Pattern and Surprise

I love the process of slowly recognizing a pattern in your own cognition and then later discovering an explanation of it that is supported by scientific research. This happened to me the other day when I read that human beings prefer to look at fractal patterns over non-fractal patterns, and we like our fractals with a density of 1.3, which oxymoronically exhibits “low complexity.” Complexity, but not too much. Michael Gazzaniga writes about this in Human: the Science Behind what Makes Us Unique.

Similarly, David Brooks talks about how we prefer music that conforms to traditional patterns of composition while still offering moments of surprise. For a long time, I have noticed that I’ll quickly dislike a piece of music if it is too predictable, even if I know that I enjoy similar works. The parts of music that I love the most are those little divergences in the melody, the playful spots in the rhythm, the interesting pairings of harmony. I have unconsciously smiled countless times when something catches my ear that my head wasn’t expecting.

This is probably part of the reason that culture is so slow to change. There is a great example of the way our brains accept or reject things that don’t conform to our previous experiences. I heard it on an episode of RadioLab. Parisian ballet goers responded to Igor Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring by rioting against it. It was so new and groundbreaking that it is speculated they went momentarily insane. If I remember correctly (I’ll have to go back and listen again), he was received the very next year in the same city with resounding acclaim. And we know the piece best from Disney’s Fantasia.  It’s not so controversial anymore, I suppose, but our brains are certainly picky the first time we encounter something.