From maladaptation to competition to cooperation in the evolution of musical behaviour

Abstract

We propose a model of how a maladaptive and competitive system of musical interaction, based on a notion of enchantment, can evolve towards a cooperative system. This model supports our position that social competitive models comprise an important domain of theoretical investigation in the evolution of musical behaviour, and that this area deserves more attention. The model is based on the biocultural theory of Boyd and Richerson (1985), which provides a basis for runaway cultural evolutionary processes, and we argue that our model offers an alternative runaway process to the sexual selection theory of the evolution of human musical behaviour. We present computer simulations in which a population of artificial agents engage in a competitive game of interaction in a context in which fitness is socially determined. These simulations demonstrate cases of the genetic evolution of perceptual systems and increasing susceptibility to manipulation by stimuli generated by other individuals. However, this latter outcome generally reduces to a standard kin selection model. We discuss these results and propose ways in which the model could be developed to consider more complex contexts and modes of interaction.

Keywords

music evolution simulation kin selection maladaptation competition cohesion.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Axelrod

(1987). The evolution of strategies in the iterated prisoner's dilemma. In Davis

(ed), Genetic Algorithms and Simulated Annealing, pp. 32–41. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman.

Barkow

J. H.

, Cosmides

, & Tooby

(1992). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bispham

(2006). Rhythm in music: What is it? who has it? and why? Music Perception, 24 (2), 123–4.

Boyd

, & Richerson

P. J.

(1985). Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Cross

(2001). Music, cognition, culture and evolution. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 930, 28–42.

Cross

(2003). Music as a biocultural phenomenon. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (The Neurosciences and Music), 999, 106–11.

Di Paolo

E. A.

(1997). Social coordination and spatial organization: Steps towards the evolution of communication. In Husbands

, & Harvey

(eds), Fourth European Conference on Artificial Life, pp. 464–473. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dissanayake

(2000). Antecedents of the temporal arts in early mother-infant interaction. In Wallin

N. L.

, Merker

, & Brown

(eds), The Origins of Music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dunbar

(1998). The social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology, 6, 178–90.

10.

Fitch

W. T.

(2006). On the biology and evolution of music. Music Perception, 24 (1), 85–8.

11.

Henrich

, & Gil-White

F. J.

(2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 22, 165–96.

12.

Krebs

J. R.

, & Dawkins

(1984). Animal signals: Mind reading and manipulation. In Krebs

J. R.

, & Davies

N. B.

(eds), Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach (2nd edition), pp. 380–402. Oxford: Blackwell.

13.

Merker

(2006). The uneven interface between culture and biology in human music. Music Perception, 24 (1), 95–8.

14.

Miller

(2000). Evolution of human music through sexual selection. In Wallin

N. L.

, Merker

, & Brown

(eds), The Origins of Music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

15.

Miranda

E. R.

, Kirby

, & Todd

P. M.

(2003). On computational models of the evolution of music: From the origins of musical taste to the emergence of grammars. Contemporary Music Review, 22 (3), 91–111.

16.

Mithen

(2005). The Singing Neanderthals. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.

17.

Owings

D. H.

, & Morton

E. S.

(1998). Animal Vocal Communication: A New Approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Patel

A. D.

(2006). Musical rhythm, linguistic rhythm, and human evolution. Music Perception, 24 (1), 99–104.

19.

Pinker

(1998). How the Mind Works. London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press.

20.

Richerson

P. J.

, & Boyd

(2005). Not by Genes Alone: How Cultural Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

21.

Saunders

, & Gero

J. S.

(2001). The digital clockwork muse: A computational model of aesthetic evolution. In Wiggins, G. A. (ed.), Proceedings of the AISB'01 Symposium on AI and Creativity in Arts and Science, SSAISB, pp. 12–21.

22.

Todd

P. M.

(2000). Simulating the evolution of musical behaviour. In Wallin

N. L.

, Merker

, & Brown

(eds), The Origins of Music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

23.

van den Broek

, & Todd

P. M.

(2003). Piep piep piep, ich hab’ dich lieb: Rhythm as an indicator of mate quality. In Banzhaf

, Christaller

, Dittrich

, Kim

, & Ziegler

(eds), Advances in Artificial Life: 7^th European Conference Proceedings (ECAL 2003), pp. 425–33. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

24.

Werner

, & Todd

P. M.

(1997). Too many love songs: sexual selection and the evolution of communication. In Husbands

, & Harvey

(eds), Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Artificial Life, pp. 434–43. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

25.

Whitten

, & Byrne

R. W.

(1997). Machiavellian Intelligence II: Extensions and Evaluations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

26.

Zahavi

(1975). Mate selection – a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53, 204–15.