
We know music is pleasurable, the question is why? - tintinnabula
https://aeon.co/essays/its-hard-to-know-why-music-gives-pleasure-is-that-the-point
======
lqet
Related: recent studies have shown that there are people with "musical
anhedonia", and that this condition may affect 3 to 5% of the world population
[1]. These people "get" music, meaning that they can learn to sing or play an
instrument, remember and recognize melodies etc., but they are completely
unable to receive any pleasure from it. As someone who gets a significant
amount of his daily joy from listening to music and who always believed in
music to be a universal language, I find this astonishing.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_anhedonia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_anhedonia)

~~~
munificent
I was riding with a new coworker to lunch. Trying to get to know him better, I
asked what kind of music he likes. Music is such an important part of many
people's life that this is often a good opener.

He hesitated for a while and said, "I don't know... quiet I guess?"

I think his response caused a full hard reboot of my cranial OS. It was the
first time I'd ever met anyone whose relationship to music was so
fundamentally different from mine.

~~~
dvh
Maybe he only listen to anime soundtracks and was embarrassed to tell you

~~~
bausshf
Or Kpop

------
bobosha
_" Laughter (and humor) involves the gradual build-up of expectation (a model)
followed by a sudden twist or anomaly that entails a change in the model --
but only as long as the new model is non-threatening -- so that there is a
deflation of expectation."_ [1]

My theory is that music provides pleasure in the same way that we get from our
hobbies & interests via "familiar surprises": from poetry through rhyme, from
dance through rhythm, from movies through plot-twists. Our brains are pattern
recognition systems and constantly distinguishing friend from foe, and
listening to music we grew up with is a part of that "IFF" system.

The "familiar" \- usually we listen to a few genres at most and stick to them
throughout our life., and the "surprises" are the slight variations and
nuances in a song - with the assurance that all is well - that give us our
dopamine shot. This is very similar to wordplay in poetry, humor in comedy. I
think they are all closely related neuronally.

[1] "The neurology and evolution of humor, laughter, and smiling: the false
alarm theory" Prof. V S. RAMACHANDRAN

edit: added a reference to VSR's article and some grammar

------
crazynick4
This article did not mention overtones:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtone)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_\(music\))

Combinations of frequencies that form simple integer ratios are naturally
perceived as being consonant, no culture or upbringing needed. As the ratios
begin to involve higher integers and become more complex, the intervals they
produce are considered more dissonant.

For instance, in ancient Greece, the scales were constructed by combining
intervals where the integer ratios have a prime number no higher than 3. The
result is a very consonant but almost bland music. Something you could easily
fall asleep to.

The major and minor scales from which classical music is composed are made by
combining intervals with a prime no higher than 5. This adds more dissonance
and makes things a bit more interesting.

Scales based around higher prime numbers (7,11,13,..) are outside the scope of
mainstream music although jazz is said to approximate the scales that could be
built off the '7-limit' intervals, which explains its more dissonant nature
(heavy use of tritone which has a ratio of 7:5, and the 'minor seventh'
approximates the interval with a ratio of 7:4).

That covers consonance, but it doesn't explain emotional affect. I think one
example that is at least a part of the explanation can be seen in the
distinction between the overtones and undertones.

The major scale (and more specifically the major chord) of today's western
music is generally considered to be happy, confident, uplifted, etc. The major
chord appears naturally in the harmonic series of overtones (any 3 notes
played together whose frequency ratio is 4:5:6).

The minor chord, on the other hand, appears naturally in the undertone series
which is just an inversion of the overtones (1/4:1/5:1/6). It also occurs in
nature like the overtones, although less frequently.

I may have flubbed some details as I'm writing off the top of my head mostly
but I think it covers the gist of how harmony can contribute to the perception
of music. There is of course also the rhythm and the sense of
expectations/irony involved in writing as well.

~~~
chimeracoder
> Combinations of frequencies that form simple integer ratios are naturally
> perceived as being consonant, no culture or upbringing needed. As the ratios
> begin to involve higher integers and become more complex, the intervals they
> produce are considered more dissonant.

This is only true for a definition of "consonant" and "dissonant" that is
literally tautological. Yes, one can distinguish between consonant and
dissonant, but the assignment of those as "pleasurable" and "not pleasurable"
(which is the topic of the article) are _incredibly_ culturally contextual.
That is, you can construct a distinction between harmonies that one might
label as consonant and dissonant, but the interpretation of that distinction
is not universal. In fact, the _relevance_ or applicability of that
distinction is not even universal, because there are plenty of musical
traditions where this wouldn't apply at all, and therefore couldn't be used to
distinguish "pleasurable" and "not pleasurable" music.

