Classical-Music Fans May Have More Brains

[Hector]

Isn't it generally accepted by educators that I.Q. only meausures certain kinds of intelligence? From the books I've read on the subject (let me know if a list is needed), I.Q. has practically no reflection on individual creativity or imaginative skills...perhaps the most important qualities, unless you're Bertrand Russell.

That is correct. Just a bit of fun, really.

However, it was the test used for many years in the UK called the 11+ that divided children from Grammar School and other. The Grammar Schools were training grounds for university and accounted for  a peak of20% of all schoolchildren, the so-called elite. However, anything from 20 to 25% of those passing the 11+ never got to a Grammar because there were not enough of them.

Interestingly, MENSA uses it as an entrance exam and is proud of the fact that its members can range from roadsweepers to criminal lawyers!

[Haffner]

That is correct. Just a bit of fun, really.

However, it was the test used for many years in the UK called the 11+ that divided children from Grammar School and other. The Grammar Schools were training grounds for university and accounted for  a peak of20% of all schoolchildren, the so-called elite. However, anything from 20 to 25% of those passing the 11+ never got to a Grammar because there were not enough of them.

Interestingly, MENSA uses it as an entrance exam and is proud of the fact that its members can range from roadsweepers to criminal lawyers!

Hey, cool post, Hector. I learned something from that, thanks !

[71 dB]

People with high IQ can be dumb in a brain-washing environment. Higher intelligence gives protection to brain-washing but sometimes the washing is overwhelming.

[dtwilbanks]

Brains are not what pop/rock is for. Have you never banged your head or shaken your ass, gentlemen and ladies? 

[Josquin des Prez]

Yeah, the stuff on the equality complex and all those things is right. We didn't need scientific study to come to the conclusion that we're not all intellectually equal, by the way, and that such thing as variability exists.

Said that, given the variability which I've always firmly defended, I wonder what's the point in sticking the result of this research out of the door as a sign of distinction.

I find it ironic that it's perfectly fine to acknowledge intellectual variability but doing so is a sign of arrogance and presumption (what was that about generalizations?). It's an inane argument.

If everybody who posses greater ability has to make excuses and constantly reassure others we are all equal in the end nobody is ever going to tap their potential. Politics should never interfere with human achievement, and it's absurd that i have to actually say that.

[Scriptavolant]

I find it ironic that it's perfectly fine to acknowledge intellectual variability but doing so is a sign of arrogance and presumption (what was that about generalizations?). It's an inane argument.

If everybody who posses greater ability has to make excuses and constantly reassure others we are all equal in the end nobody is ever going to tap their potential. Politics should never interfere with human achievement, and it's absurd that i have to actually say that.

Not at all, there's no need for reassurement. My view about human nature is close to Nietzsche's, so perhaps as radical as yours. By the way, people with great ability and intellectual depth usually don't spend time boasting on boards, but instead do so something with their gray matter.

[Haffner]

Not at all, there's no need for reassurement. My view about human nature is close to Nietzsche's, so perhaps as radical as yours. By the way, people with great ability and intellectual depth usually don't spend time boasting on boards, but instead do so something with their gray matter.

This is OT, but I remember a little man I met in my early years of teaching guitar whom just always had to dig at me in reference to my religion (Catholicism is subject to that alot these days). When he continually saw me just smile, unaffected, he asked me how I stayed so imperturbable. I told him that people whom either loudly trumpet their beliefs, or get defensive over them, are in reality questioning their faith. Those whom really live with and respect their own beliefs have no reason to contest and/or defend them.

Imagine the same little man's face when I told him that Nietzsche's incredibly beautiful/ironic portrayal of Christ in Der AntiChristlich (one of my favorite books) helped steer me back to Roman Catholicism!

[Steve]

I find it ironic that it's perfectly fine to acknowledge intellectual variability but doing so is a sign of arrogance and presumption (what was that about generalizations?). It's an inane argument.

If everybody who posses greater ability has to make excuses and constantly reassure others we are all equal in the end nobody is ever going to tap their potential. Politics should never interfere with human achievement, and it's absurd that i have to actually say that.

