[AUDITORY] Results of music and evolution survey ("Patel, Aniruddh D." )

Subject: [AUDITORY] Results of music and evolution survey From: "Patel, Aniruddh D." <a.patel@xxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 14:36:24 +0000 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY> --_000_E06FF38A806E884E9F935E87BFE5694C0121419B2DSSVMEXDAG01MB_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear List, My sincere thanks to those who responded to the survey on music and evoluti= on. The survey asked for a yes/no answer to this question: "Do you think evolut= ion has specifically shaped the human brain to support music processing? (N= ote: there is no right answer, this is about your intuition)." There was an optional follow-up question about the main reason you have for= holding your view. The responses from the Auditory List were a perfect 50/50 split, with 53 ye= s and 53 no. The reasons given for "yes" responses (from most to least common) were: 1. Music processing (or aspects of it) evolved as the result of selec= tive pressures relating to social bonding, mother-infant bonding, sexual fi= tness displays, emotional regulation, etc. 2. Music is pervasive and spontaneous across cultures 3. Some neurological/biological/genetic traits are domain-specific to= music (rhythmic entrainment, higher-level music processing, etc.) 4. Infants show musical preferences before musical understanding can = be learned 5. We emotionally respond to music like other stimuli important to su= rvival 6. Music is similar to language, perhaps even a precursor, and langua= ge was shaped by evolution 7. Music is too dissimilar to language to be only a side-effect of la= nguage processing 8. Epigenetic transmission of acquired traits 9. We are drawn to music beyond merely for pleasure 10. Musicality has been important to our culture for long enough to be se= lected for 11. We can be impacted by music even when other neural processes are dama= ged The reasons given for "no" responses (from most to least common) were: 1. Music seems more like a byproduct/ invention which takes advantage= of other evolved traits, or music is not important enough to be the main d= riving force for selection in comparison to other traits which share music = processing networks 2. No proof that music has specialized evolutionary advantage 3. Animals other than humans create music for non-communication purpo= ses 4. Music processing specificity in the brain comes from environmental= factors rather than evolutionary ones 5. Musical skill/interest is not universal, what we think of as "musi= c" isn't static over time 6. There hasn't been enough time for musicality to evolve If you did not participate in the survey and would like to do so, here is = the link (we need a tie breaker!): https://tinyurl.com/yadpvpaf And if this topic interests you, you might browse the table of contents of = the recent book The Origins of Musicality (Henkjan Honing, Ed., 2018): https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Musicality-MIT-Press/dp/0262037459 (You can see the table of contents by using Amazon's "Look Inside" feature.= ) Regards, Ani Aniruddh D. Patel Professor, Dept. of Psychology, Tufts University Senior Fellow, Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) Azrieli Program in Brain, Mind, & Consciousness http://ase.tufts.edu/psychology/people/patel/ --_000_E06FF38A806E884E9F935E87BFE5694C0121419B2DSSVMEXDAG01MB_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr= osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:= //www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"= > <meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"#0563C1" vlink=3D"#954F72"> <div class=3D"WordSection1"> Dear List,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> My sincere thanks to those who responded to the surv= ey on music and evolution.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The survey asked for a yes/no answer to this questio= n: “Do you think evolution has specifically shaped the human brain to su= pport music processing? (Note: there is no right answer, this is about your= intuition).”<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> There was an optional follow-up question about the m= ain reason you have for holding your view.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The responses from the Auditory List were a perfect = 50/50 split, with 53 yes and 53 no. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The reasons given for “yes” responses (f= rom most to least common) were:<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>1.       <![endif]>Music processing (or aspects of it) evolved as the = result of selective pressures relating to social bonding, mother-infant bon= ding, sexual fitness displays, emotional regulation, etc. <o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>2.       <![endif]>Music is pervasive and spontaneous across cultures<= o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>3.       <![endif]>Some neurological/biological/genetic traits are dom= ain-specific to music (rhythmic entrainment, higher-level music processing,= etc.)<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>4.       <![endif]>Infants show musical preferences before musical und= erstanding can be learned<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>5.       <![endif]>We emotionally respond to music like other stimuli = important to survival<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>6.       <![endif]>Music is similar to language, perhaps even a precur= sor, and language was shaped by evolution<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>7.       <![endif]>Music is too dissimilar to language to be only a si= de-effect of language processing<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>8.       <![endif]>Epigenetic transmission of acquired traits<o:p></o:= p> <![if !supportLists]>9.       <![endif]>We are drawn to music beyond merely for pleasure<o:= p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>10.   <![endif]>Musicality has been important to our culture for lo= ng enough to be selected for<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>11.   <![endif]>We can be impacted by music even when other neural = processes are damaged<o:p></o:p> The reasons given for “no” responses (fr= om most to least common) were:<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>1.       <![endif]>Music seems more like a byproduct/ invention which = takes advantage of other evolved traits, or music is not important enough t= o be the main driving force for selection in comparison to other traits whi= ch share music processing networks<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>2.       <![endif]>No proof that music has specialized evolutionary ad= vantage<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>3.       <![endif]>Animals other than humans create music for non-comm= unication purposes<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>4.       <![endif]>Music processing specificity in the brain comes fro= m environmental factors rather than evolutionary ones<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>5.       <![endif]>Musical skill/interest is not universal, what we th= ink of as "music" isn’t static over time<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>6.       <![endif]>There hasn't been enough time for musicality to evo= lve<o:p></o:p> If you did not participate in the survey and would l= ike to  do so, here is the link (we need a tie breaker!):<o:p></o:p></= p> <o:p> </o:p> <a href=3D"https://tinyurl.com/yadpvpaf">https://tinyurl.com/yadpvpaf</a><o:p= ></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> And if this topic interests you, you might browse th= e table of contents of the recent book The Origins of Musicality (Henkjan Honing, Ed., 2018): <o:p></o:p></= p> <a href=3D"https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Musicality= -MIT-Press/dp/0262037459">https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Musicality-MIT-Pre= ss/dp/0262037459</a><o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> (You can see the table of contents by using Amazon&#= 8217;s “Look Inside” feature.)<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Regards,<o:p></o:p> Ani <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Aniruddh D. Patel<o:p></o:p> Professor, Dept. of Psychology, Tufts University<o:p= ></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Senior Fellow, Canadian Institute for Advanced Resea= rch (CIFAR)<o:p></o:p> Azrieli Program in Brain, Mind, & Consciousness<= o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <a href=3D"http://ase.tufts.edu/psychology/people/pa= tel/">http://ase.tufts.edu/psychology/people/patel/</a><o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html> --_000_E06FF38A806E884E9F935E87BFE5694C0121419B2DSSVMEXDAG01MB_--

This message came from the mail archive
src/postings/2019/
maintained by:

DAn Ellis <dpwe@ee.columbia.edu>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University