Sweet Child O' Mine (BOP#1)
Sweet Child O' Mine (BOP#1)
...
1. What is The Book of Play?
It is baby’s first book; it is nursery rhyme, lullaby. It is the fire that consumes you and the wave that drowns you. It is vapor, smoke. It cannot be grasped too tightly; let it pass through you lightly. It is katabasis and cosmogony. It is a telling of the cosmic joke and an utterance of the tragedy of being.
It is a mail-order catalogue of dreams and self-fulfilling prophecies. It is manifesto, it is screed, it is a satire of nothing in particular and everything. It is incoherent, stupid, beautiful, ugly—it is all that I am and all that I could be. It is a delusion of grandeur. It is a ludibrium, a mere play of words, not to be taken seriously, not even for a moment. It is nothing, nothing at all, but it is all I ever wanted.
Simply, Simply does it…Let us begin with the simpliest question.
What is this creature called Man?
2. Darwin was the first to point it out. In The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication (1868), he observed that domesticated mammals (and some birds and some fish) possess a distinctive and unusual suite of traits not seen in their wild progenitors, a phenomenon we now refer to as Domestication syndrome. The full set of characteristics includes: increased docility and tameness, coat color changes, reductions in tooth size, changes in craniofacial morphology, alterations in ear and tail form (e.g. floppy ears), alterations in adreno-corticotropic hormone levels, more frequent and non-seasonal estrus cycles, prolongations in juvenile behavior, and reductions in both total brain size and of particular brain regions.
The complexity of Domestication syndrome and its presence among distantly related groups suggests an elegant and far-reaching explanation. The explanation that has emerged in recent years is just that, but to truly appreciate it we must first understand something about the nature of evolution: she is not an engineer but a tinkerer.
Natural selection has no analogy with any aspect of human behavior. However, if one wanted to play with a comparison, one would have to say that natural selection does not work as an engineer works. It works like a tinkerer—a tinkerer who does not know exactly what he is going to produce but uses whatever he finds around him whether it be pieces of string, fragments of wood, or old cardboards. For the engineer, the realization of his task depends on his having the raw materials and the tools that exactly fit his project. The tinkerer, in contrast, always manages with odds and ends. What he ultimately produces is generally related to no special project, and it results from a series of contingent events, of all the opportunities he had to enrich his stock with leftovers. (“Evolution and Tinkering”, François Jacob)
The contingent, improvisatory nature of evolution is why metabolic pathways often look like Rube Goldberg machines, why whales and dolphins still breathe air despite their aquatic lifestyle, and why so many parts of the human body are poorly designed. But such inefficient or irrational design is only a problem to the eyes of an intelligent designer like ourselves—evolution simply plays around until it has something workable, no matter how inelegant or inefficient.
So when Evolution was presented with the challenge of domestication—when it was “told” that it must quickly adapt a man-eating canine killing machine into man’s best friend—it did not start from scratch and fabricate bespoke parts as needed, but instead looked around its messy garage full of proteins, cells, structures, and mechanisms and threw something together from what it had laying around. Even with such a haphazard design process, what it came up with was ingenious.
Domestication is the result of selection for reduced aggression and increased friendliness towards humans. Across a wide variety of domesticated animals, the mechanistic basis for this tameness appears to be a reduced size and functionality of the adrenal glands (the producers of adrenaline and other stress hormones), which in turn leads to a weaker fight-or-flight response (domesticated animals do not react as aggressively as their wild counterparts in large part because they are not as fearful when interacting with humans). But how does selection for diminished adrenal glands lead to all of the phenotypic changes that we see in domesticated animals—floppy ears, changes in coat color, shorter snouts, smaller teeth, reduced brain size, and so on? There is no obvious way in which these relate to adrenal gland functionality.
Enter the neural crest cell hypothesis:
What all of these diverse traits, including the adrenals, share is that their development is closely linked to neural crest cells (NCCs). NCCs are the vertebrate-specific class of stem cells that first appear during early embryogenesis at the dorsal edge (“crest”) of the neural tube and then migrate ventrally throughout the body in both the cranium and the trunk, giving rise to the cellular precursors of many cell and tissue types and indirectly promoting the development of others (Carlson 1999; Hall 1999; Gilbert 2003; Trainor 2014). The NCC-derived tissues include much of the skull, the sympathetic ganglia, the adrenal medulla, pigment-related melanoblasts in both head and trunk, and tooth precursors (odontoblasts). In the head specifically, cranial neural crest cells (CNCCs) are crucial precursors of bony, cartilaginous, and nervous components of the craniofacial region, including the jaws, hyoid, larynx, and external and middle ears. (Wilkins et al., (2014))
And so there we have it: the primary “lever” that Evolution pulled was neural crest hypofunction, and all of the the morphological changes in pigmentation, jaws, teeth, ears, etc. just came along for the ride, an unselected byproduct.