Of course, this isn't a matter of sociological oberservation, but of scientific consensus.  Denying scientific conclusions because of social prejudices isn't an argument, it's willful ignorance. I for one, see plenty of helpful reasons for discussing the results of these studies. Music programs in the United States are being stripped of funds, and sometimes, cut altogether. Students are no longer being taught to music theory as well as the discerning listening skills required to appreciate classical music. The study of acedemic, non-musical topics has been shown to sustain one's cognitive abilities, exposure to classical music has had a similar effect. Giving students the tools, just like studying poetic forms or aritmetic, to study and appreciate classical music, can give them a window to a stimulating, passion which they can cherish for their entire lifetime.

Assuming that by acknowledging the results of these studies, we simply want to provide fodder for our egos, is a false conclusion. Some of us see other benefits for publishing and discussing these results.

[Scriptavolant]

Once again, the only ones which seem to be paranoid, or obsessed with equality complexes, politically-correctness and the need to feel different are you. Josquin is constantly misunderstanding my remarks, most probably because he's just haunted by those ghosts of equality. I am not, that's the reason of the misunderstanding.

And the last remark: don't be too confident with the practice of collecting scientifical articles to wave as flags. That doesn't make you scientists; there are plenty of theories on cognitive functions which are not shared by the whole scientifical community, or need further deepening. I know that by experience.
As we say in Italy "Infilarti delle piume nel culo non farà di te una gallina". Oh, sorry!

[greg]

Well...... ok, my opinion is that maybe there is something in this with music relating to brainpower, but for me, maybe it's manifested in different ways? I'm definetely average at math and don't enjoy it much at all unless I found it useful for something besides getting good grades in school. So... now that I think about it, even math and physics were interesting when I found them useful since before I wanted to be a video game programmer. But now I wouldn't enjoy them at all since I'm not going to do that stuff. Stuff just has to interest me. But hardly anything at all does, no wonder I did so bad in certain classes, and hardly ever remember anything my parents tell me.

Oh yeah, when I was little, I used to memorize basketball stats. I'd memorize tons and tons of stats about certain players, especially the ppg during certain seasons. But besides that, statistics are boring.

So does anyone know a good link to a trustworthy, simple, IQ test so I can retest myself again?

[Steve]

Once again, the only ones which seem to be paranoid, or obsessed with equality complexes, politically-correctness and the need to feel different are you. Josquin is constantly misunderstanding my remarks, most probably because he's just haunted by those ghosts of equality. I am not, that's the reason of the misunderstanding.

And the last remark: don't be too confident with the practice of collecting scientifical articles to wave as flags. That doesn't make you scientists; there are plenty of theories on cognitive functions which are not shared by the whole scientifical community, or need further deepening. I know that by experience.
As we say in Italy "Infilarti delle piume nel culo non farà di te una gallina". Oh, sorry!

There are numerous scientific studies (statistical samplings) which have lended support to the conclusions reached in this article. These are not theories of cognitive function, they are simply corellations supported with research. If you would like to offer competing studies which would reach a different conclusion, please share them.

The point of my last post refute Josquin claim that those who are disputing these results as meer conjecture and opinion, are making argument. A logical argument which aims to defend a claim needs evidence, and few (if any) of the posters who disagree with Josaquin's (or my) conclusions provide such evidence.

No one here is 'obsessed' with equality complexes and such, but as long as people on this thread want to debate the merits of my claims, I will continue to defend them. This is not an obsession, Scriptvolant, it is a rational discussion of a published study.

[greg]

can't all intelligence be narrowed down to memory though?

[dtwilbanks]

can't all intelligence be narrowed down to memory though?

I used to know the answer to this.

[mahlertitan]

can't all intelligence be narrowed down to memory though?

making it even more difficult to reduce "intelligence" into a mere quotient.

[Scriptavolant]

There are numerous scientific studies (statistical samplings) which have lended support to the conclusions reached in this article. These are not theories of cognitive function, they are simply corellations supported with research. If you would like to offer competing studies which would reach a different conclusion, please share them.

The point of my last post refute Josquin claim that those who are disputing these results as meer conjecture and opinion, are making argument. A logical argument which aims to defend a claim needs evidence, and few (if any) of the posters who disagree with Josaquin's (or my) conclusions provide such evidence.

No one here is 'obsessed' with equality complexes and such, but as long as people on this thread want to debate the merits of my claims, I will continue to defend them. This is not an obsession, Scriptvolant, it is a rational discussion of a published study.

