Can you discern a persons nature from the genre of classical music they like ?

[Karl Henning]

And, for me anyway, my enjoyment of Introduction and Allegro would never lead me to wanting to indulge in any Malvern tramping . . . .

You cannot know that (cf. "Never say never.")

[some guy]

I was reading all this and thinking ... yes but, yes but, I really DO relate these things, myself, even though you don't. ... And then I realised what was happening. You are one of the noble 75% for whom the hypothesis doesn't work! You are the sunshine that we thought we were unlikely to get on this rainy day, but still hoped for!

I rest my case, M'Lud.

Well, I dunno about that noble business (and 75%, really? that many noble people?), but the sunshine part? I'll take that. With bells on.

[mc ukrneal]

I like that distinction between the general and the specific, Neal, and I think I find myself with two responses.

The first, wearing my scientific hat, is to say that I doubt whether any generalised answer about this can be predictive to any useful degree. That inclines me to think it's not worthwhile pursuing - or at least, spending much effort on.

And yet, and yet ... something niggles when I 'look inside'. (I can't know about other people, but I know something about myself.) My love of English landscape, for instance, has always seemed strongly associated with my love of Elgar and Vaughan Williams. A strong inclination towards the power of myth surely played a huge part in my hooked-as-soon-as-I-heard-it response to Wagner.

Now, I can't work this backwards - I can't deduce that someone else's love of Wagner implies they're attracted to myth; or that someone else's love of Elgar implies that they want to tramp over the Malvern Hills. But I do know that within me, there is a link between some of the music I'm most drawn to, and these aspects of my personality. (I wonder if this realisation has any bearing on what drove the original question?)

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but at the moment I'm inclined to think that the most interesting and potentially useful approach may be not to look at others and try to guess what we can never know, but rather to look inside ourselves and compare notes. That might get at some neat 'after the fact' correlations - but I still doubt whether any generalised hypothesis will ever be predictive enough to be useful.

Afterthought: it might be possible to get some probabilities though - a bit like weather forecasting (and about as reliable!). You know, along the lines: 'If John likes Wagner there is a 25% probability that he will respond strongly to the idea of myth'. Or some such.

I can agree with much of what you wrote. I think it highly likely that some of the predictions would be wrong. But that doesn't take away from there being some general (and perhaps specific) predictions that could be made. We understand so little of the human brain that more should be determinable in the future (and as mentioned earlier, there are already programs that make suggestions based on one's likes - they must work to some extent or they wouldn't continue to refine them).

[some guy]

You cannot know that (cf. "Never say never.")

Well, Karl, I think I'm safe on this one, for my desire to tramp in the Malverns predates my acquaintance with Introduction and Allegro.

Though perhaps you're right. Maybe some day, when I'm not thinking about tramping, particularly, I will hear a bar or two from the Elgar and think "Hey! I should go tramp around in the Malverns!" I suppose that could happen.

Because the Ravel piece of the same name does make me want to tramp around in Perigord Limousin, which I never think about under any other circumstances.

[Ken B]

We understand so little of the human brain

Indeed. For example, it is known that there is a decent correlation between late childhood bed-wetting and and certain kinds of violent behavior in adulthood. That's not something you'd think of as a normal connection. (I can hear it now: "If someone wet blue sheets when he was 10 who will he kill? You can't answer! Your claim is garbage.") Why? As far as I know no-one knows.

[Elgarian]

Well, I dunno about that noble business (and 75%, really? that many noble people?), but the sunshine part? I'll take that. With bells on.

The 75%, if you recall, was a figure I made up earlier, so feel free to imagine it as large or small as you like.

As for 'noble' - well I was just buttering you up. It's good to see you. (Not buttering, this last.)

[some guy]

Indeed. For example, it is known that there is a decent correlation between late childhood bed-wetting and and certain kinds of violent behavior in adulthood. That's not something you'd think of as a normal connection. (I can hear it now: "If someone wet blue sheets when he was 10 who will he kill? You can't answer! Your claim is garbage.") Why? As far as I know no-one knows.

Well, be fair, you will never actually hear this, because it's something you made up--and something that no one would ever say. Straw men are easier to defeat, it's true, but the spectacle of you doing it is not as impressive as seeing you defeat a real person.

