Steve Pinker on the evolutionary significance of music

August 14, 2014 • 11:56 am

Eloquent as usual, and speaking in perfect, publishable paragraphs, here’s The Pinkah on The Really Big Questions podcast, discussing the evolutionary significance of music. (The bit is about 9 minutes long.)

Pinker argues that in fact that music is not an evolutionary adaptation, but a spandrel: a pleasurable byproduct of some other adaptation. What’s the “enabling” adaptation? In Pinker’s view, it’s language, which makes possible the production of music. (Reading is another such spandrel, another byproduct of language that simply couldn’t have been the direct object of selection.) Music is simply lagniappe from language: “auditory cheesecake.” He and host Dean Olsher then discuss, without resolution, whether music is a kind of language, or even a thought process.

Pinker notes that his view of music as a spandrel actually angered some people. He had figured that after making the thesis in How the Mind Works (1997) that many human behaviors have evolutionary roots, his suggestion that music is one exception would show that he wasn’t a diehard adaptationist, and not an ideologue sworn to see everything as a product of natural selection. But, he says, some musicians and scholars thought that if music were the product of selection, it would somehow validate its existence.  Of course evolutionary roots don’t validate anything’s existence, since some human traits seen as bad (Pinker mentions genocide, itself a byproduct of xenophobia) were probably adaptive in our ancestors.

Click on the screenshot to go to the podcast:

 

Screen Shot 2014-08-12 at 3.09.24 PM

Here’s the killdeer!

August 14, 2014 • 9:42 am

by Matthew Cobb

If the comments are anything to go by, most of you found the killdeer. Here’s the evidence, including a nice picture, taken by Peter Green from another angle, which shows you quite how well camouflaged she was.

killdeeranswer

 

 

killdeer4

 

Peter Green’s full series of photos of the killdeer, including useful biological information, can be found here.

The continuing decline of American religiosity

August 14, 2014 • 6:27 am

The Richard Dawkins Foundation website highlighted a post by Tobin Grant, a professor of political science at Southern Illinois University whose interest is the sociology of religion, and who writes about it at the site “Corner of Church and State” at the Religion News Service.

Grant’s post reports 61 years of measuring “religiosity” (the degree of religious belief) in the US, using statistics he developed in a 2008 paper (reference and free download below). In that paper, Grant combined 14 indices of religiosity into one, and developed a way to not only present that statistic in a way comparable among years, but to check its reliability. (You can read about the “validation” of his measure, the Aggregate Religiosity Index [ARI] in the paper at the bottom.

The components of the ARI are the indices below; the “correlation in the right column is the correlation of each component of the index with the ARI as a whole, showing how well each one individually could represent the whole:

Screen Shot 2014-08-14 at 7.33.00 AM

In his 2008 paper, Grant showed a general decline in religiosity between 1952 and 2005: while religiosity rose for a while in the mid 1950s, it declined (irregularly) until 2005. His original graph showed this:

Screen Shot 2014-08-14 at 7.35.42 AM

Grant has continued to monitor American religiosity yearly, and now has 8 more years of data. That data show that the decline of religiosity Grant perceived in 2008 is continuing, and at an increasing rate. Here’s the graph from his new website post. (The normalization to a mean of 100 has changed in a way he doesn’t describe, but the index itself and the data are the same as presented in the graph above—with the addition of 8 more years.)

61Years-700x525

Grant concludes that we’re in the midst of what he calls “The Great Decline” of American religiosity. And about time, too! His summary:

The graph of this index tells the story of the rise and fall of religious activity. During the post-war, baby-booming 1950s, there was a revival of religion. Indeed, some at the time considered it a third great awakening. Then came the societal changes of the 1960s, which included a questioning of religious institutions. The resulting decline in religion stopped by the end of the 1970s, when religiosity remained steady. Over the past fifteen years, however, religion has once again declined. But this decline is much sharper than the decline of 1960s and 1970s. Church attendance and prayer is less frequent. The number of people with no religion is growing. Fewer people say that religion is an important part of their lives.

In 2013, we saw continued declines in religiosity. The importance of religion in people’s lives? Down. Church attendance? Down. People who say they are “no religion”? Up. The result: 2013 had the lowest level of religiosity of any year we can measure.

Overall, the hundreds of survey measures point to the same drop in religion: If the 1950s were another Great Awakening, this is the Great Decline.

Now we all know of the famous increase in “nones” in the U.S. (people who profess no formal affiliation with a church); that category is in fact fastest-rising category of “belief” if you consider “no affiliation” a form of “belief” like Catholicism or Judaism.  Between 2007 and 2012, for instance, “nones” rose from 15% to 20% of the American population, an increase of 33% from their original value.

