Can you ?
Nature/personality/character/temperament etc
Even if its just a few similar traits its still a connection and so interests me.
No.
Absolutely not and I strongly doubt anyone can.
Very often I cannot even tell what other classical music someone likes if I know some of his/her preferences. E.g. somewhat simplified: some people love opera, except Wagner, others love only Wagner as far as opera goes, other love all kinds of opera, so if one dis/likes "Tosca" it is impossible to predict if s/he loves or hates "Tristan".
Even more surprising are favorite books or non-classical music etc. Some people even like superhero comic books or japanese cartoons or whatever (things I would not touch with a ten foot long pole and I would usually not expect a friend of classical music to like).
No, you can't. It would be impossible.
Why not? The question is very broad. Maybe there are some characteristics that are common to certain types of music. It may also depend just how specific you get, but it is an interesting question.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 16, 2015, 10:10:51 AM
Why not? The question is very broad. Maybe there are some characteristics that are common to certain types of music. It may also depend just how specific you get, but it is an interesting question.
It's a high school level question; not fit for adult discussion.
Watch any movie with a villain. The villain listens to classical music. The crueler he is the more string he likes string quartets.
Quote from: Ken B on June 16, 2015, 10:57:42 AM
Watch any movie with a villain. The villain listens to classical music.
Waldo Lydecker!
[asin]B00008LDNZ[/asin]
Dr Stegman operates with
Beethoven playing out of the OR loudspeakers!
[asin]B00000F3SB[/asin]
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 16, 2015, 10:10:51 AM
Why not? The question is very broad. Maybe there are some characteristics that are common to certain types of music. It may also depend just how specific you get, but it is an interesting question.
If I told you that a guy played Schubert and Chopin at quite a profficient level, what would be your assessment of his character?.
Quote from: Ken B on June 16, 2015, 10:57:42 AM
Watch any movie with a villain. The villain listens to classical music. The crueler he is the more string he likes string quartets.
See! And isn't the villain usually far more interesting than the hero?!?! :)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 16, 2015, 10:10:51 AM
Why not? The question is very broad. Maybe there are some characteristics that are common to certain types of music. It may also depend just how specific you get, but it is an interesting question.
I am going to leap to Neal's defence here. I don't think it impossible that there can be connections between personality factors, especially as measured on some standardized tests, and tastes. Obviously if there were a strong and obvious correlation we would know it (and the La Mer fan club would probably all be arrested!!) but I for one can't discount some broad tendencies, as Neal observes about how specificity matters.
Quote from: Florestan on June 16, 2015, 11:15:39 AM
If I told you that a guy played Schubert and Chopin at quite a profficient level, what would be your assessment of his character?.
Depends - is he Romanian? :)
All I am saying is that there may be more there than a simple dismissal of the question. A lot of things in life seem random until you dig deeper. Some turn out to be random, others not. It doesn't seem unreasonable that there could be some commonalities. Or it could be a different type of response, for example, some sort of brain activity common to certain music. If the brain can react to colors, it can react to other things. Maybe this is too general, but still seems like this type of thing could be linked to one's character/nature/behavior/etc. That it could be doesn't mean it is, but neither does it mean we know it isn't.
Quote from: Ken B on June 16, 2015, 10:57:42 AM
Watch any movie with a villain. The villain listens to classical music. The crueler he is the more string he likes string quartets.
Strings attached, eh? I thought the villain's preference was
lieder - I'm thinking of several things actually, but notably an exciting
Avengers episode (Avengers as in Steed and Mrs. Peel) from the 60s.
Seriously, there's a large body of literature on this and related topics. See
New Grove "Psychology of Music," for intro and bibliography and the interesting Wiki article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_music_preference The issues attendant on the topic are extraordinarily complex - among some of the researchers' findings is that, often, listeners' music preference is determined, or influenced, by
how one wants to be perceived.
I once had a Board member who, on discovering we shared a passion for classical music, asked me who my favorite composers were. Ravel, Poulenc, Debussy...I ventured off the top o' my head..."Oh, dear! he exclaimed, "You're left o' center!" His? (predictably? ;) : LvB and Wolfie.
Quote from: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on June 16, 2015, 11:51:18 AM
Strings attached, eh? I thought the villain's preference was lieder - I'm thinking of several things actually, but notably an exciting Avengers episode (Avengers as in Steed and Mrs. Peel) from the 60s.
Seriously, there's a large body of literature on this and related topics. See New Grove "Psychology of Music," for intro and bibliography and the interesting Wiki article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_music_preference The issues attendant on the topic are extraordinarily complex - among some of the researchers' findings is that, often, listeners' music preference is determined, or influenced, by how one wants to be perceived.
I once had a Board member who, on discovering we shared a passion for classical music, asked me who my favorite composers were. Ravel, Poulenc, Debussy...I ventured off the top o' my head..."Oh, dear! he exclaimed, "You're left o' center!" His? (predictably? ;) : LvB and Wolfie.
Huh, who knew! I guess the answer is yes after all. Thanks for the link!
Perhaps someone can answer this: How many of these studies relied and rely on small groups of college students or college age young people as test subjects in Western or at least wealthy nations?
I randomly clicked "A Do Re Mi Encore" (83 undergraduates) and then "What Do Music Preferences Reveal About Personality?" (422 Germans between the ages of 21-26) and then "Chamorro-Premuzic, Tomas; Gomà-i-Freixanet, Montserrat; Furnham, Adrian; Muro, Anna" (245 university students). I see a predictable pattern in the test subjects and methodology. Is there any scientific evidence that shows that comparatively privileged college students in wealthier areas constitute a representative sample of humanity?
