Classical-Music Fans May Have More Brains

[The Mad Hatter]

Why, the dictionary definition isn't enough for you?

As I'm quite sure I don't need to point out, there are different aspects of intelligence. IQ is a way of measuring them together, but the tests rely on certain types of problem-solving which can be learned, and in any case can be inaccurate. (I improved by 20% on two consecutive IQ tests, partly due to the similar nature of the questions between them, even though none of the questions were actually repeated.)

[Josquin des Prez]

I don't think classical music fans have more brains, because 100-200 years ago, people listened to this music that we call "classical", were they smarter than us then?

Your lack of historical perspective fails you here.

Here's some information you can use to fill your perspective of how the range and proportions of musical understanding hasn't really changed during the centuries:

http://www.artsjournal.com/greg/2006/10/in_recent_episodes_ive_been.html

It's not as well written as i'd like, but it should do the job.

[Josquin des Prez]

As I'm quite sure I don't need to point out, there are different aspects of intelligence. IQ is a way of measuring them together, but the tests rely on certain types of problem-solving which can be learned, and in any case can be inaccurate. (I improved by 20% on two consecutive IQ tests, partly due to the similar nature of the questions between them, even though none of the questions were actually repeated.)

We are talking about intelligence and mental ability, not IQ.

[Mozart]

As I'm quite sure I don't need to point out, there are different aspects of intelligence. IQ is a way of measuring them together, but the tests rely on certain types of problem-solving which can be learned, and in any case can be inaccurate. (I improved by 20% on two consecutive IQ tests, partly due to the similar nature of the questions between them, even though none of the questions were actually repeated.)

I took the test took and it came out like 150. Thats how I know it wasn't accurate, I'm an idiot! Well the math logic stuff is easy but anything else...

[mahlertitan]

We are talking about intelligence and mental ability, not IQ.

but, what is that? didn't you previously used an example of IQs? how can you measure intelligence, now don't dodge the question, answer it! how do you measure something like that?

[The Mad Hatter]

We are talking about intelligence and mental ability, not IQ.

Intelligence Quotient is a measure of intelligence and mental ability. That's what it's for!

[mahlertitan]

Intelligence Quotient is a measure of intelligence and mental ability. That's what it's for!

so it claims.

[Josquin des Prez]

All pop music is of the same intellectual standard now?

Strawman. Nobody has ever said pop music is all on the same intellectual standard. Your implication is irrelevant, btw. The original study meant to demonstrate how a lessening in mental ability resulted in the subjects leaning towards increasingly simpler music. The fact not all pop music is as simple as that doesn't invalidate the results of this research.

What's interesting here is just how much of what we call 'taste' is related to brain functioning as opposed to some unique 'personal response' to external stimuli. Fascinating, to say the least...

[Josquin des Prez]

Intelligence Quotient is a measure of intelligence and mental ability. That's what it's for!

Yes, it's a way of measuring human intelligence, but it doesn't define it.

[Josquin des Prez]

I took the test took and it came out like 150. Thats how I know it wasn't accurate, I'm an idiot! Well the math logic stuff is easy but anything else...

From experience, people on the internet will always claim to have off the chart IQ scores and then promptly dismiss the entire test as rubbish. Whether IQ tells the whole story about the human intellect or not, from the perspective of what it achieves in measuring it hardly fails to give an accurate picture. A score of 150 is quite considerable and damn near impossible you could have gotten such a high number from a real test and not have the mental power to back it up.

[Mozart]

Congratulations!
Your general IQ score is 149.



They asked such dificult questions man that require a substantial ammount of logic such as:

   If Borbs are better than Fribs, and Luns are worse than Jirts, Luns must be better than Fribs if Luns are better than Borbs.


Which idiot cant figure this out by reading the question carefully?

[Josquin des Prez]

Congratulations!
Your general IQ score is 149.



They asked such dificult questions man that require a substantial ammount of logic such as:

   If Borbs are better than Fribs, and Luns are worse than Jirts, Luns must be better than Fribs if Luns are better than Borbs.


Which idiot cant figure this out by reading the question carefully?

Fine, try this one then:

http://www.highiqsociety.org/iq_tests/



BTW, enough with this. We are not talking about IQ, since the subjects weren't tested for a mental score but are the victims of brain retardation. If IQ tests are ambiguous and imperfect, dementia isn't, so the point still stands: mental power = complex taste. 

[The Mad Hatter]

Strawman. Nobody has ever said pop music is all on the same intellectual standard. Your implication is irrelevant, btw. The original study meant to demonstrate how a lessening in mental ability resulted in the subjects leaning towards increasingly simpler music. The fact not all pop music is as simple as that doesn't invalidate the results of this research.

What's interesting here is just how much of what we call 'taste' is related to brain functioning as opposed to some unique 'personal response' to external stimuli. Fascinating, to say the least...

I never said that it did, and I never intended to refute the findings of the study. (The headline 'Scientist Proves the Obvious' springs to mind.)

I was in fact aiming for a point which I misread in the first post I quoted. My apologies. (it's nearly four in the morning here...I really should go to bed...)

