3 ms·

I gave a talk just a couple of days ago on the beauty of Python code[0] - the talk hasn't been transcripted yet. In it I gave an example of how we've been condi

by chewxy 13y ago

I gave a talk just a couple of days ago on the beauty of Python code[0] - the talk hasn't been transcripted yet. In it I gave an example of how we've been conditioned by evolution to see clever things as beautiful[1][2]. I gave this scenario in the talk: imagine you were a paleolithic craftsman making handaxes. Now, you have a competitor making them handaxes too. We'll assume you make a better hand axe - sharper, cleaner lines and more wedge-shaped than the competitors. This leads to a higher "usefulness" than your competitor's handaxe. You consistently make better handaxes than your competitor. You get better mates than your competitor. You have a higher probability of spreading your genes. Your "good" handaxes has become a proxy signal for your skill in making handaxes, which itself is a signal of your intelligence. Over time, if the population uses only the "goodness" of the handaxe as a deciding factor in deciding mating partners, the population needs to be able to discern "good" handaxes from "bad" handaxes. As the lines get smoother, we become more and more tuned towards this standard of "beauty", and we put more and more reverence towards the makers of such items of beauty. In short, humans see math as beautiful because it is a signa for intelligence, which is a deciding factor of fitness in our evolution. Indeed, our evolution seem to value intelligence over strength anyway. Now, all the above is personal deduction of course. But I believe if we do go on and figure out the evolution of the medial orbito-frontal cortex of the brain, we'd see it's tied to intelligence. [0]: https://speakerdeck.com/chewxy/beautiful-python https://speakerdeck.com/chewxy/beautiful-python - not very useful slides without the talk. The 4 criteria can also be translated to: usefulness, simplicity, averageness (I used the example: if the man on the street can read your python code and understand it, you did a good job), cleverness [1]: The Art Instinct by Dennis Dutton [2]: http://www.ted.com/talks/denis_dutton_a_darwinian_theory_of_beauty http://www.ted.com/talks/denis_dutton_a_darwinian_theory_of_...

pazimzadeh 13y ago
Related to this is koinophilia, or the "average is beautiful" effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koinophilia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koinophilia
hyp0 13y ago
An alternative view is that, if you make good handaxes, you'll have more money (or patronage), meaning your children have more resources and advantages. You may increase your attractiveness to mates (who value their children's welfare). Beauty may be to do with simplicity. Simpler ways of seeing things (while retaining accuracy) are more likely to also be correct for situations not yet encountered - have better predictive powe, are better theories. Valuing those has a survival advantage. Simpler theories are also easier to learn, to use, to remember etc. It's very fundamental: our eyes, when confused by a scene at first, will resolve it to the simplest interpretation. I think this covers many instances of beauty (e.g. symmetry, neatness, non-arbitrariness, and even the simpler lines that emerge from averages), but it doesn't cover all. For example, the sworling of ocean waves, the complexity of clouds, of a forest. It is possible that these are in fact "simple", to the theories we have in our minds; just not simple for an intellectual understanding. And of course, fractal patterns are indeed simple, in the sense that they are generated by a very simple process. So, perhaps we somehow intuitively grasp the simplicity of clouds, waves, trees. (Or maybe we just like nature.)
- gizmo686 13y ago
  >So, perhaps we somehow intuitively grasp the simplicity of clouds, waves, trees. (Or maybe we just like nature.) We did evolve in nature, so it makes sense that our brains would have naturally occurring patterns somewhat hardwired.
Dewie 13y ago
Imagine that you were a paleolithic craftsman making handaxes. You take your time to make high quality handaxes that are beautiful and durable. Meanwhile another guy only spends 60% as much time making handaxes, only achieving 80% of the beauty and durability. But he has more time to slaughter game, bringing in meat, organs and hide for the tribe - the proxy to status in the tribe. So he is more 'succesful' than you, genetically. Atlernatively, another tribe manages to make an axe for every man in their tribe before your tribe does, since they are more sloppy but more effective in their craftsmanship. You get your skull cleaved, ending your lineage. And that, folks, is why people unnderappreciate beauty. The 'beauty' of paragraph-long evo psych theories is that they can explain pretty much anything.
stiff 13y ago
This is just another one of those speculative stories invented out of thin air that are supposed to be plausible just because they illustrate some reproductive advantage of one trait over another and are hence deemed to be "evolutionary", and hence to be somehow "scientific". It is an easy trap to fall into after learning a little about evolution, but it is a rather bad thinking pattern. There are hundreds of similar stories one can make up for why the eyes, for example, evolved the way they did and likely all of those just invented at will will be false, while sounding similarly "evolutionary", since almost any complex trait is a product of a whole series of mutations, some of which might not have a single nice intuitive interpretation at all, and those are changes in terms of proteins produced, not necessarily easily translatable into changes in high-level traits. For one, in the case you describe, it could just as well be an accidental byproduct of a series of other small adaptations that were beneficial in other ways. It could have been hundred of ways, we have no clue. So, please don't bring up evolution when there is absolutely no evidence to base upon. Especially in case of the brain, which we barely understand at all, and which additionally as a soft tissue decays fast and hence even its anatomical evolution is almost impossible to trace back, what to speak about translating this into some sort of cognitive history of human beings.
marcosscriven 13y ago
Was that the same talk you claimed Quicksort was O(n)? ;-)
calhoun137 13y ago
> In short, humans see math as beautiful because it is a signal for intelligence, which is a deciding factor of fitness in our evolution I disagree, although I think I see where you are coming from. Perceiving beauty is a form of pleasure, and the brain feels pleasure as the result of a chemical process. The real question is what causes the brain to initiate that process. Certainly cultural influence plays a huge role, as does the need to reproduce. But I don't see any evidence or arguments as to why that has to be the only explanation for why a person perceives beauty. I think the concept of mathematical beauty is highly subjective, but if I had to put it into words: I think the perception of mathematical beauty is related to the human brains natural capacity to understand patterns and do mathematics.