In reality, in the grand scheme of musical traditions, the classical European
model of consonant, simple integer ratios is an outlier.

~~~
soundwave106
"Consonant" and "dissonant" are words that are indeed a bit too specific to
the European music pedagogy as a whole. But I would argue that the "whole
integer ratio" principle does actually extend a fair bit beyond Western
classical.

The lowest whole integer frequency ratios -- using Pythagorean terms and the
ratios, octaves (2:1) and perfect fifths (3:2) -- seem to be present in the
music systems of many music cultures, at least the ones I'm aware of. Perfect
fourths (4:3) are also decently common in many music scales, although not
quite as common as the other ratios.

Beyond that, there is much variety and I'm not sure I can conclude anything
(especially since my knowledge of scales and modes outside Western music is
fairly limited). It just seems like most music systems in the world are aware
of these core ratios at least.

One other curiosity: I would say a huge percentage of music scales throughout
the world tend to feature either seven or five notes (five notes actually is
probably the more common one, if I had to take a guess). Unlike harmony, I'm
honestly not sure why this is the case. Even gamelan scales are seven notes.

~~~
crazynick4
Scales in Indian music are also built around integer ratios.

------
citation_please
Hmm, I was hoping for something more contemporary that I could relate to, but
was disappointed that it focused on pieces written centuries ago...like most
formal musical theory.

Anyway, this passage stuck out to me:

"""There is something that still rings true of Mattheson’s general idea. We do
tend to associate some musical features with being uplifted and others with
melancholic reflection, both of which might afford a certain subsequent
pleasure to listeners. Just think of how we use music in our everyday lives:
some tunes help us to work out or to get something done, while others allow us
to cry."""

Composers aren't the only ones who have ever tried to manipulate the crowd.
I'm not sure how pop stars/rock bands etc. plan out their sets, but one thing
that any DJ[0] worth his salt pays attention to is "harmonic mixing"[1].
Taking things "darker", or trying to bring up the energy, are common
strategies taken into account when planning a harmonic transition. I've
personally bore witness to plenty of incredible sets that take you from the
very top to the very bottom, and it's funny to me that the same ideas are
masked behind hoighty-toighty music theory terminology that is used almost
exclusively in reference to...music that was composed hundreds of years ago.

[0] By DJ I mean someone who does more than weddings, and certainly doesn't
take requests.

[1] [https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/14291/what-is-
harm...](https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/14291/what-is-harmonic-
mixing-mix-in-key)

~~~
LyndsySimon
> it's funny to me that the same ideas are masked behind hoighty-toighty music
> theory terminology that is used almost exclusively in reference to...music
> that was composed hundreds of years ago.

I'm just coming up to speed on music theory, but my impression so far is that
it's reactive, not proactive. We already have music that we like; music theory
is about trying to tear it down, identify _why_ we like it, establish base
principles that can be used to guide composition, and then use those to create
something new. Fairly recently, this had led to "generative music".

I'm finding music theory to be useful to build a more accurate mental model of
the instruments I'm playing, which I believe will eventually improve my
ability to improvise and play by ear. I _think_ that people who are musical
prodigies have an intuitive understanding of those things, but I'm having to
build my own understanding explicitly.

~~~
thomasfortes
I've been playing bass and guitar occasionaly (as an amateur musician) since I
was 15 and I'm now in my early 30s, I studied a bit of theory when I was
learning and already knew how to build chords and also have a reasonable ear,
last months I decided to learn how to read sheet music and study musical
theory and jazz a bit more deeper, what I found is that now I'm way more
confortable with my improvisation not being repetitive and over the same
scales again and again and that I have a way better knack at finding the next
note on songs that I haven't heard before, so my experience is similar to
yours.

As an aside, I'm pretty certain that I'm suffering from frequency ilusion, I
frequently find musical theory discussions at every place that I am used to
read, where in the past it seems that this things were not that prevalent.

------
JoshMnem
We're the way we are because our ancestors had these traits and they were the
ones who survived. Music is a system for encoding knowledge, especially across
generations.[1] Humans appear to sexually select for musical ability.[2][3] We
like music, because being able to encode encyclopedic knowledge across
generations without written language is a successful adaptation for survival.