[Steve]

so it claims.

Ever since it's inception, the Intelligence-Quotient (IQ) has been repeatedly confirmed as one of the most valid tests of intellectual aptitude available. It has been used, without controversy I might add, to discover all sorts of important correlations which are generally accepted today without much controversy. People have problem accepting the very notion that not all people are of a single intellectual aptitude, and that there are some preferences/characteristics that people of a higher intellectual aptitude have in common.

For some reason, accepting and professing the results of these studies is a faux-pas in our society. Yet, the 'equality complex' that seems to grip many people, does not falsify the results of these studies. Listening to classical music is a much more intellectually active experience than that of pop music. Consider the knowledge of musical theory needed to even begin to be able to write a GMG review. In addition to knowledge of musical theory, a keen discerning ear for complex musical structures is also required. To be a discerning lover of classical music requires a certain level of intellectual aptitude. Forget about the social implications for a moment. Doesn't that statement seem rather sound?

I've seen studies that have demonstrated that the readers of the canon, are generally found to have a higher intellectual aptitude than those who read exclusively modern works. Is it surprising that readers of Plato, Aristotle, and Kant are of a higher aptitude than the average reader? It should come to no surprise that fans of classical music enjoy the same status.

These are scientific conclusions which aren't at all new. The Mozart Effect wasn't simply the result of a gross-over-generalization of a few studies. It is a conclusion that has been reaffirmed many times over the course of history, and one, that we have every right to accept.

[Scriptavolant]

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. Nevertheless one should be cautios in improvising science collecting articles here and there on the web, things may turn out to be much more complicated than they seem.
Being able to follow a fugue or to understand the architecture of the forma sonata in the Waldstein don't make you Beethoven, neither a good composer, nor a genius or a better man as a whole.
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. "See? I like Beethoven and read books on counterpoint. I'm a superior being, the ueber mensch!" I sense some form of lacking self-esteem in such a behaviour.
Quite sad, given the fact that we're adults. Be serious.

[Steve]

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. Nevertheless one should be cautios in improvising science collecting articles here and there on the web, things may turn out to be much more complicated than they seem.
Being able to follow a fugue or to understand the architecture of the forma sonata in the Waldstein don't make you Beethoven, neither a good composer, nor a genius or a better man as a whole.
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. "See? I like Beethoven and read books on counterpoint. I'm a superior being, the ueber mensch!" I sense some form of lacking self-esteem in such a behaviour.
Quite sad, given the fact that we're adults. Be serious.

This study has not established intellectual aptitude as a way of determining whether a person is better than another.

It is possible to acknowledge the results of a study without boasting.

[Daidalos]

Fine, try this one then:

http://www.highiqsociety.org/iq_tests/

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.

I'm not going to take that very seriously. It doesn't help much that the first thing that pops into view after I finish the test is an offer to purchase a "Personal Intelligence Profile". *Sniff* and I thought I was a genius...

On the question regarding classical music and intelligence... I am certain that much of the classical music that has survived the ruthless selection process for hundreds of years has endured due to its inherent qualities. Music that is more rewarding in the long-run, music that does not cater to popular (and temporary) fads, tends to have certain deeper characteristics that endears it to an audience removed from the cultural context in which a certain piece was created. Naturally, "intelligence" (or more importantly, patience) is sometimes required to appreciate it, to distill a "meaning" from its complexity. In that sense, we should not be surprised to find that "smart" people are more drawn to classical music, since they are equipped with the necessary faculties to understand it.

Nevertheless, it is important to remember that we are looking at a product that has survived a cultural selection. I have no doubt that contemporary ("popular") music will be represented on the "smart" peoples' playlists in the future. It will simply be the music that survives by rejecting the superficiality that dominates most music today (the same as 100 years ago). Cultural context changes constantly, and a product that has no interesting qualities save for a connection to a certain context will inevitably be forgotten. Something equally superficial, but adapted to new circumstances, will replace it.

[Haffner]

Was this directed at me?   

Perhaps Josquin feels that W.A. Mozart is in need of defenders, M. I can't recall a day going by without W.A. being disparaged by Josquin, so it's either that or perhaps he just doesn't like you.


No offense or feces stirring intended toward either of you, I'm just a bit bewildered.

[Haffner]

Yes, it's a way of measuring human intelligence, but it doesn't define it.

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.

[Haffner]

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. Nevertheless one should be cautios in improvising science collecting articles here and there on the web, things may turn out to be much more complicated than they seem.
Being able to follow a fugue or to understand the architecture of the forma sonata in the Waldstein don't make you Beethoven, neither a good composer, nor a genius or a better man as a whole.
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. "See? I like Beethoven and read books on counterpoint. I'm a superior being, the ueber mensch!" I sense some form of lacking self-esteem in such a behaviour.
Quite sad, given the fact that we're adults. Be serious.

Well written, Scriptavolent. I'm guessing that the abovementioned low self esteem is rampant in today's Western culture, where it seems everyone just has to be better than someone else.

Hmmm...I migght be more assured in asserting that such a predilection has been around for an unfortunately long time (perhaps always?).