The point is hardly to get a representative sample from humanity. You need a sample exposed to a broad spectrum of musical genres and styles and this is much more likely with educated Westerners.
But I fully agree that the methodological problems are huge (and often not recognized by these authors.)
I have looked over some similar psychology papers a few years ago. I do not think they show very much. It starts with having "genres" informed by the music industry's label. So basically you have like a half dozen or a dozen genres from contemporary popular music and then you have "classical". "classical" usually includes Andrea Bocelli and similar stuff and sometimes also film scores. In any case "classical" would be one big blob and it would not be distinguished if one listens only to Baroque and detests Wagner or if someone listens only to Bach and Stockhausen. Even someone with one Bocelli and one "best of classics" or "Chopin for Candlelight Dinners" records would count as a classical listener in those studies. They might not be worthless for psychologists but they are basically worthless if one is interested in fine-grained preferences within a genre.
Quote from: Jo498 on June 16, 2015, 01:23:40 PMThe point is hardly to get a representative sample from humanity. You need a sample exposed to a broad spectrum of musical genres and styles and this is much more likely with educated Westerners.
I raise the question because even in the Wikipedia link there is mention of one the observed relationships not holding in Malaysia. I didn't dig deep, but I would guess that the students/subjects would be comprised mostly of comparatively elite Malaysians, with a smattering of other subjects. Out of curiosity, assuming that studies in Eastern schools likewise rely excessively on students, how did you determine that university students in non-Western countries are far less likely to be exposed to a broad spectrum of styles and genres, including Western music? I don't know about entrance requirements in Eastern universities. Are they as lax as in the US, for instance?
Even in the context of Western countries, the studies are so structurally exclusive as to be of dubious value, at best. And as you point out, there's the problem of determining what constitutes classical music.
Most of the studies musicologists have undertaken are, and understandably so, culturally-based (eg: Japanese, Javanese, etc.) Culturally-biased, if you will; how could they not be? Although not specifically Classical genre-specific (other than distinguishing classical from operatic) a recent study offered one of the broadest, cross-cultural studies. The results seem to me primitive at best but this could be the effect of the reporting source - http://psychcentral.com/lib/preferred-music-style-is-tied-to-personality/m Still, there are elements herein that will resonate with many of us and you'll notice the significance of the self-identification I noted previously.
"New research from around the world suggests that an individual's favorite music genre is closely linked to his or her personality. Professor Adrian North of Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK, has undertaken the largest study so far of musical tastes and personality type. He is an expert on music psychology and has carried out extensive research on the social and applied psychology of music, in particular the relationship between pop music culture and deviant behavior in adolescence, music and consumer behavior, and the role of musical preference in everyday life.
Over the course of three years, Professor North asked more than 36,000 people in more than 60 countries to rate a wide range of musical styles in order of preference. Certain aspects of personality were also measured by questionnaire. The results showed:
Blues fans have high self-esteem, are creative, outgoing, gentle and at ease
Jazz fans have high self-esteem, are creative, outgoing and at ease
Classical music fans have high self-esteem, are creative, introvert and at ease
Rap fans have high self-esteem and are outgoing
Opera fans have high self-esteem, are creative and gentle
Country and western fans are hardworking and outgoing
Reggae fans have high self-esteem, are creative, not hardworking, outgoing, gentle and at ease
Dance fans are creative and outgoing but not gentle
Indie fans have low self-esteem, are creative, not hard working, and not gentle
Bollywood fans are creative and outgoing
Rock/heavy metal fans have low self-esteem, are creative, not hard-working, not outgoing, gentle, and at ease
Chart pop fans have high self-esteem, are hardworking, outgoing and gentle, but are not creative and not at ease
Soul fans have high self-esteem, are creative, outgoing, gentle, and at ease
[But are we hard-working? Z7 edit]
North said he wanted to study why music is such a significant part of people's identity. "People do actually define themselves through music and relate to other people through it but we haven't known in detail how music is connected to identity," he said. "We have always suspected a link between music taste and personality. This is the first time that we've been able to look at it in real detail. No one has ever done this on this scale before."
People may define their musical identity by wearing particular clothes, going to certain pubs, and using certain types of slang. So it's not so surprising that personality should be related to musical preference. "We really got the sense that people were selecting musical styles to like that match their own personality," North said. He believes that his results show why people can get defensive about what they like to listen to, as it is likely to be profoundly linked to their outlook on life. The study also demonstrates the "tribal function" of musical taste that can explain why people often bond over music.
North noted that classical and heavy metal music both attracts listeners with similar personalities but dissimilar ages. Younger members of the personality group apparently go for heavy metal, while their older counterparts prefer classical. However, both have the same basic motivation: to hear something dramatic and theatrical, a shared "love of the grandiose," he said."
North, A. C. and Hargreaves, D. J. (2008). The social and applied psychology of music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
North, A. C., Desborough, L., and Skarstein, L. (2005). Musical preference, deviance, and attitudes towards celebrities. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1903-1914.
No, this is serious science and might get one tenure, eventually.
I am lazy, snarky, neurotic and love classical music.
@Todd: Sure, if you take elite students in Japan or Singapore the differences in musical style exposure will probably not differ than much from westerners (if anything, they will probably be more familiar with classical music). So this would be the same or a very similar bias.
