The Nielsen Nexus

[Karl Henning]

The world does not consist of billions of people all with the exact same neural network just waiting to be "unblocked".

Thank heaven!

[71 dB]

I was with you for about one sentence...

That's one more than people typically are. 

...until you started talking about neural blocks. It is not simply a case of liking more things as we get older/more experienced, because what you're ignoring is that we have different sets of values.

It's not as if these blocks get removed as we get older. We remove some, but other blocks are generated. If your life is chaotic and hard you are likely to create more blocks to simplify the world for you. For example populism is based on this. If you are happy, your life is in order and you don't fear anything you are likely to push blocks (such as "all muslims are bad people") away.

And values are not "neural blocks". They're not negatives ("I can't appreciate this"), they are positives ("these are the things I like and respond to").

Blocks are negatives and lack of blocks are positives.

It doesn't matter how much I am exposed to any and every type of music, there are things that I value as part of my personality - not merely musical qualities, but qualities more generally - that are going to influence exactly which music I like regardless of its genre.

Neural blocks are part of as and partly makes us what we are. Without any blocks we all would be some kind of aliens, part of a "supermind". It's human to have weaknesses and you should get angry about your blocks. We all have them. I have "Sibelius" block for example and I can live with it. It's possible there's a minimum of these blocks and it's impossible to be completely free of them. Maybe sanity needs them?

I get thoroughly tired of people picking heavy metal as an example. Personally I never liked heavy metal as a teenager. My nephew, on the other hand, loves it. But he's musical, and it's not simply a case of him mindlessly having the same reaction to everything in the genre any more than I have the same reaction to every classical composer or to every female piano-playing singer-songwriter (any website that says "you like Tori Amos? then in that case we think you'll like all these other women" loses points with me).

Well, I chose heavy metal randomly. I could have chosen Justin Bieder or Snoop Dogg. For the record, I have never been into heavy metal myself. I had a heavy metal block as a teenager and I still have. 

There is certainly an element of having to get used to styles of music that we find unfamiliar, yes. But there is no way that is the sum total of what determines our responses, and no amount of removal of "neural blocks" will get me to like music that fundamentally doesn't align with my own values.

Your values are also determined by blocks and lack of them. Blocks can also prevent us to see negative aspects and having some blocks may enable things we would not like without. Racists "like" racism because their blocks prevent them to see the negative aspects of racism.

The world does not consist of billions of people all with the exact same neural network just waiting to be "unblocked".

Yes, we all do not have a brain of Albert Einstein, but the main reason why Einstein was able to accomplish what he did was his open-mindness, lack of blocks that prevented other smart people around him to make those scientific discoveries.

[North Star]

I'd like to have a metal block now.

[Mirror Image]

I have no idea what 71 dB is talking about, but it doesn't make one bit of sense. "Neural blocks"? Come on. Anyway, I think it has more to do with what orfeo was talking about: we all have our own musical standards and values that help us evaluate whether the music is for us or not. When coming across something that you don't like initially, it's more about your own preferences and what you value in music, then it is anything else. There's certainly no 'blocks' happening from where I'm sitting. You can dislike something on first-listen but still have an intense interest or are intrigued by it in some way that you revisit it and find that it was music that simply doesn't give it's secrets so easily.

[71 dB]

I have no idea what 71 dB is talking about, but it doesn't make one bit of sense. "Neural blocks"? Come on.

I came up with this neural block theory in about 10 seconds while writing about it. I am a system thinker and these ideas are natural for me. The theory of neural blocks is far from perfect, but it is a starting point in explaining why people have different tastes and why our taste evolves at varying speed. Anyone is free to express counter-claims. That's how theories get better. "Doesn't make sense" isn't constructive critisism. You need to explain why it does not make sense so we can make corrections to the theory. You people have blocks against my theory about blocks! 

Anyway, I think it has more to do with what orfeo was talking about: we all have our own musical standards and values that help us evaluate whether the music is for us or not.

Why evaluate the music but not your own values and standards? Shouldn't we evaluate EVERYTHING? Verdi is perhaps not for me, but is it the music or my neural blocks or both? I am on thin ice if I ONLY evaluate Verdi. Why should I fear finding out about the blocks? It's only human to have them.

When coming across something that you don't like initially, it's more about your own preferences and what you value in music, then it is anything else. There's certainly no 'blocks' happening from where I'm sitting. You can dislike something on first-listen but still have an intense interest or are intrigued by it in some way that you revisit it and find that it was music that simply doesn't give it's secrets so easily.

Why is "change in preferences" a more comfortable concept to you than "changes in blocks"? Sometimes your preferences change fast, sometimes they change slowly and sometimes they don't change at all. Why? Because sometimes there are blocks preventing/slowing down the change. As I said, some blocks are beneficial. I am happy for the block in my mind that prevents me becoming a racist and I am certainly lucky for having a block that prevents me becoming religious!

[Madiel]

I did in fact explain exactly what I thought was wrong with your theory. Your response was just to assert everything again.

Seriously. After I talked about having both a positive factor and a negative factor, all you did was go line by line and say again "I prefer my theory where there's just a negative factor and an absence of a negative factor".