by chewxy 13y ago

pazimzadeh 13y ago

Related to this is koinophilia, or the "average is beautiful" effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koinophilia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koinophilia

hyp0 13y ago

An alternative view is that, if you make good handaxes, you'll have more money (or patronage), meaning your children have more resources and advantages. You may increase your attractiveness to mates (who value their children's welfare). Beauty may be to do with simplicity. Simpler ways of seeing things (while retaining accuracy) are more likely to also be correct for situations not yet encountered - have better predictive powe, are better theories. Valuing those has a survival advantage. Simpler theories are also easier to learn, to use, to remember etc. It's very fundamental: our eyes, when confused by a scene at first, will resolve it to the simplest interpretation. I think this covers many instances of beauty (e.g. symmetry, neatness, non-arbitrariness, and even the simpler lines that emerge from averages), but it doesn't cover all. For example, the sworling of ocean waves, the complexity of clouds, of a forest. It is possible that these are in fact "simple", to the theories we have in our minds; just not simple for an intellectual understanding. And of course, fractal patterns are indeed simple, in the sense that they are generated by a very simple process. So, perhaps we somehow intuitively grasp the simplicity of clouds, waves, trees. (Or maybe we just like nature.)

gizmo686 13y ago
>So, perhaps we somehow intuitively grasp the simplicity of clouds, waves, trees. (Or maybe we just like nature.) We did evolve in nature, so it makes sense that our brains would have naturally occurring patterns somewhat hardwired.

Dewie 13y ago

Imagine that you were a paleolithic craftsman making handaxes. You take your time to make high quality handaxes that are beautiful and durable. Meanwhile another guy only spends 60% as much time making handaxes, only achieving 80% of the beauty and durability. But he has more time to slaughter game, bringing in meat, organs and hide for the tribe - the proxy to status in the tribe. So he is more 'succesful' than you, genetically. Atlernatively, another tribe manages to make an axe for every man in their tribe before your tribe does, since they are more sloppy but more effective in their craftsmanship. You get your skull cleaved, ending your lineage. And that, folks, is why people unnderappreciate beauty. The 'beauty' of paragraph-long evo psych theories is that they can explain pretty much anything.

stiff 13y ago

This is just another one of those speculative stories invented out of thin air that are supposed to be plausible just because they illustrate some reproductive advantage of one trait over another and are hence deemed to be "evolutionary", and hence to be somehow "scientific". It is an easy trap to fall into after learning a little about evolution, but it is a rather bad thinking pattern. There are hundreds of similar stories one can make up for why the eyes, for example, evolved the way they did and likely all of those just invented at will will be false, while sounding similarly "evolutionary", since almost any complex trait is a product of a whole series of mutations, some of which might not have a single nice intuitive interpretation at all, and those are changes in terms of proteins produced, not necessarily easily translatable into changes in high-level traits. For one, in the case you describe, it could just as well be an accidental byproduct of a series of other small adaptations that were beneficial in other ways. It could have been hundred of ways, we have no clue. So, please don't bring up evolution when there is absolutely no evidence to base upon. Especially in case of the brain, which we barely understand at all, and which additionally as a soft tissue decays fast and hence even its anatomical evolution is almost impossible to trace back, what to speak about translating this into some sort of cognitive history of human beings.

marcosscriven 13y ago

Was that the same talk you claimed Quicksort was O(n)? ;-)

calhoun137 13y ago

> In short, humans see math as beautiful because it is a signal for intelligence, which is a deciding factor of fitness in our evolution I disagree, although I think I see where you are coming from. Perceiving beauty is a form of pleasure, and the brain feels pleasure as the result of a chemical process. The real question is what causes the brain to initiate that process. Certainly cultural influence plays a huge role, as does the need to reproduce. But I don't see any evidence or arguments as to why that has to be the only explanation for why a person perceives beauty. I think the concept of mathematical beauty is highly subjective, but if I had to put it into words: I think the perception of mathematical beauty is related to the human brains natural capacity to understand patterns and do mathematics.