While that has distressed some religious people, many have tried to dismiss it by saying simply that the “nones” are still religious, but just can’t find a church that satisfied their spiritual needs.

Grant’s data, however, shows that this explanation doesn’t wash: the decline in religiosity as measured by the ARI, while partly reflecting a decline in church attendance, also reflects a decline in “feeling close to God” (the component of the ARI most correlated with its overall value), “frequency of prayer,” and assessment of the importance of religion as a guide to life. Those are all forms of religion one can practice without formal affiliation with a church.

So while the rise in “nones,” and the decline of ARI, might reflect a replacement of formal religion with informal religion (i.e., a belief in God but no church membership), it almost certainly reflects a general secularization of the country as a whole. This conclusion is supported by data Grant gave in a post on August 1, which shows that while formal church membership and attendance are indeed decreasing, so are people’s assessment of “religion’s importance in life” and “religion’s relevance for today.”  The latter two statistics reflect people’s general feelings about the value of religion, not whether or not they belong to a church. And all of it is dropping like a stone.

Professor Ceiling Cat predicted this, of course, but it’s also been predicted by many other sociologists and my pal Steve Pinker. As we become more embedded in the wider world, and connected with European countries that have become more secularized, we will undergo the same secularization as they. This is almost inevitable given the spread of Enlightenment values, of respect for science, and a realization that it’s time to put away our superstitions and belief in childish things. We no longer need religion in the U.S., either as an explanation for the great mysteries of life (many of which are being solved by science), or as a form of social glue to give us solace.  As social welfare and general empathy increase, religiosity (a divine substitute for what governments and friends can do for you) will also decline. The opium of the people will no longer be needed when you can get that “fix” from your government and community providing you with free health care, maternity and paternity leave, and help when you’re old or ill.

Although we won’t reach an ARI of zero in my lifetime, I’m confident that, unless the Caliphate takes over, the U.S. will someday become as nonreligious as Denmark, Sweden, and France.  Thank God for that!

__________

Grant, J. T. 2008. Measuring aggregate religiosity in the United States, 1952-2005. Sociol. Spectrum 28:470-476.

Readers’ wildlife photographs

August 14, 2014 • 4:47 am

Reader Mike McDowell introduces himself and send some swell photos from two groups of insects I love. They include some of the most bizarre-looking creatures on Earth.

I’m a nature photographer, field trip leader, citizen scientist, and regular reader of your blog [JAC: He’s a n00b so I’ll forgive him that].

My primary subjects are birds (I’m a birder), but I also enjoy macro photography of insects and wildflowers. I thought your readers might get a kick out of the hopper photography I’ve been doing this summer. Here are some examples you are welcome to publish on your blog:

Gear: Nikon 1 V1 & Tamron 60mm 1:1 Macro Lens

I’m fairly confident on the ID of these, but feel free to correct me if I’ve made an error.

Mike has his own website and photo gallery (“Digiscoping”), both of which you can see here.

Today we have leafhoppers, members of the family Cicadellidae in the insect order Hemiptera (“true bugs”), and treehoppers, in the closely related family MembracidaeClick all photos to enlarge (twice to make them huge):

*****

Red-banded Leafhopper – Graphocephala coccinea:

blog07161420a

Citrus flatid Planthopper – Metcalfa pruinosa:

blog0803149a

Buffalo Treehopper – Stictocephala bisonia:

blog08031410a

Treehopper – Telamona decorata:

blog0713148a

Two-horned Treehopper – Ceresa diceros [JAC: check out the pattern in the eye]:

blog07161417a

Treehopper – Archasia auriculata:

blog0630144a

 

What were they? (And a new one)

August 14, 2014 • 4:08 am

Well, many readers got these, but some used a reverse image search, which is HEINOUS. Hey guys, don’t do that!

Anyway, here are the answers above each photo:

Cat flea (Ctenocephalides felis):

Bjr2jyyIUAAmAPkT4 phage (virus). As many readers pointed out, this is either a model or a manipulation of some kind. I should have known that, as it simply looks too good (though that’s not always dispositive evidence). At any rate, it’s being touted all over the Internet as a real virus picture.  But at least you know what the famous T4 phage (a subject of much genetic experimentation) looks like:

BqNpiRYCYAAfv8k

A snowflake, for crying out loud!

BsDe-blIMAAvMoB

And the human tongue; I assume the protuberances are taste buds:

Bi-Cj-_IIAATh-n

Now, what is this?

BLddjOQCcAAClbT