[1] [https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/general-
books/pop...](https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/general-
books/popular-science/The-Memory-Code-Lynne-Kelly-9781760291327)

[2]
[http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0305735613482025](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0305735613482025)

[3] Ask a musician.

------
cryptozeus
I had similar question few days ago and posted this on HN
[https://www.quora.com/Why-does-music-make-you-want-to-
move-d...](https://www.quora.com/Why-does-music-make-you-want-to-move-
dance?share=1)

"It has been noted that rhythm is a built-in part of every human being so the
urge to move is very natural and it comes from deep inside. There has been a
lot of suggestions that this would develop during child’s growth in the
uterus, since hearing is the sense that develops close to its final stage
before birth. This way the child absorbs the sounds of environment along with
mother’s steady heartbeat that could be seen as a steady pulse in music."

~~~
snarf21
It may be junk science but I remember reading something long ago that said the
bpm of a song that is closest to a human heart beat is more pleasing than one
much faster or slower. I'm now off to see if I can find the reference...

~~~
citation_please
Hmm, electronic genres are definitely clustered around 128, 140, and 170
(+/-2), and those are all reasonable heart rates when you're partying...But a
"human heart beat" can be literally anything so I'm not convinced.

~~~
throwaway8879
Perhaps they mean the average non-stressed, slightly relaxed rate of around
100 or so? I'm not convinced either, but it is interesting to think about.
Tempo and rhythm/beat has such a profound effect on the emotional response to
music.

~~~
csihar
Incidentally, 100 bpm is around the average tempo for reggae.

------
agumonkey
For harmony I have no clue, but for rhythm I have a serious belief that it's a
side product of our mechanical balance processing unit (and also why dance
goes with it). Just data from years of learning drumming, de-synchronization
(ability to think about and move different limbs in ~parallel) is extremely
valuable in every activity. You're probably smarter and more efficient because
you process your movements and your perception quite differently.

------
beliu
Leonard Bernstein gave his answer on the question in a series of lectures
titled "The Unanswered Question." Draws analogies to concepts in linguistics
and CFGs:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fHi36dvTdE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fHi36dvTdE)

------
exabrial
We're able to recognize simple ratios instantly. The fact is without number
the actual digits, we know they instantly simplify into a handful of
fractions. That is mind blowing.

What's even more mind blowing is Adam Neely's explanation of pitch ratios and
how they're related to tempo. The short incorrect explanation is if you layer
beats 4:4, 5:4, 6:4 ratios (which is the ratio of pitches against the root in
a major chord), then speed it up to a ridiculous frequency, our ears hear a
major chord. It would seem that Tempo and Pitch are very much intertwined and
our brains decipher that very quickly without evening consciously dividing the
frequencies.

Major chord demo:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiNKlhspdKg&t=24m15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiNKlhspdKg&t=24m15)

------
woodandsteel
I think the article took a strange approach. It focused on a complex piece by
Bach. But most people don't find Bach pleasurable, and simple melodies can be
very pleasurable, at least to most people. It would make much more sense to
try to understand the simple cases, and then later try to figure out the more
complicated ones.

Also instead of explaining musical pleasure in terms of non-musical concepts
like emotion and openess, might it be at least in part to evaluations in the
brain that are unique to music? We don't think that, for instance, tastes are
pleasurable or unpleasant due to their connection to other matters, so why
could this not be the case for music?

------
burp3141
My father loves music. Famously miserly, he wouldn't mind a monthly paycheck
on an audio system.

I on the other hand have never enjoyed music. I think it's a rebellion thing.
But also that sad music made me despondent but happy music didn't affect me to
the same extent.

The way my father managed to reel me in was to ask me to predict where the
musician would take the song. In things like Jazz or improvised music, this is
pretty hard. But even in well known classical pieces, this kind of prediction
and correction is a pretty interesting exercise.