Quote from: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on June 16, 2015, 02:01:20 PMNorth said he wanted to study why music is such a significant part of people's identity. "People do actually define themselves through music and relate to other people through it but we haven't known in detail how music is connected to identity," he said. "We have always suspected a link between music taste and personality. This is the first time that we've been able to look at it in real detail. No one has ever done this on this scale before."
What about people who don't really care for music? What about people who generally like music in a basically indifferent way - you know, the "I like everything" type?
I have to say, I see quite a bit of bias in the results posted. Are traits like "gentle" or "hard working" quantifiable and can they be measured in an unbiased, repeatable way, for instance? Seriously, what does "hard working" mean, scientifically speaking?
And of course the studies are culturally biased. Studies reliant mostly on college kids will also have whiffs of class bias. Possibly even racial bias.
Quote from: Jo498 on June 16, 2015, 02:15:47 PM@Todd: Sure, if you take elite students in Japan or Singapore the differences in musical style exposure will probably not differ than much from westerners (if anything, they will probably be more familiar with classical music). So this would be the same or a very similar bias.
Then why did Malaysians display a different outcome regarding "conscientiousness" (whatever that is, scientifically speaking)?
This guy likes Bach's Goldberg Variations performed by Glenn Gould. What does that tell you??
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRzde55HrU8h5lE4JIHozEfENJXscObv9bVQZHXfRPxjvACRJOILQ)
Quote from: NJ Joe on June 16, 2015, 03:01:39 PM
This guy likes Bach's Goldberg Variations performed by Glenn Gould. What does that tell you??
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRzde55HrU8h5lE4JIHozEfENJXscObv9bVQZHXfRPxjvACRJOILQ)
Right. And Hitler likes Wagner and Beethoven, does that tell you anything? And does liking Wagner and/or Beethoven make you a neo-Nazi?
Quote from: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on June 16, 2015, 02:01:20 PM
Classical music fans have high self-esteem, are creative, introvert and at ease
Rock/heavy metal fans have low self-esteem, are creative, not hard-working, not outgoing, gentle, and at ease
I have high self-esteem and low self-esteem at the same time? ;D
Well I know one thing for damned sure, someone should do a study of the kind of people who do studies of this sort.
Quote from: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on June 16, 2015, 02:01:20 PM
Blues fans have high self-esteem, are creative, outgoing, gentle and at ease
Jazz fans have high self-esteem, are creative, outgoing and at ease
Classical music fans have high self-esteem, are creative, introvert and at ease
Rap fans have high self-esteem and are outgoing
Opera fans have high self-esteem, are creative and gentle
Country and western fans are hardworking and outgoing
Reggae fans have high self-esteem, are creative, not hardworking, outgoing, gentle and at ease
Dance fans are creative and outgoing but not gentle
Indie fans have low self-esteem, are creative, not hard working, and not gentle
Bollywood fans are creative and outgoing
Rock/heavy metal fans have low self-esteem, are creative, not hard-working, not outgoing, gentle, and at ease
Chart pop fans have high self-esteem, are hardworking, outgoing and gentle, but are not creative and not at ease
Soul fans have high self-esteem, are creative, outgoing, gentle, and at ease
What balderdash!
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 16, 2015, 11:43:10 AM
Depends - is he Romanian? :)
All I am saying is that there may be more there than a simple dismissal of the question. A lot of things in life seem random until you dig deeper. Some turn out to be random, others not. It doesn't seem unreasonable that there could be some commonalities. Or it could be a different type of response, for example, some sort of brain activity common to certain music. If the brain can react to colors, it can react to other things. Maybe this is too general, but still seems like this type of thing could be linked to one's character/nature/behavior/etc. That it could be doesn't mean it is, but neither does it mean we know it isn't.
Predictably, you didn´t answer my question but drowned it in a sea of generalities.
The guy´s name is Frank. Hans Frank.
Oh, and I am (again) in complete agreement with Todd and (finally!) with some guy. :)
I think the classical music loving villain movie cliché might have several reasons. With Lecter it's just what one would expect because he is a super-intelligent upper class guy and listening (or playing) Bach strengthens the paradox of the cannibal with refined taste.
More generally, in the last decades (especially in the US) it's apparently enough that listening to classical is non-standard. The villain is *different*, he is also arrogant and decadent. (I've once seen a parodistic movie from the 80s or even 90s where the cops decided that someone had to be gay because they found a bottle of mineral water in his pack. Someone who drinks bottled water just has to be...)
QuoteDance fans are [...] not gentle
Why, sure, and the worst of them are the step dancers: they thread on the floor mercilessly. ;D ;D ;D
The point is that those strange attributes probably all are "quantified" from some huge questionnaire the probands had to answer. So these people really believe they correspond to objectively measurable personality traits. (Some may do so, but I would not bet on it.) And then one does correlation with the musical preferences and gets some result.
It might be unfair or prejudice but my impression is that they are using scientific tools that do not work well in this particular domain. It's probably methodologically sound according to standard techniques in psychology but it does not seem very informative in the end.
Quote from: Jo498 on June 17, 2015, 12:00:59 AM
it does not seem very informative in the end.
OTOH, it is highly entertaining, just like everything that comes under the label "The British/German/Swiss/Whatever researchers have recently found that [insert hogwash here]". :laugh:
I think it is a fun question, although nothing I'd rely too much on (if at all).
Let's see...
Bartok, Ravel, Ligeti, Messiaen, Haydn, Beethoven, Feldman, Webern, Gershwin, Mahler, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Debussy...