And then you tell us it's something you made up on the spot, AND criticise us for not immediately going along with your whim?

[Mirror Image]

I came up with this neural block theory in about 10 seconds while writing about it. I am a system thinker and these ideas are natural for me. The theory of neural blocks is far from perfect, but it is a starting point in explaining why people have different tastes and why our taste evolves at varying speed. Anyone is free to express counter-claims. That's how theories get better. "Doesn't make sense" isn't constructive critisism. You need to explain why it does not make sense so we can make corrections to the theory. You people have blocks against my theory about blocks! 

Why evaluate the music but not your own values and standards? Shouldn't we evaluate EVERYTHING? Verdi is perhaps not for me, but is it the music or my neural blocks or both? I am on thin ice if I ONLY evaluate Verdi. Why should I fear finding out about the blocks? It's only human to have them.

Why is "change in preferences" a more comfortable concept to you than "changes in blocks"? Sometimes your preferences change fast, sometimes they change slowly and sometimes they don't change at all. Why? Because sometimes there are blocks preventing/slowing down the change. As I said, some blocks are beneficial. I am happy for the block in my mind that prevents me becoming a racist and I am certainly lucky for having a block that prevents me becoming religious!

I don't have to explain to you why your theory doesn't make any sense to me. That's irrelevant and has absolutely NOTHING to do with Nielsen. My advice is to keep these kinds of things to yourself. Now, back to Nielsen!

[71 dB]

I did in fact explain exactly what I thought was wrong with your theory. Your response was just to assert everything again.

Seriously. After I talked about having both a positive factor and a negative factor, all you did was go line by line and say again "I prefer my theory where there's just a negative factor and an absence of a negative factor".

And then you tell us it's something you made up on the spot, AND criticise us for not immediately going along with your whim?

Most (80 % maybe) block are negative and the rest are positive. There is no need to accept my theories immediately, but there's also no need to shoot them down immediately either.

I don't have to explain to you why your theory doesn't make any sense to me. That's irrelevant and has absolutely NOTHING to do with Nielsen. My advice is to keep these kinds of things to yourself. Now, back to Nielsen!

So why do you take my theory so heavily? Does not make any sense? Well, just ignore it then. I am trying to explain why people like different stuff (why not all people like Nielsen for example) and you ask me to keep it to myself? I can leave the whole board if people don't want me here.

[prémont]

I came up with this neural block theory in about 10 seconds while writing about it. I am a system thinker and these ideas are natural for me. The theory of neural blocks is far from perfect, but it is a starting point in explaining why people have different tastes and why our taste evolves at varying speed.

Stepping in I would like to add, that there is no trace of explanation in your theory. At best it represents a modest description and at worst some circular argument (listener x does not like composer y, so the listener has got some neural block, and this block is the cause, why he does not like composer y).

[71 dB]

Stepping in I would like to add, that there is no trace of explanation in your theory. At best it represents a modest description and at worst some circular argument (listener x does not like composer y, so the listener has got some neural block, and this block is the cause, why he does not like composer y).

There's nothing circular in my logic:

(1) The world is extremely complex.
(2) We have a tendence of trying to make some sense of the world, especially when have fears, our life isn't in order etc.
(3) Neural blocks simplify the way we understand the world *. Neural blocks are human, part of who we are. There is no need to be ashamed of them. Everyone has them.
(4) We use these blocks without realising it to get a feeling of understanding the complex world.
(5) Most blocks are "negative" and causes us difficulties of understanding some things correctly. Some blocks are "positive" and protect us from bad ideologies.

Now, where exactly is the circular part in this logic and where doesn't my logic (1) ---> (5) hold water?

* Kind of the same way a labyrinth can be simplified by blocking some sections of it. Blocks allow quicker, but also simpler thought prosesses, a quicker way out of the labyrinth.

[Jo498]

The problem is that there are all kinds of ways one could continue from your (2) You give no reason why a model with "neural blocks" should be a good explanatory continuation from (2). Furthermore, (4) does not seem to be relevant for the issue at hand. If one does not appreciate Sibelius this does not at all help to get a "feeling of understanding the complex world". How does it further my understanding or reduce complexity in a helpful way if I realise that I do not much care for the music of Sibelius?

Finally, (5) seems largely unrelated to the rest. Why are most blocks negative? You also seem to use negative/positive in a different sense than earlier. Earlier *any* block was helpful to reduce complexity and further understanding. Now in (5) "negative" actually impedes "correct understanding". And "positive" now has nothing to do anymore with appreciating e.g. Nielsen's music but "protects us from bad ideologies" (not bad music?). Where do the bad ideologies appear from suddenly?

[Madiel]

There is no need to accept my theories immediately, but there's also no need to shoot them down immediately either.

There's a school of thought on the internet that says that people oughtn't shoot down the ideas of others. This is stupid because it turns into "first person to open their mouth wins", and it's also exactly how fake news gets its foothold. So sorry, but if I think your ideas warrant being shot down, I will take aim. If you start theorising that Maurice Ravel was a disguised lizard alien from a planet orbiting the star Procyon, I will feel totally justified in shooting it down immediately with extreme prejudice.