My takeaway from this kind of exercise is that I enjoy music as a pattern
matching exercise. It's like a good joke - when you run into an unexpected
punchline.

~~~
jamesjyu
When I was in high school, I spent a lot of time improvising on the piano. I
had been taking classical music lessons for years, but always loved to play
around on the piano, composing little pieces for myself—mostly they were pop
inspired pieces, nothing complicated.

One day, some researchers worked with my school to administer a test to find
out if there was a connection between standardized test scores (in our case,
the ACT) and musical aptitude. Pattern matching was the way they decided to
test this.

They set a tape recorder in the middle of the room and gave us a multiple
choice sheet. First, they played the beginning of a melody, which stopped
abruptly. Then, they played four different ways the melody could resolve. Our
goal was to choose the most likely.

Sometimes, the pieces would be something classic, like Mozart or Beethoven.
Other times, they were more contemporary.

I glanced around the room to see the reaction of the other students. The
choices all seemed very obvious to me. Afterwards, I asked around and most
people said they had to guess on most of them.

The next day, the teacher pulled me aside and told me that I had scored the
highest in the school.

I never did follow up to see what the results of the research was, but to this
day, I believe I wouldn't have done that well if I had not spent a lot of time
listening to music and tinkering with melody lines in my free time.

------
twelvechairs
Nobody attempting seriously and succintly to answer the question here even the
article.

As far as i understand pattern recognition is basically what the cortex (in
all its various divisions) does. Which is basically one of our most important
higher functions and what sets mammals apart from other animals intelectually.

Recognising a melody is not so different from recognising the voice of a
friend or the route to walk home. Except for different input types.

Except the fact that music and melody/harmony is not just 'match a pattern'
but is designed essentially to tease, test and develop the pattern recognition
function by taking simple clear ratios then finding ways to make them a little
on edge mathematically in different ways.

So we shouldnt find it weird that music can give most of us pleasure itself
because its literally the same mecahnism as things that are finding food or a
good partner to mate with.

Then theres lyrics and the social side of music which puts a whole different
twist on it. The above is pure rhythm and pitch only enjoyed individually.

------
default-kramer
> There is something that still rings true of Mattheson’s general idea. We do
> tend to associate some musical features with being uplifted and others with
> melancholic reflection, both of which might afford a certain subsequent
> pleasure to listeners.

I have always wondered if we know how much of the emotion associated with
music is learned from culture. To put it another way, is a sad song inherently
sad? Or is it sad because the culture we grew up in tells us that it is sad?
(The answer is probably some combination of both.) There must have been
studies about this, but I haven't come across any yet.

~~~
civility
I have the same question about major and minor keys. It's pretty easy to play
something somber in C-major, and something happy in A-minor... This is
opposite to the conventional wisdom about keys, and I think it's a cultural
thing.

When you play them right on top of each other, the three notes which are a
half step lower do seem to sound sadder in comparison, but I think that says
more about descending vs ascending tones rather than the key itself.

~~~
kaoD
Given your second paragraph... are you perhaps confusing tonality with chord
quality? Amin (the chord) is a diatonic chord of C major (the tonality).

Also, it's easy to play "random" chords from a tonality and end up in a
different mode without even realizing it. E.g.: A minor (the key, also known
as A aeolian) has the exact same diatonic chords as C major (but the
reference, i.e. tonal center, is A instead of C).

A large part of tonality is chord position in the piece, which is also greatly
influenced by dynamics, melody, accompanying instruments, harmony, harmonic
progression (both immediate/local and global)...

Also: Cmaj7 (the chord) is C-E-G-B and Emin6 is E-G-B-C (notice the
similarity?), but E-G-B-C can also be interpreted as Cmaj7 in first inversion
depending on context. Sometimes roots are omitted from chords so E-G-B (Emin
at first sight) could be interpreted as Cmaj7(no root). Just like C-E-G could
be a rootless Am7 (A-C-E-G with omitted A). They are often used as substitutes
of one another in jazz.

Music is just too complex and musical language (chord names etc.) is just a
hack developed around traditions and conventions, not science. It's mostly
notation of intention, since everything can be twisted to mean something else.

The more music theory I know, the less definite answers to musical questions
are.