No I have no competing studies, for I didn't question this research in particular, but rather the biased and ideological usage of it that Josquin is applying. And this is not the first time, most of the times I read him I find some reference to the evil relativists, the feminine drift of modern intellectuals, the need to kick non-learned asses and so on. I think there are wrong ways to be right.
This study determines that there's a correlation between musical taste and intellectual function, which seems no stunning new finding. Dementia may lead to a semplification of musical taste? It leads to an over-semplification of a lot of other cognitive functions, I've worked with AD patients. 
I would like to read the original and complete paper rather than a report of it, but I couldn't find it so far.

[Steve]

No I have no competing studies, for I didn't question this research in particular, but rather the biased and ideological usage of it that Josquin is applying. And this is not the first time, most of the times I read him I find some reference to the evil relativists, the feminine drift of modern intellectuals, the need to kick non-learned asses and so on. I think there are wrong ways to be right.
This study determines that there's a correlation between musical taste and intellectual function, which seems no stunning new finding. Dementia may lead to a semplification of musical taste? It leads to an over-semplification of a lot of other cognitive functions, I've worked with AD patients. 
I would like to read the original and complete paper rather than a report of it, but I couldn't find it so far.

Josquin, and I, both support the conclusions reached in this study.

"I find it ironic that it's perfectly fine to acknowledge intellectual variability but doing so is a sign of arrogance and presumption (what was that about generalizations?). It's an inane argument.

If everybody who posses greater ability has to make excuses and constantly reassure others we are all equal in the end nobody is ever going to tap their potential. Politics should never interfere with human achievement, and it's absurd that i have to actually say that. "

I don't find anything in that post particularily problematic. There are socioligical consequences of any study of this sort, and they're not always popular ones. I will not vouch for his statments with regard to other threads and issues, but as for this topic, I don't see the problem with his statements. Perhaps you can cite evidence using his posts on this thread, to support your critique.

[Scriptavolant]

Josquin, and I, both support the conclusions reached in this study.

"I find it ironic that it's perfectly fine to acknowledge intellectual variability but doing so is a sign of arrogance and presumption (what was that about generalizations?). It's an inane argument.

If everybody who posses greater ability has to make excuses and constantly reassure others we are all equal in the end nobody is ever going to tap their potential. Politics should never interfere with human achievement, and it's absurd that i have to actually say that. "

I don't find anything in that post particularily problematic. There are socioligical consequences of any study of this sort, and they're not always popular ones. I will not vouch for his statments with regard to other threads and issues, but as for this topic, I don't see the problem with his statements. Perhaps you can cite evidence using his posts on this thread, to support your critique.

Oh, there's nothing wrong with those statements. I do agree with them, but Josquin seems to miss the fact that I do agree. It's implicit in his post that I think that the ones who posses greater ability has to make excuses or reassurements, and that I labeled the acknowledgement of greater ability as a form of arrogance. No, I didn't. I've been called a braggart countless times, I've no reason to lay aside the idea that we're all equal.

[Josquin des Prez]

Holy crap, I got 140 on that test. And I thought the test was unfair, considering it had questions that related to culture (I was never that good at history) and language (English is not my first language). The math questions were also strange, I think.

Heh, i quit mid way through the factual portion of the test. I ain't going to ruin my self-esteem just because i didn't pay attention during my science class. 

http://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf

135 on this test. Crap, a few more points and i could be MENSA level (if the test was real, that is). Since you seem to have higher potential then me (your diction is definitely superior to mine, and we're both foreigners to boot), i'll let you dabble with it. I'll be very impressed if you can figure out the last question.

[Josquin des Prez]

I've no reason to lay aside the idea that we're all equal.

Then we should lay aside the idea all forms of artistic expressions are equal, as well.

[Josquin des Prez]

I can't recall a day going by without W.A. being disparaged by Josquin.

Mozart is among my top 10 composers, when have i ever disparaged his music? What i meant of course is that good old Wolfgang can be enjoyed from a purely superficial point of view but for those who are able to dig a little deeper the music can yield a far more rewarding experience.

Ok, let's back track a bit. The argument is this: can somebody with lesser mental ability be able to grasp higher forms of musical expression given the individual in question works hard and long at it?

Remember, a sudden lessening in mental power changed the musical taste of the subjects included in the original study, bypassing whatever knowledge or experience they have accumulated during the time they were exposed to classical music.