What I actually did this instance is point out what your theory was lacking, to which you've simply failed to respond. You have given no indication at all why anyone should actually LIKE a piece of music. At all. All you've done is describe an idea about an absence of dislike. A removal of a block. And hey presto, somehow this doesn't just remove negative responses, it creates positive ones in their place.

You've given no explanation at all about what there might be in a piece of music that someone would appreciate and respond to.

It's a bit like suggesting that people aren't sexually attracted to particular looks/figures/genders, they're just somehow "blocked" from finding everyone sexy. Or that I don't actually have flavours I particular enjoy, it's just that I'm "blocked" from all the others. You've offered a theory that simply denies the existence of something that generates a positive response.

Instead of identifying the things that the various kinds of music I like have in common, you would have me saying that I simply listen to music that lacks the things I dislike. I'm reminded of Mr Burns in the Simpsons saying about art: "I know what I hate, and I don't hate this".

[prémont]

Now, where exactly is the circular part in this logic ...?

All parts in a circle take part in the circle.

[Mirror Image]

Wow, here's a thought: let's get back to talking about Nielsen.

[Mirror Image]

The best I can remember this is a good article on Nielsen's Inextinguishable:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2014/mar/04/symphony-guide-nielsen-fourth-tom-service

[TheGSMoeller]

The best I can remember this is a good article on Nielsen's Inextinguishable:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2014/mar/04/symphony-guide-nielsen-fourth-tom-service

That entire symphony series from The Guardian is a nice read.

[Mirror Image]

That entire symphony series from The Guardian is a nice read.

I'll have to revisit it, Greg.

[71 dB]

The problem is that there are all kinds of ways one could continue from your (2). You give no reason why a model with "neural blocks" should be a good explanatory continuation from (2).

What is your way?

My theory comes from thinking about neural networks. Someday we will have an artificial intelligence based on self-learning neural network capable of enjoying music the way we do. Such A.I. will appreciate all music worth appreciation as long as it doesn't have neural blocks. So, if we make the A.I. fear or make it confused giving it contradicting information it might stop liking Sibelius and Elton John because it might generate neural blocks. In a way HAL 9000 developped neural blocks in 2001 because it was given contradictory tasks.

We are biological HAL 9000 computers ourself! We live in a confusing and contradictory reality. So we develop neural blocks. Most of us don't become murderers, but we might hate the music of Elton John. So that's why I take the steps I do from (2).

Furthermore, (4) does not seem to be relevant for the issue at hand. If one does not appreciate Sibelius this does not at all help to get a "feeling of understanding the complex world". How does it further my understanding or reduce complexity in a helpful way if I realise that I do not much care for the music of Sibelius?

I think our conseptions of the world is related to how we respond to music. Our music taste is not an isolated "system" within us. It affects our "other" mind and vice versa.

People who don't care about Sibelius probably suffer from blocks preventing them appreciating the music. People who do admire Sibelius may also have blocks preventing them to realise (relative?) weaknesses in the music. The "truth" is not clear because we all are a bit blind. We end up disagreeing about the music of Sibelius. A "clear minded" artificial intelligence without blocks might be able to tell the truth.

Finally, (5) seems largely unrelated to the rest. Why are most blocks negative? You also seem to use negative/positive in a different sense than earlier. Earlier *any* block was helpful to reduce complexity and further understanding. Now in (5) "negative" actually impedes "correct understanding". And "positive" now has nothing to do anymore with appreciating e.g. Nielsen's music but "protects us from bad ideologies" (not bad music?). Where do the bad ideologies appear from suddenly?

Blocks are interferences in the neural network and therefor negative by nature. Too many blocks is even worse, because blocks start of jam each other (the cause of insanity?) and the neural network becomes badly dysfunctional. A good selection of some blocks is good, because it makes possible to have a sense of undestanding of the world enough, but the blocks don't jam each other and can be changed if needed.

Blocks reduce complexity in our mind, but the cost is false conclusions! Lack of blocks allows more correct conclusions, but the cost is that the world may look a scary complex place and we lose the feel of understanding it *. So there is a fine balance, enough blocks but not too many.

Racism is an example of "bad ideology", but so is the thought that classical music is snobism or that Sibelius is far superior to Nielsen. Bad ideologies are everywhere, fortunately only some of them are really harmful to the humankind.

Bad ideologies are usually by-products of human activity in many areas. Maybe the music of Sibelius has always been marketed better than music of Nielsen? A little advantage for Sibelius has grown bigger due to positive feedback mechanism, something the first promoters of Sibelius never intented. 

* A well-known paradox: The more you know and understand, the more you realise how little you know and understand.

[Mirror Image]

71 dB if you don't want to discuss Nielsen's music then get out of this thread!

[71 dB]

71 dB if you don't want to discuss Nielsen's music then get out of this thread!

Of course I want to discuss. At the moment I don't have much to say, but When I get the Blomstedt set... 

Oh, revisited the choral works disc after so many years and it was very nice. I don't know why I listen to Nielsen so little/rarely...