HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

⬐ aptsurdist

In this interview they speculate about whether our attraction to music might be a by-product of the fact that we have evolved other specialized skills that aid our individual survival. For example, our survival is aided by our rhythm analysis which helps us walk upright, and our speech analyzing mechanisms which help us in many obvious ways - the idea is that we enjoy music because we are obsessively attuned to these survival-aiding perceptions.

I've always enjoyed contemplating the inverse of this theory; what if we gained appreciation for music and other collective rituals because by acting out these rituals (as individuals), our collective tribe benefited. These rituals cause us individuals to 'tune' ourselves as a collective and as a result, the tribe has increased chances of survival.

If this were the case, it would be more appropriate to say that our collective tribes evolved music and rituals for the tribe's sake - it doesn't directly help an individual survive and the individual might not even understand their compulsion to participate. For example, a drum beat might compel a soldier into battle. A religious ritual might compel an individual to supersede their allegiance in order to serve a king. If you look at other species like bees and ants that function as a collective, you see that their 'dance' is not an individual's language but one that evolved because it enabled the collective to survive. Again, the individuals might not understand their dance - they just wanna dance!

So actually, I like the idea that maybe speech, language, and what we call intelligence are all byproducts of adaptations like music and rhythm that appear worthless to individual survival, but in fact are crucial to the survival of the collective. What do you all think?

⬐ zemaj

Seems unlikely. While music may be beneficial to a collective, a collective would not be able exist without some form of communication. It appears that the generation and appreciation of music relies on a number of genes that seem unlikely to have evolved purely for music. The selection pressure would almost certainly be stronger on very basic levels of communication before any higher levels of tribal organisation, if purely because they can't exist without the basic selection on communication.

⬐ asdflkj

A beehive or an ant colony is actually one organism, from the point of view of evolution. The individual insects are genetically identical within a collective.

⬐ avar

No it isn't, you should read The Selfish Gene by Dawkins. There's a chapter explaining that this is a myth with little grounds in reality.

There's a lot of backstabbing and competition that goes on within individual hives of the social insects.

⬐ asdflkj

I've read it, a long time ago. IIRC, there is competition among the very few breeders, but the non-breeding workers are in fact identical. The social cohesion parent was talking about happens among the workers.

⬐ goodside

"I've always enjoyed contemplating the inverse of this theory; what if we gained appreciation for music and other collective rituals because by acting out these rituals (as individuals), our collective tribe benefited. These rituals cause us individuals to 'tune' ourselves as a collective and as a result, the tribe has increased chances of survival."

This is called group selection. It's ironic that you mention it in response to this interview; Dawkins became famous by explaining the fact that group selection doesn't exist, and why theories like the one you've just suggested violate very fundamental principles of evolution. More: http://amzn.com/0199291152

⬐ jules

No, it's plausible that the rituals also benefit the individual. Group selection is nearly impossible if the thing that's good for the group is bad for the individual, but it's not clear that that's the case here.

But group selection is certainly not impossible. If you view a human as a population of cells, then cancer cells will tend to be group selected out.

⬐ goodside

"If you view a human as a population of cells, then cancer cells will tend to be group selected out."

Organism selection isn't a counterexample to the non-existence of group selection, because organism selection doesn't exist either. Selection pressure doesn't operate on species, populations, organisms, or even cells. It operates on genes. What appears to be organism selection is actually gene selection operating in the special circumstance that all of your cells were created by the same genome. This is also why bees, which will gladly commit suicide to sting you and protect the hive, aren't an example of group selection. The bees that sting you are sterile. The reproductive potential of their genes lies entirely outside of their bodies, so they're disposable. Their gonads are quite literally somewhere else.

So, I'll add the caveat that music could be adaptive in the sense originally described, conditional on a demonstration that people who enjoy similar music are sterile identical clones produced in bulk by the same mother.

⬐ jules

I don't see how picking a small part of what I said and nitpicking on the wording helps here. But if you insist I will reword it for you:

> If you view a human as a population of cells, then GENES THAT ARE LIKELY TO RESULT IN cancer cells will tend to be group selected out.

And as I said it is also entirely possible that being good at music/rituals improves an individual's chances of survival, as well as the chances of survival of the tribe. In this case the arguments against group selection don't apply.