My tastes would probably label me as sentimental with a strong pedantic streak. I like being moved, but I like it more when it comes with some sort of system of formal organization (be it a traditional classical form or something newer or abstract like Ligeti's micropolyphony or Messiaen's modes). Underlined composers particularly illustrate this, I think.
Come to think of it, that isn't too far off from my personality...
How about the connection of art and classical music ?
On this forum there's a choice of avatars to choose from, one of those choices is art. Now what on earth has that to do with music? Obviously people who make an account like to pick pictures of art but why ? I don't see this trend on any other forum
Quote from: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on June 16, 2015, 02:01:20 PM
North said he wanted to study why music is such a significant part of people’s identity. “People do actually define themselves through music and relate to other people through it but we haven’t known in detail how music is connected to identity,” he said. “We have always suspected a link between music taste and personality. This is the first time that we’ve been able to look at it in real detail. No one has ever done this on this scale before.”
People may define their musical identity by wearing particular clothes, going to certain pubs, and using certain types of slang. So it’s not so surprising that personality should be related to musical preference. “We really got the sense that people were selecting musical styles to like that match their own personality,” North said. He believes that his results show why people can get defensive about what they like to listen to, as it is likely to be profoundly linked to their outlook on life. The study also demonstrates the “tribal function” of musical taste that can explain why people often bond over music.
The details of what kind of person he says likes what kind of music is the detail people will focus on, but it's probably the least interesting part to discuss.
There is undoubtedly some tribalism within music, I'd say it's more obvious in popular music and particularly with younger people, but can be seen beyond that too. People who aren't too sure about their experience and knowledge will attach themselves to a group to make themselves feel more secure. Of course whether their attachment reflects what they are actually like could be another matter. It could reflect aspirations towards what
they think some music represents, whether intellect, hipness or whatever. In that sense some can use music for purposes other than simply enjoyment.
On another level people can develop a taste for a particular style of music, more by simply immersing themselves in it. There's no reason to say this couldn't have happened with another type of music had that been chosen instead. And there's nothing to stop people listening to other styles too, either within a period or outside of that period.
People can turn music, and even some other things like film makers etc, into something like a sport where they defend someone like they are the team that they support. I don't think that makes much sense purely on musical terms. So people again can over-use it for self-identification. It's alright I think to like lots in a style simply as you are acclimatised to it, but there should be some self awareness that that is what is being done. To just blindly support something against other things like it's some football team loyalty can seen childish.
Quote from: Jo498 on June 16, 2015, 11:50:50 PM
I think the classical music loving villain movie cliché might have several reasons. With Lecter it's just what one would expect because he is a super-intelligent upper class guy and listening (or playing) Bach strengthens the paradox of the cannibal with refined taste.
More generally, in the last decades (especially in the US) it's apparently enough that listening to classical is non-standard. The villain is *different*, he is also arrogant and decadent. (I've once seen a parodistic movie from the 80s or even 90s where the cops decided that someone had to be gay because they found a bottle of mineral water in his pack. Someone who drinks bottled water just has to be...)
Prejudice (not just sexism or about sexual orientation but across everything) seems an integral part of the human condition, with the use of stereotypes to make quick judgements. And it's one of the proofs to me that the human mind isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be. It's very tribal, and so limited in many ways. And what's funny as well as how we want to understand large things like the universe and yet we don't even fully understand ourselves.
edit: fixed a spelling mistake
Quote from: SKYIO on June 17, 2015, 02:42:16 AM
How about the connection of art and classical music ?
Well, I compose; and my wife and mom-in-law are both artists. I suppose there is some connection 8)
Quote from: starrynight on June 17, 2015, 02:56:02 AM
Prejudice (not just sexism or about sexual orientation but across everything) seems an integral part of the human condition, with the use of stereotypes to make quick judgements.
A very interesting statement. I'm in partial agreement, but I wonder about some of the terms. It is not quite what you are saying, but I doubt (let's say for sake of discussion) that prejudice is "hard-wired" in us. We are certainly apt to learn specific prejudices from our environment, and there is a mentally natural tendency to categorize, and not to closely examine every article that comes into view. But offhand, I do not see why any given, unimpaired individual cannot develop mental and behavioral habits of examining, questioning and (where necessary) defeating prejudices.
The tribalism is obvious in popular music.
In classical, it is slightly different, but without a doubt it can be used for distinction. Listening to classical at all puts you in a minority. And within classical you can further distinguish refined and specialized taste by listening to music (or interpretations) far from the perceived mainstream. Everybody listens to Beethoven and Chopin but if you rather listen to Ligetis Etudes or the Fitzwilliam Virginal book you show your own special taste in music.
Quote from: Jo498 on June 17, 2015, 03:33:07 AM
..... but if you rather listen to Ligetis Etudes or the Fitzwilliam Virginal book you show your own special taste in music.
I listen to that, but I also listen to Vanilla Fudge, Emmerich Kalman, Guillaume Dufay and Jerome Kern. I cannot even discern my own personality from that playlist.
Quote from: SKYIO on June 17, 2015, 02:42:16 AM
How about the connection of art and classical music ?
On this forum there's a choice of avatars to choose from, one of those choices is art. Now what on earth has that to do with music? Obviously people who make an account like to pick pictures of art but why ? I don't see this trend on any other forum
Well, music itself is an art, to begin with.
Secondly, some of the people who are into classical music are also into other arts, like painting, for instance.
Thirdly, there are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of paintings whose theme is music and musicmaking.
So there.
