Human Brain = "Sexually Selected Ornament"
Love might be blind, but she is rarely deaf: Language and love have always been intimately entangled. Indeed Darwin believed love was one of the main reasons we have language and why it's so witty and ornamental.
Shakespeare (about three centuries before Darwin extended the connection) wrote, "If music be the food of love, play on." In The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Darwin laid out the remarkable, but now little remarked upon, differences between natural selection and sexual selection. Though of course that's not to say sexual selection is not natural. The crucial point is that the drive to survive pushes towards efficiency, whereas the equally important drive to reproduce can push in the opposite direction.
Darwin wrote, "Some early progenitor of man probably first used his voice in producing true musical cadences, that is in singing... and... this power would have been especially exerted during the courtship of the sexes." Hence music, and subsequently language, weren't just the food of love, they were likely also its audition. Modern developments of this view have extended far beyond the simple analogy with courtship songs. Suggesting that language (and our other sophisticated mental and behavioral traits) gained considerable complexity in the competition to impress the opposite sex. That leads to the seductive view that the modern human brain could be a "sexually selected ornament."
As I wrote on The Guardian's Books Blog:
"The most widely-known sexually selected ornament in nature is the peacock tail. It clearly doesn't fit the Darwinian view of evolution, in which species are ruthlessly honed to be lean-mean-survival-machines. Instead, peacock tails became so ostentatious (compared to peahen tails, which are small and a drab gray) in pursuit of the need to be wooing-machines. Often what makes you fittest makes you sexiest, but not always. The peacock tail is a substantial survival liability; surviving despite that is precisely what the peacock is advertising.
And that's where our conspicuous excess in the language of love comes in. The same pressures have driven us to ornament ourselves with sophisticated language to advertise our impressive brains, and our access to expensive resources like education and leisure time. It's not enough to be eye-catching (in Japanese, "getting one's eyes stolen") we also have to be ear-catching. Once a mating preference arises, sexual selection applies strong competitive pressures, resulting in an escalating charms race. Mother Nature has made bilinguists of us all. "
This post originally appeared here.
Illustration by Julia Suits, The New Yorker Cartoonist & author of The Extraordinary Catalog of Peculiar Inventions.
Malcolm Gladwell teaches "Get over yourself and get to work" for Big Think Edge.
- Learn to recognize failure and know the big difference between panicking and choking.
- At Big Think Edge, Malcolm Gladwell teaches how to check your inner critic and get clear on what failure is.
- Subscribe to Big Think Edge before we launch on March 30 to get 20% off monthly and annual memberships.
Big tech is making its opening moves into the health care scene, but its focus on tech-savvy millennials may miss the mark.
- Companies like Apple, Amazon, and Google have been busy investing in health care companies, developing new apps, and hiring health professionals for new business ventures.
- Their current focus appears to be on tech-savvy millennials, but the bulk of health care expenditures goes to the elderly.
- Big tech should look to integrating its most promising health care devise, the smartphone, more thoroughly into health care.
Turns out pushups are more telling than treadmill tests when it comes to cardiovascular health.
- Men who can perform 40 pushups in one minute are 96 percent less likely to have cardiovascular disease than those who do less than 10.
- The Harvard study focused on over 1,100 firefighters with a median age of 39.
- The exact results might not be applicable to men of other age groups or to women, researchers warn.
Here's why universal basic income will hurt the 99%, and make the 1% even richer.
- Universal basic income is a band-aid solution that will not solve wealth inequality, says Rushkoff.
- Funneling money to the 99% perpetuates their roles as consumers, pumping money straight back up to the 1% at the top of the pyramid.
- Rushkoff suggests universal basic assets instead, so that the people at the bottom of the pyramid can own some means of production and participate in the profits of mega-rich companies.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.