Group selection is definitely an effect, but is a small effect compared to individual selection. So if traits that are good for the group are at odds with traits that are good for the individual then the traits that are good for the individual are likely to "win".

⬐ goodside

Even in an ideal situation where a mutation has a "pure" benefit to the group, with no other drawbacks to the mutated gene, it will not be selected for. Selection pressure is a scarce resource. It protects existing adaptations from the ever-present entropic decay of mutation. Genes that are not selected for, relative to the other genes in the population, will reliably fall apart due to lack of maintenance and their effects will disappear. A gene must continually justify its survival by outperforming competing mutant alleles. It's just not true that group selection is merely weak, or a secondary effect occurring only when genetic selection allows it. The aggregate contribution of group selection to a gene's survival is literally zero.

I'm not arguing that music isn't adaptive. It's plausible that its adaptive value is to display to potential mates how well one's brain processes rhythm, which is useful for any number of physical activities as Pinker points out in the interview. But that's different than being selected for because it makes the group more cohesive. It may even, in fact, make the group more cohesive, but this will have nothing to do with why it was selected. This would have to be a happenstance byproduct, and thus not a plausible explanation for the existence of a complex adaptation like music. It would no more explain music than having your flowers watered would explain why it's raining.

⬐ jules

So in what way is cancer not an example of group selection? Cancer cells reproduce more quickly, so in a sense they are fitter. However, on a large scale, the scale of complete groups (group = human being), they perform poorly because they kill the group. In other words, if the universe consisted of one giant human being then the cancer cells would definitely win. However, because of the group structure and the selection for complete groups, this doesn't happen.

I agree that within a group, group selection doesn't matter (duh). However, if you look at the aggregate of groups, after some time the groups with the group benefiting genes still exist while the other groups have died out. The groups that still exist will spawn new groups, etc, the standard evolution tale.

Consider this extreme case:

We have several groups. At every time step the group has a chance of being annihilated. An individual in a group can either have gene A or gene B. If an individual of a group has gene A then the chance that the group as a whole is annihilated is decreased. If it has gene B then this chance stays the same. Each individual in the group has a chance of reproducing. Once the group is above a certain size, it splits into two groups.

Now I'm sure you agree that gene A will be selected for relative to gene B, even though gene A gives no benefit to the individual relative to the other individuals in its group.

In the aggregate of groups, a gene with a huge benefit to the group and a slight disadvantage to the individual can, in the aggregate of groups, outperform a gene with a slight benefit to the individual but no benefit to the group. Sure, the conditions have to be just right for this to happen, but it does happen (e.g. cancer cells). So you can't say just because "group selection is impossible" that group selection doesn't happen in populations of animals. You need to analyze the particular situation to determine this.

It is possible, in principle, that rituals are another example of this.

⬐ goodside

You're right. I apologize for having wasted your time and humbly award you three karma points.

⬐ Jach

Well said. Even more (no need to get a book out): http://lesswrong.com/lw/kw/the_tragedy_of_group_selectionism...

⬐ cma

That math doesn't work out the same if the trait doesn't have an appreciable cost to the organism (the case he considered has one of the most extreme costs).

⬐ aptsurdist

thanks for the tips - I've been meaning to check out 'The Selfish Gene'. I checked out the lesswrong.com article - I'm not sure that my argument is the same as what they are trying to disprove - it sounds like their models are based on individuals that collude or act altruistically in order to benefit collectively. I don't think that 'intention' is a good concept for understanding evolution in the first place. Also, from checking out the Wikipedia article on group selection, it doesn't sound like there is scientific agreement that this concept is disproved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection

I'll go and read The selfish Gene before I write more, but one more pesky comment about the experiment in the lesswrong.com article: I am suspicious of their conclusion that their case study disproves group selection. This does not seem to respect the vast scope of evolutionary time scale. Maybe group selection is like quantum tunneling - with large clusters of individuals, the chances of it happening are infinitesimal - you won't see it in the laboratory. But on an evolutionary time scale, infinitesimal chances do happen occasionally - and if they yield advantageous results, they will shape life's future. Maybe our love for music came about from freak genetic mutations that in fact didn't serve much purpose for individual survival, but this collective activity caused individuals to synchronize their behavior. Maybe this synchronization helps low-advantage/individual traits 'tunnel' probabilistically and exist long afterward because the same traits are high-advantage/collective traits. (?)