Quote from: The new erato on June 17, 2015, 04:01:50 AM
I listen to that, but I also listen to Vanilla Fudge, Emmerich Kalman, Guillaume Dufay and Jerome Kern. I cannot even discern my own personality from that playlist.
You have multiple personality disorder... ;D :P
EDIT: I like Biber, Boccherini and Bartok. I can hardly wait for someone to tell me, based only on that information, how I am: hardworking or lazy, gentle or rude, high self-esteem or low self-esteem, intravert or extravert, at ease or not at ease...
Neal, give it a try, it should be fun. :D :D
Quote from: Florestan on June 17, 2015, 04:03:41 AM
You have multiple personality disorder... ;D :P
You should know how many of the posters in here that are me....
Quote from: Florestan on June 17, 2015, 04:02:12 AM
Well, music itself is an art, to begin with.
Secondly, some of the people who are into classical music are also into other arts, like painting, for instance.
Thirdly, there are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of paintings whose theme is music and musicmaking.
So there.
Some musicians who painted . . .
Geo. Gershwin &
Arnold Schoenberg
Quote from: karlhenning on June 17, 2015, 04:06:16 AM
Some musicians who painted . . .
Geo. Gershwin & Arnold Schoenberg
Mendelssohn too.
Quote from: karlhenning on June 17, 2015, 03:28:08 AM
A very interesting statement. I'm in partial agreement, but I wonder about some of the terms. It is not quite what you are saying, but I doubt (let's say for sake of discussion) that prejudice is "hard-wired" in us. We are certainly apt to learn specific prejudices from our environment, and there is a mentally natural tendency to categorize, and not to closely examine every article that comes into view. But offhand, I do not see why any given, unimpaired individual cannot develop mental and behavioral habits of examining, questioning and (where necessary) defeating prejudices.
You should read Kahneman's book "Thinking, Fast and Slow" for an insight into our thought processes and how we use stereotypes to conserve energy in thinking. The most extraordinary and mindexpanding book I've read for quite some years.
Quote from: The new erato on June 17, 2015, 04:14:02 AM
You should read Kahneman's book "Thinking, Fast and Slow" for an insight into our thought processes and how we use stereotypes to conserve energy in thinking. The most extraordinary and mindexpanding book I've read for quite some years.
Thanks for this suggestion, too!
I like atonal honking!
Quote from: starrynight on June 17, 2015, 02:56:02 AMPrejudice (not just sexism or about sexual orientation but across everything) seems an integral part of the human condition, with the use of stereotypes to make quick judgements. And it's one of the proofs to me that the human mind isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be. It's very tribal, and so limited in many ways. And what's funny as well as how we want to understand large things like the universe and yet we don't even fully understand ourselves.
This seems a very curious remark indeed, since it illustrates the kind of thinking being deprecated. "People are prejudiced" is the same kind of statement as "Women are inferior" or "Blacks are thugs."
"The human mind" is as empty of meaning as this shell here on my table is empty of walnut. Only difference is that my shell did at one time have a walnut in it.
Indeed, this whole post is crammed full of the use of stereotypes to make judgements. (Dunno about the "quick" part, so I deleted that. :)) "Younger people" and "people" are both used this way, large generalizations about which practically any judgement could be made, at practically any speed. There's even the very curious "people who are insecure" category, which logically enough is full of individuals who do things in order to feel secure.
Quote from: The new erato on June 17, 2015, 04:14:02 AMYou should read Kahneman's book "Thinking, Fast and Slow" for an insight into our thought processes and how we use stereotypes to conserve energy in thinking.
(http://rlv.zcache.com/stereotypes_are_a_real_time_saver_t_shirts-rfba27670be424ada8cb041365a9101b1_8nhly_512.jpg)
One of my favorite T-shirts.
Hah!
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on June 16, 2015, 03:21:21 PM
Right. And Hitler likes Wagner and Beethoven, does that tell you anything? And does liking Wagner and/or Beethoven make you a neo-Nazi?
That depends on how much "Judaism" you got:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ1u9Fno3jU
;D
BTW, i have it on good authority that if you enjoy opera it means you must be gay. Therefore, Hitler was gay.
Quote from: Florestan on June 17, 2015, 04:03:41 AM
You have multiple personality disorder... ;D :P
EDIT: I like Biber, Boccherini and Bartok. I can hardly wait for someone to tell me, based only on that information, how I am: hardworking or lazy, gentle or rude, high self-esteem or low self-esteem, intravert or extravert, at ease or not at ease... Neal, give it a try, it should be fun. :D :D
But that is not in the spirit of the question. In any case, I don't know. Did you look at the wiki link? I thought some of the traits described were interesting.
It seems to me that the your issue with all this is that you don't like the idea that someone could draw some conclusions about you from this type of information. I could be wrong, but that seems to me to be the gist of the objection based on your comments here.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 17, 2015, 05:57:36 AM
It seems to me that the your issue with all this is that you don't like the idea that someone could draw some conclusions about you from this type of information. I could be wrong, but that seems to me to be the gist of the objection based on your comments here.
It´s not that I don´t like, it´s only that I defy anyone to draw conclusions about anyone else´s character traits based solely and only on what classical music genre they like.
For instance, I know that you are an Offenbach fan, an opera fan and an Opera Rara series fan. Does this entitle me to draw any conclusion about your character traits? Absolutely not, I have not the slightest idea about what kind of person you are.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 17, 2015, 05:57:36 AM
But that is not in the spirit of the question. In any case, I don't know. Did you look at the wiki link? I thought some of the traits described were interesting.
