in group and pair bonding. But, personally I'm convinced that the finer points of verbal (and written) communication have been driven to some extent by sexual selection and the handicap principle.
It's really important to note here that few, if any behaviours are motivated consciously. I'm not for a minute suggesting that Dave sits behind his Mac thinking "Hmmmm...I need to increase my peer group status on Audiochews to improve my chances with the ladies...But how...?...I know! I'll demonstrate the vastness of my brain, and by implication the fitness of my genome, by posting about some of the obscure information that I have remembered about the Brussels jazz scene of the 1950s..." (though may be he does... ;-) ) No. Our genome entrusts very little, possibly nothing, of any great importance to our lazy, muddled, and conflicted conscious mind. The part of our brain that houses consciousness is no more likely to be entrusted with motivating humour, or an involvement with music or an insatiable desire to win an argument on a hifi forum, than it is with regulating our heart beat or digesting our food.