[kerykeion]

My philosophy is that differences in hearing would be the result of how one's ear is shaped--especially in the interior ear ... so virtually everyone hears differently. Thus, I don't think it has much to do with ethnicity.

 

[Braver]

yeah, our hearing is more sensitive to certain important frquesncies. if a group has lived many centuries in an environment with other sounds and a different important frequencies, I'd bet they'll hear different.

but there's also a difference in taste among the people, that you can't explain with such a theory. notice how most of the Beyer fans are from Germany for instance?

 

[kerykeion]

...and most of the Grado fans live in NA. This is more of an economic issue.

 

[KR...]

Oh boy,

That's the dumbest **** that I have ever heard!

You guys need to understand that no matter what developed country you go to you will find a scene for whatever type of music you like over here (in the US), so there goes that theory!

As far as the voice thing, that's utter ********. In my college alone, there are plenty of black guys with high voices and plenty of white guys with really deep voices, so there goes that theory!

You guys need to get out more, sheesh.

 

[coolvij]

KR: I wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions on whether our speculation is COMPLETELY off.......

 

[Tim D]

I don't know if Darwin would agree...I have his book Origin of species somewhere unless I threw it into a donation pile to the library.

In anycase, saying Darwin would agree, would be like saying he would agree with Social Darwinism. Or that he would agree with the Darwin awards.

I believe there are two things, micro and macro evolution if I remember correctly. But in anycase, human races are a human construct (indeed you can argue that science in itself is a human construct). According to biological science however we are one species. In my anthropology class I was told that there was more variation amongst a population, than across populations, whatever that was supposed to mean.

The time period for which any human "race" was isolated is incredibly SMALL speaking in terms of even the scale of micro-evolution. This is comparing time in relation to human generations it is VERY VERY small.

Culture however can have a much stronger influence. For example the issue of Japanese women to be extremely high pitched in animes or whatever is very cultural. There are plenty of japanese women with American accents and they are perfectly able to speak in a lower tone...and not biologically more adept at high pitched speaking ala cartoons. This is not to say there aren't biological differences. Perhaps slight vocal and aural differences exist according to geographics just as skin pigment and body proportion.

The idea that our hearing has already adapted to be more receptive to OUR ethnicity however is border-line absurd. Remember evolution really comes down to mating...so if you are going to argue evolution, than you are arguing that your musical preference or aural receptivity is geared more towards your own "race". This is definitely not the case in my life and I doubt many others. If you aren't arguing about mating receptivity...than you shouldn't use darwinian arguments at all.

 

[mbriant]

Quote:

As far as the voice thing, that's utter ********. In my college alone, there are plenty of black guys with high voices and plenty of white guys with really deep voices, so there goes that theory!

Perhaps you've noticed there's an extreme physical difference between say a Swede and a Pigmy.

Is it conceivable that the same evolutionary forces that shaped their outer appearance, completely, 100% ignored their inner structure?

Why is it that certain races are susceptible to certain diseases while others aren't?

I have two miniature dogs. Both are members of the same species. While not identical, they are similar in size and shape. My Italian Greyhound (a sighthound) however, obviously has a keener sense of sight than my Miniature Pincher who's sense of hearing is obviously better than the Greyhounds.

Dogs, humans, and all lifeforms have been affected by evolution in many ways. Hearing could be one of them.

 

[coolvij]

Hmm.........I dunno......I listen to a bit of Indian music.....that is, classical ragas and the like......and......well.....I don't like a WARM presentation it.

I mean, my KSC-35s have a flat presentation - FLAT is the word.....and Indian Classical sounds best with that.....

MMMM.....hmm.......MMM....I dunno what any of that means.....