It seems to me that the your issue with all this is that you don't like the idea that someone could draw some conclusions about you from this type of information. I could be wrong, but that seems to me to be the gist of the objection based on your comments here.
This is the basis of a lot of resistance and discomfort with "big data". Mine too, btw. It's disconcerting to know that some piece of software can grind away at huge amounts of data and then make accurate conclusions about you. It's creepy. Google probably knows more about what kind of vacation you want than your best friend does.
(Off topic but worth noting. A lot of discussion of markets in health care assume that adverse selection is a major factor. This was true 60 years ago. It is not obvious anymore. Google can know a hell of a lot about your health.)
Quote from: Florestan on June 17, 2015, 06:34:29 AM
It´s not that I don´t like, it´s only that I defy anyone to draw conclusions about anyone else´s character traits based solely and only on what classical music genre they like.
For instance, I know that you are an Offenbach fan, an opera fan and an Opera Rara series fan. Does this entitle me to draw any conclusion about your character traits? Absolutely not, I have not the slightest idea about what kind of person you are.
Yeah, but that's not Neal's contention. He's talking about broader, vaguer correlations that might none the less be meaningful.
Quote from: Ken B on June 17, 2015, 06:36:57 AM
broader, vaguer
When it comes to flesh-and-blood human beings,
vaguer and
broader means nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Quote from: Florestan on June 17, 2015, 06:34:29 AMIt´s not that I don´t like, it´s only that I defy anyone to draw conclusions about anyone else´s character traits based solely and only on what classical music genre they like.
The studies presented so far have not shown anything meaningful. I've yet to see anything posted here that shows any scientific link between listening habits and something as intrinsically unscientific as character. This is markedly different, by the way, from using so-called big data to predict purchasing patterns or other observable consumer behavior. Character isn't so easily quantified, or monetized.
I must also relay a little anecdote, and it is one occurs with some regularity for me. Yesterday I was discussing weekend plans with a coworker, and I mentioned that I'm heading out of town to see an opera. The person replied with some surprise that I do not seem like the opera type. (Perhaps he had read the study cited earlier.) People who meet me and get to know me in person are always surprised when they learn that I am a classical music fan. I guess I do not fit the stereotypes they cling to.
Quote from: Todd on June 17, 2015, 06:47:55 AM
... People who meet me and get to know me in person are always surprised when they learn that I am a classical music fan. I guess I do not fit the stereotypes they cling to.
Maybe if we wore a muzzle?
Quote from: Todd on June 17, 2015, 06:47:55 AM
The studies presented so far have not shown anything meaningful. I've yet to see anything posted here that shows any scientific link between listening habits and something as intrinsically unscientific as character. This is markedly different, by the way, from using so-called big data to predict purchasing patterns or other observable consumer behavior. Character isn't so easily quantified, or monetized.
Hear, hear!
Quote
I must also relay a little anecdote, and it is one occurs with some regularity for me. Yesterday I was discussing weekend plans with a coworker, and I mentioned that I'm heading out of town to see an opera. The person replied with some surprise that I do not seem like the opera type. (Perhaps he had read the study cited earlier.) People who meet me and get to know me in person are always surprised when they learn that I am a classical music fan. I guess I do not fit the stereotypes they cling to.
That is actually kind of reverse: given a person´s character traits, predict his musical preferences. Needless to say, it doesn´t work either. :D
Quote from: Florestan on June 17, 2015, 06:53:26 AMThat is actually kind of reverse: given a person´s character traits, predict his musical preferences. Needless to say, it doesn´t work either.
It is the reverse, but it is also telling.
I should add some color to my anecdote. Part of the reason for the person's surprise was a due to how I scored on a personality test that employees where I work must take. It divides personality into four categories, and then assigns a numeric value to each category. I scored extremely high in one category - the highest that our consultant had ever seen! - and the personality traits associated with that category apparently do not mesh with others' (prejudicial?) views of classical music fans. When I took the test, I answered in a compartmentalized fashion, interpreting each question in a work context. Outside of work, I'm rather different in certain ways.
Quote from: Todd on June 17, 2015, 07:04:34 AM
It is the reverse, but it is also telling.
I should add some color to my anecdote. Part of the reason for the person's surprise was a due to how I scored on a personality test that employees where I work must take. It divides personality into four categories, and then assigns a numeric value to each category. I scored extremely high in one category - the highest that our consultant had ever seen! - and the personality traits associated with that category apparently do not mesh with others' (prejudicial?) views of classical music fans. When I took the test, I answered in a compartmentalized fashion, interpreting each question in a work context. Outside of work, I'm rather different in certain ways.
Of course. We all are different in certain ways depending on the circumstances.
Of course one can draw conclusions. A collector of classical music is with p > .9 male, has probably a college degree, is socioeconomically probably middle class or higher, is more likely to play/have played a musical instrument than not, is more likely to be interested in visual arts and literature, is probably somewhat less likely to be an avid sports fan than average etc. (these are all guesses but I am pretty confident).
But what can you tell about the character if you know someone prefers Beethoven to Mozart or Verdi to Wagner? As someone above wrote: We often do not find our own preferences consistent.
Quote from: Jo498 on June 17, 2015, 07:12:09 AMOf course one can draw conclusions. A collector of classical music is with p > .9 male, has probably a college degree, is socioeconomically probably middle class or higher, is more likely to play/have played a musical instrument than not, is more likely to be interested in visual arts and literature, is probably somewhat less likely to be an avid sports fan than average etc. (these are all guesses but I am pretty confident).