3. There is another way to understand the evolutionary changes that occur during domestication. Nature always takes the path of least resistance and Evolution is no exception; the design specs of the domesticated animal—enhanced learning ability, capable of forming strong emotional bonds, decreased aggression—sound awfully similar to the traits of a child, so instead of wholesale remodeling, Evolution found it easiest to modify development and retain these juvenile features into adulthood. This is what is known as neoteny (a.k.a. paedomorphosis or fetalization)
This domestication-as-neoteny can be seen clearly in our canine companions—the incredible playfulness and floppy ears of adult dogs are traits only seen in wolf puppies—but it’s readily apparent in humans as well once you know what to look for. Homo sapiens have almost too many physically neotenous traits to list, but here are some of the more notable ones: larger skull/brain size relative to body, hairless face and body, large eyes, increased torso/limb length ratio, increased leg/arm length ratio, upright stance and bipedal gait (more common in juvenile chimps), absence of penis bone (the baculum), and reduced sexual dimorphism (i.e. increased similarity between sexes). Of greater interest for our purposes however are the myriad ways in which the adult human retains the psychological features of the child: reduced aggression, the ability to form deep emotional bonds, enhanced brain plasticity/learning abilities, and, most importantly, playfulness.
You may have noticed something strange here. If humans also exhibit this neotenous domestication syndrome, who exactly did the domesticating? Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising given how good we are domesticating other species, but it appears we did it to ourselves as well—i.e. we are self-domesticated.
This begs another question: how exactly does a species domesticate itself? In other words, what selective pressures set humanity on this evolutionary trajectory towards self-domestication and neoteny? To make a very long story very short: we weren’t domesticated by ourselves per se, but by culture itself.
“The haven all memes depend on reaching is the human mind, but a human mind is itself an artifact created when memes restructure a human brain in order to make it a better habitat for memes.” (Daniel Dennett)
To make the story (known as the Cultural Drive or Cultural Brain hypothesis) slightly less short: what really sets humanity apart from our animal brethren is the fact that our culture (at first tools, foraging techniques, hunting strategies, etc.) compounds over time, what is known as cumulative cultural evolution (CCE). What hasn't been appreciated until recently is that CCE requires very high fidelity cultural transmission—unless individuals can accurately and efficiently copy each other (i.e. social learning), even the most brilliant innovations will be forgotten within a few generations. But if you can cross this social learning threshold, a threshold which only humans have crossed so far, all memes will remain in the pool more or less indefinitely, giving them all the time they need to mix and match and create ever more complex memes. Then it’s only a matter of time before you are building skyscrapers, sequencing genomes, and “flying around in aluminum tubes while nibbling on roasted almonds.”1
This is counterintuitive as most accounts of human origins tend to focus on our individual intelligence and creativity, or what we can call asocial learning. Well it turns out that asocial learning is relatively unimportant in the earliest stages of cultural evolution—if you can copy well enough to keep the game of telephone going then innovation will happen naturally over time through serendipitous copying errors and random recombination (i.e. play) without any individual brilliance, in much the same way that mutation and sexual reproduction function produce evolutionary innovation without any intelligent designer. This creates a runaway virtuous cycle: as the pool of valuable cultural knowledge becomes larger, the selective pressure to become better at social learning becomes stronger; as the population becomes better at social learning, the fidelity of cultural transmission is enhanced, thereby allowing for an even larger pool of valuable cultural knowledge to be maintained, which inevitably leads to further innovation through simple recombination; this produces an even stronger selective pressure to become good at social learning which in turn creates…
TLDR—it all started with a game of “monkey see, monkey do” (monkey pee all over you).
It seems fitting then that one of the first major studies to point towards this model was a computer tournament held by researchers as a way to study the relative merits of social and asocial learning strategies (“Why Copy Others? Insights from the Social Learning Strategies Tournament”, 2010). Here is an excerpt from the abstract (you should be able to grok the gist of what they did and what they found, the details of the game are relatively unimportant for our purposes).