⬐ crux

I think this is a very worthwhile video to watch. Dawkins and Pinker (Dawkins in particular, of course) are part of a demimonde with something of a reputation for being uncompromising hardliners—no doubt because in their handling of theological questions they are uncompromising hardliners—but much of what Pinker's talking about here is teasing apart and deflecting the many superficial understandings of adaptationist and EvPsych-oriented thought that give it such a bad name. The fact is that many people who find EvPsych to be very attractive nevertheless have a pretty shallow notion of it and end up using it as a club, and offering cheaply Objectivist rationales for rape and looking at boobs at the like.

Pinker establishes two things within the first ten minutes that make his perspective a lot more reasonable and considered: any adaptationist account of a behavior MUST begin with an a priori appraisal of that behavior on its own merits. As an 'engineering problem', he puts it. So it's not enough to look at some human behavior and then explain that it occurs because it is a natural function of some basic need, if there would be no half-way reasonable way for that function to emerge as useful without already existing.

The second thing is that if you do establish or argue for some feature as an adaptation, you have only provided a possible account of its origin as an evolved behavior, and said nothing at all about its worth or appropriateness in the world.

I think that questions of behavior as adaptive would encounter less immediate resistance—and explanations of behavior as adaptive would lose much of their unsavory panacean appeal—if these factors were better understood.

⬐ berntb

>>Pinker establishes two things within the first ten minutes that make his perspective a lot more reasonable and considered

This isn't new. Go back and check what Pinker/Dawkins et al have been writing for a long time.

>>I think that questions of behavior as adaptive would encounter less immediate resistance—and explanations of behavior as adaptive would lose much of their unsavory panacean appeal—if these factors were better understood.

You shouldn't just trust other people's description of the position they argue against, if they argue from political/religious standpoints.

(I don't know why the extreme left have problems with some behaviors being strongly influenced genetically. Frankly, I have better things to do than care what some idealists "know" are true.)

That said, you will find bad research in all areas.

Edit: I might add this reference from an old Gould discussion, to show that side of the coin...

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html

Or this fun review of a "classic" book:

http://dba.fc.ul.pt/evo/textos/dawkins_review_not_in_our_gen...

⬐ stuaxo

Banned from your country on copyright grounds... ffs... channel 4 is from my country ... arg !

⬐ csallen

If you're interesting in reading a very long, very engaging interview of Steven Pinker, check this out: http://www.cosmoetica.com/DSI4.htm

⬐ hugh3

Having got two brilliant and interesting people like Dawkins and Pinker into one room at the same time, it's a pity they couldn't rustle up anything other than a single, handheld camera. I don't think I'm likely to watch the full 68 minutes, it's making me seasick. Oddly the fact that they're both standing up for the entire video also makes me a bit uncomfortable... why don't you take a seat, guys?

The other problem is that I really get the idea that Dawkins aren't really having a discussion as such, they're just talking back and forth about things they both know perfectly well.

I'm starting to appreciate the traditional style of interview, where the interviewer is ignorant, and thus a better stand-in for the audience.

⬐ avar

Urgh no. Few things frustrate me more than reading interesting literature by people like Dawkins and Chomsky, then going online and finding that 90% of the interviews with them are conducted by ignorant mass-media shrills. Who obviously haven't read any of their works, and echo the same stupid questions that have been asked in every other interview with them.

I'd rather watch two experts in a field conversing. That's thought provocative, and it gives me good pointers on subjects that I should follow up on.

⬐ dmix

"What you see here is the full extended interview, which includes a lot of rough camera transitions that were edited out of the final program (along with a lot of content)."

This still doesn't explain why the camera transitions mid-sentence.

⬐ jasonkeene

Yes these are the raw interviews filmed for the making of "The Genius of Charles Darwin" by the BBC. Not really just a hand-held camera, more the style of the production. I find it very interesting, giving a behind the scenes view of the documentary. Exposes a lot of the personal exchanges that normally get left on the cutting room floor. Check out the Dannett interview for some good bits around 37:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lfTPTFN94o#t=37m10s

Also I would recommend checking out Craig Venter's interview, was probably the best out of the bunch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E25jgPgmzk

⬐ chaosmachine

It's sort of a Dawkins trademark. Many of his interviews are done in this standing, handheld camera style.

I find it creates this weird perception of almost being in the same room, like you're part of the conversation. It's distracting, but also engaging.