Let's assume those are true, how do they help inform anyone about a collector of classical music's "Nature/personality/character/temperament", to go back to the original question? (And is a collector the same thing as a fan?)
Quote from: Jo498 on June 17, 2015, 07:12:09 AM
Of course one can draw conclusions. A collector of classical music is with p > .9 male, has probably a college degree, is socioeconomically probably middle class or higher, is more likely to play/have played a musical instrument than not, is more likely to be interested in visual arts and literature, is probably somewhat less likely to be an avid sports fan than average etc. (these are all guesses but I am pretty confident).
Assuming these to be true (I checked 3 out of 6), how are they character traits? How can you tell that the above collector of classical music is gentle / rude, hardworking / lazy, intravert / extravert, whatever/its contrary?
And a collector is not at all the same thing as a listener. ;D
EDIT: I see Todd beat me to it.
No, collectors are a small subset of fans. There are probably roughly as many men as women going to classical concerts, so that estimate only works for collectors.
I agree that my list are not character traits (I actually typed that post a while ago and had not read the replies stating that more "external" information can be correlated, I basically give examples of those.
I admittedly do not know enough about the psychology but these "big five" character traits seem to be quite firmly established. The problem is that in those papers about music appreciation I find the (apparently "pre-theoretical") descriptions of the musical styles so clichéed that I cringe. E.g. classical as "complex" but also "relaxing". This can both be true of some classical music, maybe even at once but these attributes are so vague they could mean almost anything.
Those 5 traits are
openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Sample_items
prima facie I would expect classical listeners to be considerably above average in openness, probably slightly above average in conscientiousness and average in the other three. The cliché would probably have classical listeners low in extraversion.
Lot of discussion, from folks who deny it's an interesting question.
Quote from: Jo498 on June 17, 2015, 07:32:25 AMprima facie I would expect classical listeners to be considerably above average in openness, probably slightly above average in conscientiousness and average in the other three. The cliché would probably have classical listeners low in extraversion.
So you expect classical listeners to conform to your stereotypes?
Again, the evidence presented in this thread appears to rely primarily on small surveys of college kids, or at least college age kids (I did not click every link), in wealthy areas, and the large sample study appears to rely on a survey that results in categorization using qualitative traits like "gentle" and "hard working", and so on, and that is culturally biased and exclusive (why no Mariachi, for instance?). I freely admit I do not find such evidence as compelling as more concrete, quantitative evidence.
This is why I continue to draw a sharp distinction between physical science and social science. A chemical reaction will be the same in Cambridge, Berkeley, Tokyo, Tashkent, and Teheran. Associations between musical preferences and personality, maybe not so much.
Quote from: Ken B on June 17, 2015, 07:37:44 AMLot of discussion, from folks who deny it's an interesting question.
An interesting question, yes, but the answer to the original question is still no.
Quote from: Ken B on June 17, 2015, 07:37:44 AM
Lot of discussion, from folks who deny it's an interesting question.
Yes, discussion about how lame the question is and about how questionable any answers to it would be.
I.e., your sarcasm has missed the target entirely.
Quote from: Todd on June 17, 2015, 08:03:31 AM
This is why I continue to draw a sharp distinction between physical science and social science. A chemical reaction will be the same in Cambridge, Berkeley, Tokyo, Tashkent, and Teheran. Associations between musical preferences and personality, maybe not so much.
+ 1.
QuoteAn interesting question, yes, but the answer to the original question is still no.
Ditto.
Bottom line,
Ken: please tell me what kind of person (in terms of character traits) is someone who listens mostly to Baroque? I know two such people.
Quote from: karlhenning on June 17, 2015, 03:28:08 AM
A very interesting statement. I'm in partial agreement, but I wonder about some of the terms. It is not quite what you are saying, but I doubt (let's say for sake of discussion) that prejudice is "hard-wired" in us. We are certainly apt to learn specific prejudices from our environment, and there is a mentally natural tendency to categorize, and not to closely examine every article that comes into view. But offhand, I do not see why any given, unimpaired individual cannot develop mental and behavioral habits of examining, questioning and (where necessary) defeating prejudices.
I agree it could be possible to overcome at times. Inevitably with these things you make generalisations, but I'd say it's at least an obstacle to overcome. And it's also something which is so prevalent that some measures can be taken against it but it will always be prevalent within society in some form. Heck politicians use it to play people off against each other anyway and to distract from issues they want hiding, so if those making laws are employed using stereotypes it's going to be some battle getting rid of it totally.
Quote from: Florestan on June 17, 2015, 08:12:26 AM
+ 1.
Ditto.
Bottom line, Ken: please tell me what kind of person (in terms of character traits) is someone who listens mostly to Baroque? I know two such people.
Oh for pity's sake Andrei, don't go stupid on me. I have not said there is any effect. I even said if there were a clear or strong one, we would know it. But I have pointed out that everyone here who airily dismisses the idea as ridiculous has done so without seriously investigating. Big data turns up lots of surprising effects, and no-one has presented an argument why it's unthinkable it could happen here.
Yet a lot of people mocked Neal for even considering the question. In my book that does not make
Neal look foolish.
Quote from: Ken B on June 17, 2015, 08:21:25 AM
Oh for pity's sake Andrei, don't go stupid on me.
I don´t go stupid on anyone, but you seem to imply that, yes, it is at least theoretically possible to predict someone´s character traits based solely and only on what classical music genre someone prefers --- which I say it is impossible, "scientific" studies notwithstanding (and I guess this makes me an anti-science fellow... ;D :P ).