…We organized a computer tournament in which entrants submitted strategies specifying how to use social learning and its asocial alternative (for example, trial-and-error learning) to acquire adaptive behavior in a complex environment. Most current theory predicts the emergence of mixed strategies that rely on some combination of the two types of learning. In the tournament, however, strategies that relied heavily on social learning were found to be remarkably successful, even when asocial information was no more costly than social information. Social learning proved advantageous because individuals frequently demonstrated the highest-payoff behavior in their repertoire, inadvertently filtering information for copiers. The winning strategy relied nearly exclusively on social learning and weighted information according to the time since acquisition.
4. What is The Book of Play?
It is the fool’s errand. It is the message in the bottle and the fortune in the cookie. It is dirt and tears and the first menstrual blood of a vestal virgin. It is gnostic revelation and delphic disquisition. It is the monster, the angel, the scream, the whimper. It is an excessively detailed instructional manual for a contraption that is of absolutely no use whatsoever. It is the alien mothership come to return you to your home planet (the planet of play). It is to be buried in a remote cave in Nepal or Bhutan and forgotten, only to be found millennia in the future under suspicious circumstances which cause many to believe that it is an elaborate hoax.
(It is a loose collection of first drafts, working notes, quotes, musings, marginalia, and other miscellanea produced in the hope that it will one day coalesce, or perhaps coagulate, into something resembling an actual book, but in the meantime it will be released, irregularly and haphazardly, right here, on this silly little blog.)
5. It is something of a mystery why Neanderthals went extinct and Sapiens didn’t, especially considering that Neanderthals had, “significantly larger bodies than humans, with wider shoulders, thicker bones and a more robust build overall” and a similar, if not slightly, larger brain size. There are a variety of hypotheses of course, but the most generally accepted one is that we simply outcompeted them due to some combination of greater intelligence and cooperative abilities.
In light of the preceding discussion, we can now see that this hypothesis is only half-right: the real reason we outcompeted Neanderthals is because we were more child-like.2
While it remains debated whether significant differences in the rate of maturation to adulthood were experienced between Neanderthals and modern humans it appears that patterns of Neanderthal biological and cognitive growth are subtly different from those of contemporary and later modern humans. It has even been debated whether Neanderthals had a ‘childhood’ at all.
Specifically, analysis of teeth suggests that Neanderthals reached adulthood at around 15 years of age, which is somewhat faster than the age of biological adulthood assigned to modern humans. It appears that the Neanderthal brain also grew faster than that of a modern human child, beginning around 400 cm3 and tripling in volume by age three before reaching an adult volume of around 1500 cm3.
If we had better tools (i.e. toys) than Neanderthals, then it’s simply because we were better at playing around (throwing memes together in new combos) and sharing what we made with others (i.e. social learning). Whatever advantages we may or may not have had in intellectual horsepower and creativity were not because of our neural hardware, but because of our software: as Sapien culture blossomed, we developed various thinking tools (e.g. languages, counting systems, epistemological principles, rules of thumb, etc.) that began to make us smarter, first as a group but then as individuals too.
6. The evolution of hominid brain size and structure are telling. At its peak, Neanderthal brains were slightly larger than Sapien brains in absolute terms, but slightly smaller relative to body size. This is not exactly what we would expect if the more complex culture of Sapiens were best explained by differences in raw intelligence. Equally counterintuitive is the fact that human brains have shrunk in the last 10,000 years. These trends make more sense however when we remember that dogs and other domesticated animals have smaller brains than their wild counterparts, and that a similar reduction in brain size is found in some groups of ants as they transition to eusociality (strangely enough, eusocial ants may provide the best comparison to modern humans as we both form large complex kin-oriented societies featuring agricultural practices and full-time division of labor). But instead of a simple reduction in brain size as we would expect during a domestication process3, it appears that certain regions expanded which allowed for an overall constancy of size relative to Neanderthals.
Neanderthal brain cases were elongated and not globular as in Homo sapiens. The noticeable morphological differences in skull shape between the two human species also have cognitive implications. These include the Neanderthals’ smaller parietal lobes and cerebellum, areas implicated in tool use, visuospatial integration, numeracy, creativity, and higher-order conceptualization. The differences, while slight, would have possibly been enough to affect natural selection and may underlie and explain the differences in social behaviors, technological innovation, and artistic output. (Wikipedia)
There are profound neural connections between the cerebellum and the parietal and frontal lobes, an interconnectivity that suggests the cerebellum may aid in the process of creative thinking, a cognitive prerequisite of fantasy play. (Nielsen et al., 2020)
To review: the most important evolutionary changes to Homo sapien brains were not size increases but structural changes which made us better at language, visuospatial integration (“monkey see, monkey do”), creativity, and abstraction, all of which enhanced our ability to PLAY. The overall effect of these changes was that our brains became more GLOBULAR, i.e. more like BALLS, which happen to be the simpliest and most perfectliest TOY.