In any event, it is not "known" that there is any correlation between late childhood bed-wetting and adult violence. That idea was floated awhile back by a guy who has since back-pedalled on his conclusions, perhaps after noticing that no one else could confirm his original conclusions.

If bedwetting is an effect of abuse, then yeah, there is certainly a very strong correlation between having been abused as a child and being violent as an adult. But even there....

Anyway, on to happier topics.

Elgarian.

Good to see you, too. I am a 100% sure of that!

[Ken B]

Well, be fair, you will never actually hear this, because it's something you made up--and something that no one would ever say. Straw men are easier to defeat, it's true, but the spectacle of you doing it is not as impressive as seeing you defeat a real person.

In any event, it is not "known" that there is any correlation between late childhood bed-wetting and adult violence. That idea was floated awhile back by a guy who has since back-pedalled on his conclusions, perhaps after noticing that no one else could confirm his original conclusions.

If bedwetting is an effect of abuse, then yeah, there is certainly a very strong correlation between having been abused as a child and being violent as an adult. But even there....

Anyway, on to happier topics.

Elgarian.

Good to see you, too. I am a 100% sure of that!

So it's both something I made up AND something a guy published. Cool.

[ibanezmonster]

Indeed. For example, it is known that there is a decent correlation between late childhood bed-wetting and and certain kinds of violent behavior in adulthood. That's not something you'd think of as a normal connection. (I can hear it now: "If someone wet blue sheets when he was 10 who will he kill? You can't answer! Your claim is garbage.") Why? As far as I know no-one knows.

If that's true, makes me wonder if the root cause is not having an impulse control mechanism in their brain.

[Ken B]

If that's true, makes me wonder if the root cause is not having an impulse control mechanism in their brain.

Well, some guy's comment above is more or less a crock. The Macdonald triad paper was published in 1963, and he never retracted. There were studies done after that supporting the theory, and it was generally accepted for a long time. There has been more recent skepticism of the result, but that is as to whether the correlation is strong enough to be predictive. I was taught the theory in university. So much for some guy's fairy tale.

To head off some foolish comment, note I never said causal or predictive.

But it's funny watching some guy explain why a correlation exists to prove it doesn't exit!

[some guy]

To clarify, this is what Ken B will never hear: "If someone wet blue sheets when he was 10 who will he kill? You can't answer! Your claim is garbage." This is the thing that he made up, which he introduced with the words "I can hear it now:"

The so-called Maconald triad, which Ken refers to as a "decent correlation," is not the part Ken made up. That's a thing Maconald made up and it was indeed generally accepted, though how "generally accepted" gets to have any intellectual or scientific heft is curious.

Otherwise, for the less-than-careful readers in the crowd, please note that "back-pedalled," which is the term I used, is not quite the same (why, it is quite different!) as "retracted," which is what Ken substituted for my "back-pedalled." (In other words, to counter some foolish comment, note that I never said retracted. )

But it's funny watching some guy explain why a correlation exists to prove it doesn't exit!

This is actually funnier than either anything I have actually done or anything I have been accused of as having done. And would still be funnier even if the typo were corrected, just by the way.

[Florestan]

"If someone wet blue sheets when he was 10 who will he kill? You can't answer!"

Fixed.

[Ken B]

To clarify, this is what Ken B will never hear: "If someone wet blue sheets when he was 10 who will he kill? You can't answer! Your claim is garbage." This is the thing that he made up, which he introduced with the words "I can hear it now:"

The so-called Maconald triad, which Ken refers to as a "decent correlation," is not the part Ken made up. That's a thing Maconald made up and it was indeed generally accepted, though how "generally accepted" gets to have any intellectual or scientific heft is curious.

Otherwise, for the less-than-careful readers in the crowd, please note that "back-pedalled," which is the term I used, is not quite the same (why, it is quite different!) as "retracted," which is what Ken substituted for my "back-pedalled." (In other words, to counter some foolish comment, note that I never said retracted. )
This is actually funnier than either anything I have actually done or anything I have been accused of as having done. And would still be funnier even if the typo were corrected, just by the way.

Aside from anything else, Macdonald never "back pedalled". Why would he in fact if as you concede his result became generally accepted and was found by other researchers? That claim of yours is, I suspect, made up. Got a reference to Macdonald back pedalling?

