Luke_A_Somers comments on The Gift We Give To Tomorrow - Less Wrong

44 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 17 July 2008 06:07AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (97)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: komponisto2 18 July 2008 06:02:00AM 1 point [-]

The book How Music Really Works has some decent ideas about the evolution of music.

On the contrary. That is exactly the sort of rubbish that gives evolutionary psychology such a bad name.

The idea that something like music -- an extremely high-level byproduct of human cognition -- could be explained directly as an evolutionary adaptation is absurd enough. (Imagine trying to give a Darwinian account of why chess pieces move in the way they do.) The invocation of sexual selection -- the process that explains the peacock's fancy tail -- borders on the ludicrous. Sexual selection is only a candidate explanation in cases of marked sexual dimorphism -- a significant phenotypic difference between males and females, as in the peacock. The fact (if true) that professional musicians statistically tend to be males doesn't come anywhere close to cutting it.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 05 July 2012 02:11:01PM 2 points [-]

Sexual selection only applies in cases of strong sexual dimorphism? That... isn't what I was taught in high school bio class, nor does it square with my understanding of the dynamics of life. Or, at least, that human dimorphism is sufficiently strong for sexual selection effects to begin kicking in.