Like music, tho

 

[dgs]

Two things:

1. MacDEF: very nice review. Thank you.

2. The amount of time that would be required for evolutionary forces to create functional differences in human hearing that would be significant enough to matter is much longer than humanity has been around. So, the Darwinian argument, although interesting, is somewhat spurious here. On the other hand, imprinting (ie. Konrad Lorenz) is basically a mechanism of learning in which the brain is particularly sensitive to certain types of learning (in this case, differentiating sounds: pitch, tone, etc.) at certain points in development. After imprinting is over, it is quite difficult, for example, for a Western child to make many of the sounds that make up much of the language of, say, someone who grew up listening to Hindi or Japanese. The brain develops sensitivities to certain tonal landscapes, and then these are preferentially sought out in the music of the "culture." So, if you haven't already fallen asleep: Evolution? No. Learning? Yes. Different preferences and even hearing? Almost certainly.

 

[Tim D]

mbriant, I don't know about your comparison with dogs...please note a few things.

Dogs are not as picky as humans when it comes to mating. (hmmmm let me think about that....LOL)

Their generations are much shorter.

Humans are actually factoring into their evolutionary process when breeding domesticated dogs, WE are playing God, or Nature, and PICKING for them which traits will be passed on or not.

This is just the same way some farmer may grow a huge ass pumpkin...it doesn't mean that pumpkins will all be huge according to geography and growing on their own without outside control

Culture is strong indeed...but I would have to hope that it is not as strong a hand as that of a farmer or dog breeder, and would like to think humans have a little more mating independence than a domesticated dog, or a mad scientists pumpkin patch. Evolutionary process is based upon mating, and survival. In order to have true and strong variance in hearing based on isolated population, I think there really needs to be a great survival impetus or mating impetus to foster some difference in hearing. For example color blindness could be a rarity for a reason. However I would think that better hearing is wanted in any population in terms of survival and not deafness.

It is also very important to distinguish Lamarck's theories (which are contrary to Darwinian), and that a violinist who marries a violinist does not pass on violinist genes to guarantee another violinist. Lamark's theories are basically proto-evolutionary ideas that there are learned traits that can be passed on using the classical giraffe stretching their long neck towards an apple example. This theory however leans towards the extreme short-term and fast, while Darwin's theories are very long-term and slow.

 

[mbriant]

Quote:

2. The amount of time that would be required for evolutionary forces to create functional differences in human hearing that would be significant enough to matter is much longer than humanity has been around.

There was enough time to create the extreme differences between a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard or a Pygmy and a Swede....but not enough time for slight frequency response differences in humans to develop.

How do you figure that?

 

[mbriant]

TimD

I chose dogs as an example because mine happen to be here right beside me. And during the years I've owned them, their similarities and differences have become obvious to me.

Yes, man has been instrumental in many breed's development...but that's only been in the past 10,000 years or so. Prior to that, Pugs developed separately from Greyhounds naturally, in separate environments, over hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

As did man. The Australian aboriginees evolved separately from the tribes of the British Isles over the same time period. It's only been within the past few centuries that human races have intermingled to any degree.

As far as mating goes, until recent times, humans never travelled far from their own village. They generally lived and died in a few mile radius of where they were born. They also wound up interbreeding to the point that most "tribe members" were all related. At best, they would marry someone from the next tribe over. They weren't overly picky either. And who knows what humans were like prior to written history? Like animals I imagine.

Let's forget about dogs or domesticated animals and think about all the other animals ( and plants ) in the world. Man didn't meddle in the developement of Lions, Tigers, Lynx, Cheetahs, Panthers, etc. But again, despite being members of the same species, each has developed it's own evolutionary characteristics. Some are bigger, some are faster, some live longer, etc. etc.

The people of Nepal have developed superior lung capacity to most people because of their environment. Why is it so hard to believe that different races may have developed different hearing responses for the same sort of reasons.

Survival is in fact the main catalyst for evolution. If one tribe's survival depended on being able to hear a Lion sneaking up on them and another's depended on hearing a snake...perhaps their hearing would evolve differently.

 

[dgs]

Quote:

Originally posted by mbriant There was enough time to create the extreme differences between a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard or a Pygmy and a Swede....but not enough time for slight frequency response differences in humans to develop. How do you figure that?