I cannot stress this enough: this simply cannot be a coincidence. You know what else is a BALL? Our eyes (so we can play catch and other BALL games), our shoulder and hip joints (maximum flexibility/potential for PLAY), planets (the places where organisms live and PLAY) and stars, which produces the atoms (which are also sort of BALLS) that make up our bodies (“hydrogen is a light odorless gas that, given enough time, turns into people”).
Does it not seem odd that Nature’s most fundamental forces—gravity, the nuclear strong force, electromagnetism, LOVE—all act to produce BALLS or beings that can PLAY with those BALLS? The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that THE UNIVERSE IS A BALL PIT AND WE WERE PUT HERE TO PLAY IN IT.
BALL IS LIFE, BALL IS LOVE, BALL IS ALL
What a piece of work play is a man! how noble in reason! How infinite in faculty!
In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel!
In apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world! The paragon of animals!
Q & A
Q: Do I have to follow along and read the chapters in order?
A: No, not at all. While of course there will be thematic and stylistic connections between different chapters, I will try to make most chapters stand on their own. When this is not the case, I will try to signpost appropriately (e.g. noting that an essay is part of a mini-series or that it only makes sense in conjunction with another chapter of the BOP, etc.).
Q: Are all the chapters going to be written in this sort of childish manner (lots of pictures and quotes, numbered theses or whatever)? Is this a good example of what to expect from the BOP?
A: No, probably not, but maybe. The first few chapters are written in a similar style, but even moreso. After that, all bets are off. I for one would not be the least bit surprised if the BOP eventually evolves beyond book, beyond language, into some kind of live tantric sex performance art.
Q: Anything else we should know?
A: This is called The Book of Play for a reason—this is a game, nothing more, and it exists solely for shits n’ giggles. As I said above, none of this should be taken seriously, not even for a moment. At times it may seem like I am proposing ideas, deploying facts, mounting arguments or dissecting them, but these appearances are only a mirage, a figment of your over-active imagination. Does a game of solitaire beg the question? Does a game of chess beg interpretation? Does the pope shit in the woods? Are bears catholic? Do you touch yourself at night, secretly and sweetly?
Settle the fuck down. Not everything is about you. This is about me.
This is about play.
See the forthcoming article “What Makes Us Smart” by Joseph Henrich and Michael Muthukrishna for a good summary of the Cultural Brain Hypothesis with an emphasis on how cumulative cultural evolution made us individually intelligent.
We review how larger, more diverse, and more optimally interconnected networks of minds give rise to faster innovation and how the cognitive products of this cumulative cultural evolutionary process feedback to make us individually “smarter”—in the sense of being better at meeting the challenges and problems posed by our societies and socioecologies. Here, we consider not only how cultural evolution supplies us with “thinking tools” (like counting systems and fractions) but also how it has shaped our ontologies (e.g., do germs and witches exist?) and epistemologies, including our notions of what constitutes a “good reason” or “good evidence” (e.g., are dreams a source of evidence?)
It appears that Neanderthals were not good enough at “monkey see, monkey do” to cross the cumulative cultural evolution threshold:
“Generally small and widely dispersed fossil sites suggest that Neanderthals lived in less numerous and socially more isolated groups than contemporary Homo sapiens. Tools such as Mousterian flint stone flakes and Levallois points are remarkably sophisticated from the outset, yet they have a slow rate of variability and general technological inertia is noticeable during the entire fossil period. Artifacts are of utilitarian nature, and symbolic behavioral traits are undocumented before the arrival of modern humans in Europe around 40,000 to 35,000 years ago.” (wikipedia)
And yes there is evidence for the evolution of neural crest hypofunction in humans as well; we will delve more into this topic in future chapters of the BOP.
Just getting the first comment in for what will be a funwild ride. Keep it going, Mr. Bacon.
Neat ideas well executed. Unfortunately you have hitched your theory of mental evolution to the least credible part of natural selection- the idea that frameshift mutations are sometimes pro-survival. There simply don't seem to be any examples of this and I've looked quite a bit for them. Random mutation has never been demonstrated to enhance the offspring, which is why after almost two hundred years evolution remains a thing that we believe in because experts say so and not a thing that anybody ever demonstrates or measures.