~~~
civility
Sorry, I should have compared C-major and C-minor keys. If I play a C-major
scale, and then a C-minor scale, C-minor sounds sadder in comparison. But if I
just play ascending thirds (R 3 2 4 3 5 4 6 5 7 6 R) in C-minor, it doesn't
sound sad to me. Moreover, it's easy to make C-major sound sad by playing
descending thirds (reverse of above).

~~~
kaoD
Music is completely relative and context dependent. There's no such thing as
an absolute minor scale: it all depends on what has been and what's to come.
It's hard to derive a strong tonality from just a scale, they're pretty
ambiguous.

C major has the exact same notes of A minor, and C minor/aeolian has the same
notes of Eb major/ionian (and 5 other modes with different qualities: F
dorian, G phrygian, Ab lydian, Bb mixolydian, D locrian... all have the exact
same notes).

Even if you think of C aeolian when playing you might be implying a different
tonal center, depending on your emphasis, and therefore a non-aeolian
progression.

Your ears can latch to any tonal center depending on exact phrasing. With no
harmony there is no clear tonal center (and even with harmony, it's easy to
switch between related modes, even unkowingly, because they have the same
notes _and_ the same diatonic chords).

> But if I just play ascending thirds (R 3 2 4 3 5 4 6 5 7 6 R) in C-minor

Are you playing that in a 3/4 rhythm? (R b3 2) (4 b3 5) (4 b6 5) (b7 b6 R) the
downbeats are R-4-4-b7 (no characteristic minor tones) your ears are hearing
the minor tones as passing tones. Since aeolian has no leading tone (natural
7, one semitone away from R) the tonal center is even more ambiguous.

You might be hearing that as Bb mixolydian: (2 4 3) (5 4 6) (5 b7 6) (R b7 2),
downbeats on 2-5-5-R which is _the_ canonical major jazz progression (ii-V-I).
The phrasing implies ii-V (ambiguous if major V or minor v)-v (minor due to b7
of I being b3 of v, establishes mixolydian)-I. V-I is a pretty strong (if not
the strongest) tonality indicator.

Bb mixolydian is a major mode, hence why it doesn't sound particularly minor
to you.

Try playing the C minor with ascending thirds over a C harmonic minor
_progression_ while emphasizing the V-i cadence and the characteristic minor
tones (namely, b3 and b6). Notice I said harmonic minor progression, which has
a leading tone to strongly stablish tonal center (which is what it was
invented for).

------
deltron3030
Imagination. Sounds connect with you deeply, and even deeper than visuals. You
can sing and make melodies without physical movements, without moving your
lips, just in your mind. Your inner voice that you "hear" when you think is an
artist that grows through immersion, exposure to things.

The real difficulty is translating that into physical movements through your
body, making it real, this can only be done through practice.

If you listen to good musicians amd really like what you hear, they basically
talk to your inner artist on the same skill level.

------
lbriner
I find that certain musical expressions invoke the same feeling as something
very real like the feeling of seeing the New York skyline for the first time
or the feeling of taking off in a light aircraft for the first time, almost as
if the music was pressing the same buttons.

The interesting difference is that the music buttons seem to get pressed every
time I hear the same music (i.e. I never get tired of certain music) whereas
visual stimuli quickly become mundane as we get used to them?

~~~
LyndsySimon
> the same feeling as something very real like the feeling of seeing the New
> York skyline for the first time

I think that feeling is highly variable depending on the person. I remember
the feeling I had the first time I drove over the bridge on I-40 into Memphis
as an adult - the industry along the Mississippi River was awe-inspiring to
me. Ugly, sure, but it also represented a huge amount of human accomplishment;
it took thousands of years of learning, engineering, building, and improving
to build those petroleum tanks and the infrastructure that they support (and
that supports them).

Seeing the NYC skyline for the first time made me really anxious, almost to
the point of anger. So many people in such a small area, living and working
together packed so tightly. All I wanted to do was finish what I had to do
there and leave as quickly as possible.

Out of curiosity - have you ever seen the Milky Way from a truly dark location
with no light pollution? I think that probably inspires a very similar feeling
that you've described.

~~~
lbriner
I'm sure the feelings are different for each person and maybe different music
presses those scary buttons as much as the nice ones!

~~~
LyndsySimon
Another commenter wondered if the feelings that music evoke are cultural or
inherent. I think that's really an interesting question!

I wonder if there exists music that makes individuals feel differently based
on their background and preferences, or if it goes even further - are there
certain chords or progressions that don't have a consistent emotional
association?

I'm not aware of any, but I'm not an expert in the field.

------
mafuyu
I recommend checking out Adam Neely's channel, where he touches on some
similar concepts:

[https://youtu.be/6c_LeIXrzAk](https://youtu.be/6c_LeIXrzAk)
[https://youtu.be/9q4MWdHhgfM](https://youtu.be/9q4MWdHhgfM)
[https://youtu.be/V5WfgMVtueo](https://youtu.be/V5WfgMVtueo)

------
ilovetux
so much emphasis on melody. I find the answer is that music is a more true
language than any that are spoken.