Dogs? Alot of differences in breed are from our tinkering, and from obvious functional differences in the needs of the breed. Also, a dog's life is, on average 10-15 years, whereas humans live, on average, 70-80 years. That means that when considering the passing of generations (over which genetic variability is expressed), a species of dog would have 5 to 6 times the opportunity as a human species in the same amount of time. Over 40,000 years (assuming that the dog species started at the same time as the human species), that becomes a significant number.

There is a constant force in genetics towards variability--of that there is no doubt. However, variations that do not have an obvious functional value (ie. provide a survival advantage by heightening reproductive fitness) don't tend to be passed on preferentially, and thus don't become dominant variants in the genetic pool of a race or species. Also, necessary functions (like hearing), tend to be very preserved without variation over evolution because too much variability in a necessary survival function tends to decrease reproductive fitness, not increase it. Your argument is somewhat dangerous, in my opinion. It is similar to the argument made by scientists for many years that genetic variation have "created" distinct racial characteristics that make Nazis, for example, superior in intellect to say, Jewish people. I would suggest Stephen Gould's "Mismeasure of Man," in which he argues this very point.

 

[Tim D]

Quote:

Man didn't meddle in the developement of Lions, Tigers, Lynx, Cheetahs, Panthers, etc. But again, despite being members of the same species, each has developed it's own evolutionary characteristics. Some are bigger, some are faster, some live longer, etc. etc.

Those are different species...of FAR more difference than the difference between human races.

There are also SOME species that are able to mate and have offspring cross-species, but not have potent offspring.

The grouped traits for which people politically identify as different races are EXTREMELY minor differences biologically speaking. Politically speaking it can mean the difference between love and hate, peace and war, but biologically speaking it is extremely slight. I am NOT disregarding variance of hearing as something that can exist as well that is slight. I am saying that PERHAPS it does not need to be necessarily linked with other grouped traits that also slightly vary across populations. And comparisons between the political races of humans, and breeds of dogs or lions, tigers, lynx's, or panthers are on orders of magnitude different in scale.

As for pygmie and Swede differences...well pygmie is a very strange culture focusing on certain physical traits(shortness). However it is again mostly cultural a difference. For example you can take all the albinos in the world, and group them up somewhere and probably trick someone into thinking they were a different "race". My only point being, perhaps the pygmy race is exemplary of the forces of culture to isolate certain traits. But note this isolation needs to be extremely consistent over a very long period. It might not necessarily be because evolutionary forces deemed it desirable for the group in that location to be short.

So it is one thing to say that variances exists and can be altered by geographics and culture..., but I mean some people have detached earlobes and some don't regardless of race, or can roll their tongue or can't. Slight variation of voice I would consider to be caused by proportional differences. An urkel sized black guy can have a whiny high pitched voice. A bigger man may have a deeper more resonating chesty voice. I think it is more related to size proportion than race. But than again there's Mike Tyson!

I have no issue linking voice alteration, with size proportion. But its another to say that maybe the ability to sound out "r's" is a genetic thing lacking in many people in asia LOL.

 

[dgs]

Quote:

Originally posted by mbriant TimD Pugs developed separately from Greyhounds naturally, in separate environments, over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. As did man. Man didn't meddle in the developement of Lions, Tigers, Lynx, Cheetahs, Panthers, etc. But again, despite being members of the same species, each has developed it's own evolutionary characteristics. Some are bigger, some are faster, some live longer, etc. etc.

These are all true statements, IMO. But, importantly, human environments and needs have tended to be more similar over time than those of various other animals.

Nonsequitor: when I was in medical school, the mortician who prepared the cadavers for dissection said something very interesting to a student who complained why there were so few "African American" cadavers prepared for dissection at the school. He said, "You know, when you take the skin off, they are all the same."

I'm not suggesting that everything is the same about everyone, but I think that this is a powerful statement. Humans are more alike than different. And without a functional motivation for a new trait, I tend to shy away from a genetic explanation for variations in things like preferences, especially when learning has such a profound impact on everything during development.