You explained the correlation as both being caused by abuse. Could be true. Doesn't prove the correlation doesn't exist. A famous example is murder rates and ice cream sales in New York are correlated. Noting they are both affected by hot humid weather doesn't mean the correlation exists.

[Elgarian]

I can agree with much of what you wrote. I think it highly likely that some of the predictions would be wrong. But that doesn't take away from there being some general (and perhaps specific) predictions that could be made. We understand so little of the human brain that more should be determinable in the future (and as mentioned earlier, there are already programs that make suggestions based on one's likes - they must work to some extent or they wouldn't continue to refine them).

I think that fits comfortably with what I was suggesting. The predictions wouldn't be deterministic but statistical, so any predictions we might make based on a supposed correlation would have a probability assigned to them: "He likes Wagner and Elgar? Ah, then there's a 10% probability that he would like tramping the Malverns with a copy of Sigurd the Volsung tucked under his arm."

Of course I'm just guessing. I've nothing to base this on except intuition!

[Florestan]

as mentioned earlier, there are already programs that make suggestions based on one's likes - they must work to some extent or they wouldn't continue to refine them.

Making suggestions based on one´s likes is one thing --- discerning one´s nature based on what one likes is quite another.

For God´s sake, gentlemen, is it really that hard to comprehend what

Can you discern a persons nature from the genre of classical music they like ?

means?

It means that if the answer is yes, then given that person X likes Y/W/Z genre(s) of classical music, you can discern what that person´s nature is based only and solely on that bit of information.. I invite one last time all those who answer yes to the above question to tell what is the nature of a person listening mostly to Baroque music. It can be even a vague and broad description, as Ken suggested.

And no, being middle class and college graduate, prefering Venice to Paris or liking Mouton Cadet ´68 are not about a person´s nature.

[Elgarian]

For God´s sake, gentlemen, is it really that hard to comprehend what

Can you discern a persons nature from the genre of classical music they like ?

means?

Well, it might be. Taking 'nature' to mean 'inherent characteristics', then I wouldn't say it's immediately obvious what we should include and what we should leave out, when we're talking about people. Some of my likes (such as my fascination with myth) are significantly characteristic of me, I would say (though admittedly I  might demur over the use of the word 'like' in such instances). Others - such as my fondness for cheese - are, arguably, not. I think the question is pretty fuzzy around the edges, actually, and part of the fun of trying to answer it includes deciding what it means.

It means that if the answer is yes, then given that person X likes Y/W/Z genre(s) of classical music, you can discern what that person´s nature is based only and solely on that bit of information.. I invite one last time all those who answer yes to the above question to tell what is the nature of a person listening mostly to Baroque music.

That's an unchallengeable suggestion, on its own terms. Obviously, not many of us would answer 'yes', if that were the only aspect of the issue worth discussing. But why does the discussion have to be so restricted? Why may we not explore the fuzzy edges of the question?

[Florestan]

I think the question is pretty fuzzy around the edges, actually, and part of the fun of trying to answer it includes deciding what it means.

Why may we not explore the fuzzy edges of the question?

That´s all fine. Now, please, please, please, give me a fuzzy answer to the question: What is the nature of a person who listens mostly to Baroque music?

[Elgarian]

That´s all fine. Now, please, please, please, give me a fuzzy answer to the question: What is the nature of a person who listens mostly to Baroque music?

Not very fuzzy?

[some guy]

First of all, I want Ken to read this sentence again:

"If bedwetting is an effect of abuse, then yeah, there is certainly a very strong correlation between having been abused as a child and being violent as an adult. But even there...."

You do understand what "if" means, do you not?

OK. I apologize to everyone in the world for that digression. Now back to the show: I lived in Portland, OR for awhile and knew the members of the Portland Baroque Orchestra. They were all quite different from each other. I never had any problem telling them apart. They liked different things--had different political leanings and different personalities and liked different kinds of snacks (I helped run the CD table, which was most often placed right next to the refreshment booth).

So my not at all fuzzy answer to Florestan's question is "different from every other person who listens mostly to Baroque music."

[Florestan]

Not very fuzzy?

If this is an amswer to my question, I confess I don´t get it all.

If it´s not, then what what is it?