This is all conjecture by the way which is shaded by my own beliefs and
experience.

melody is one part of a trinity. equally important are rhythm and harmony. I
believe that rhythm, melody and harmony relate to the body, mind and spirit
respectively.

Rhythm is analogous to our physical form and not just in the obvious sense of
our heart beat but indeed every atom of our being has a rhythm all it's own
and they are in sync one way or another with every other part of our body from
microcosm to macrocosm.

a coherent melody matches our thoughts in a way that can convey the colors of
emotion. indeed lyrics are often set to a melody and convey thoughts and
emotions together in a way that's so natural that it is sometimes quite eerie.

harmony is how melodic threads relate to each other. our spirits are also the
most adequate way of relating to others. harmony is the basis of all combined
human endeavour and spirits are what allow us to define relations beyond
familial in an abstract way in which we can intuitively find our own place.

------
scns
Music touches me deeply. It gives me joy when it matches my mood but makes it
nearly intolerable noise when it does not.

I feel great excitement when i discover new music like, endorphins en masse.

I think we do not derive pleasure from music but the feeling that there is
another human being that feels the same way we do.

------
skookumchuck
For those who enjoy music - if you take dance lessons until you get
comfortable dancing, dancing smoothly to music you like greatly intensifies
the enjoyment of the music.

Bobbing and swaying to the music also increases the enjoyment, but doing a
structured dance with a partner cranks it up to 11.

------
skookumchuck
Long before writing, people had oral histories. Those were more reliable using
rhyme (sort of an error-correction scheme). Setting it to music made it even
less error-prone, and so better transmission of information gave a survival
advantage.

Hence, we like music.

------
Tycho
The universe is in a process of entropic decay. Entropy is death. Life is the
opposite. Life creates order, reverses the decay. Music is spontaneous order,
but nuanced, like life. Music is a celebration of life.

------
singularity2001
Music became evolutionary advantageous because of social bonding and more

------
Ascetik
Because it is rightly ordered beauty (most of it) and pleasing to the
intellect. The intellect delights in that which is good, beautiful and true.
Certain types of music elicit a more base response, catering to the passions,
such as EDM, or pop, tribal beats, etc. Other types of music cater to the
intellect, such as classical, baroque, and certain types of folk and other
genre's. Then you have sacred music, which is also prayer, such as gregorian
chant and polyphony, these cause one to contemplate divine things.

Music is pleasurable in all these facets because it touches upon different
operations of the soul, which in turn gives pleasure to the body, such as
calmness or dopamine, etc.

------
cJ0th
Because it's beyond the jaded world of "why?".

------
sigi45
Increasing complexity in harmony.

You listen to pop and enjoy it to it harmony and change your music style or
extend it when you are ready for more.

------
mesarvagya
Its because of Dopamine. I think everyone knows this. The same is true for
Social media as well.

~~~
phyzome
Isn't that like saying "because genetics" or "because chemistry" or "because
biology"? It doesn't really answer the question that the article is asking.

~~~
shawn
That's a bit like saying that Newton's gravity law doesn't explain why the
planets move.

It's true that "because genetics" doesn't tell you _why_ it happens, but it
might be the deepest answer possible. We are servants to our genes.

~~~
trukterious
_> We are servants to our genes_

If so then how do you explain phenomena like suicide and celibacy?

~~~
shawn
It is commonly assumed that evolution tries to maximize its outcome using a
greedy algorithm. In fact it seems to be a random walk across all
possibilities, with unviable branches dying out over time.

Suicide may also be a second order effect of other factors. For example,
suicide usually has a cultural basis: you feel some sort of shame, or maybe
you think your future outcomes aren't good culturally. But that means you care
about society. Therefore suicide may be an indication that we have evolved to
optimize society rather than ourselves. If we didn't care about society,
perhaps there would be less suicides, but it would also make humans less
dominant.

~~~
trukterious
_> Suicide usually has a cultural basis_

Yes -- hence copycat suicides. But _cultural_ , not genetic. Ideas, not genes.

~~~
shawn
I would argue that culture is incorporated into our genes. For example, humans
show signs of domestication, just like certain animals. But domestication is
another name for cultural genetics.

~~~
perl4ever
Wouldn't it be accurate to say apoptosis is incorporated into our genes?