Quote
I have not said there is any effect. I even said if there were a clear or strong one, we would know it. But I have pointed out that everyone here who airily dismisses the idea as ridiculous has done so without seriously investigating. Big data turns up lots of surprising effects, and no-one has presented an argument why it's unthinkable it could happen here. Yet a lot of people mocked Neal for even considering the question. In my book that does not make Neal look foolish.
For the record, I didn´t mock
Neal.. If he felt that I did, it would be sufficient for him to say so and I will publicly apologize.
I fail to see the problem with the cultural bias. *Every* study concerning classical music appreciation will obviously have such (or very similar) biases. Unless you want to study reactions from people who have never before heard classical music you need to find a population where some people have been listening to classical before your study and this will lead you to biased sub-populations. Of course the results do not apply to populations who have never before heard classical music, but I do not think anyone claimed that.
Quote from: some guy on June 17, 2015, 04:38:32 AM
This seems a very curious remark indeed, since it illustrates the kind of thinking being deprecated. "People are prejudiced" is the same kind of statement as "Women are inferior" or "Blacks are thugs."
"The human mind" is as empty of meaning as this shell here on my table is empty of walnut. Only difference is that my shell did at one time have a walnut in it.
Prejudice/stereotyping is pretty much about lack of knowledge, or is that too big a generalisation for you? Of course this kind of talk is about generalisations and we all go from our own experience to make statements, which is what I am doing. You are just limiting it to some specific prejudices which I don't see the point of doing and which I wasn't doing.
Maybe the human mind is empty as you say and it's all nurture and the influences around us, though those influences are pretty much of other human beings anyway, so it's almost like a circular argument. There are some arguments that could say that we have advanced very quick in technological terms but biologically we haven't really evolved that much, and the human mind is something therefore that could limit us in that way.
But with your post I'm not sure how much you like discussing the issue anyway, as if you can't argue general points. And that's fine, we can agree to disagree. Rather that than just get embroiled in arguing over whether something can even be discussed. I didn't say 'all', I did say 'beyond' on one of my points, so I wasn't hypocritical liked you seemed to say.
Quote from: Jo498 on June 17, 2015, 08:29:47 AMI fail to see the problem with the cultural bias. *Every* study concerning classical music appreciation will obviously have such (or very similar) biases. Unless you want to study reactions from people who have never before heard classical music you need to find a population where some people have been listening to classical before your study and this will lead you to biased sub-populations. Of course the results do not apply to populations who have never before heard classical music, but I do not think anyone claimed that.
Two things here. First, the largest survey presented in this thread was aiming at something more general than associations between classical music fans and personality. It explicitly listed multiple genres and purported to offer evidence of a close link between survey respondents' favorite music and personalities, and offered results with intrinsically subjective terms. For such a large survey, in so many countries (60+), the results still seem culturally biased. I do not find the results, as presented in this thread, compelling.
Second, a limitation of the test population limits the value of the results. Let's assume that 40% of the developed world attends university. (I don't know the actual averages across the developed world.) If many subjective tests are performed on that subset of a small subset of the overall global population, the most one can really say is that the young and comparatively well off in the richest societies may display trait
X if they listen to
A. And such results are only good at the time the surveys are taken. If a person's taste changes over time, does it automatically follow that a person's personality has changed?
To the original question, there are two ways to answer it. In the narrow, strict interpretation, I can say with absolute confidence that I, personally, cannot determine a person's nature or character or personality or temperament based on the music they listen to, classical or otherwise. Perhaps others on the board believe they can. Clearly, the discussion immediately veered into a more general discussion of whether scientific research can show a link. Given the shortcomings in the methodologies and populations used, I think it cannot. Perhaps, over time, so-called big data will be able to do so. Anecdotally, I can report that various algorithms used by various vendors to guesstimate what recordings I may be interested in fail almost every time. With books, it's even worse. (On Netflix, it's worse still.) I assume these algorithms rely on my consumption history combined with an analysis of all others' purchasing histories, and I assume they will get better. I doubt they will ever work as their authors hope. Trying to rely on quantitative analysis to determine something as non-concrete as character (or whichever term you prefer) seems far more challenging.
Quote from: Todd on June 17, 2015, 09:07:22 AM
I can say with absolute confidence that I, personally, cannot determine a person's nature or character or personality or temperament based on the music they listen to, classical or otherwise.
+ 1.
Quote
Perhaps others on the board believe they can.
And yet, of those who presumably believed they could, not a single one gave a straight answer to s straight question --- so bottom line, they can´t.
Quote from: starrynight on June 17, 2015, 08:37:55 AMMaybe the human mind is empty as you say and it's all nurture and the influences around us, though those influences are pretty much of other human beings anyway, so it's almost like a circular argument.
Dear starrynight, I did not say that the human mind is empty.
Read my post again, maybe?
What I said was that "The human mind" in quotes, denoting that I am commenting on the phrase, on the concept. The concept expressed with the words "the human mind" is an empty concept is what I said, as the rest of my post makes clear.
Nothing, therefore, about "nurture" or "influences."
Everything only about how your post about the problem of stereotyping was full of stereotypes. (I'll bet you like Wagner, don't you? :P)
Quote from: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on June 16, 2015, 02:01:20 PM
Blues fans have high self-esteem, are creative, outgoing, gentle and at ease
Jazz fans have high self-esteem, are creative, outgoing and at ease
Classical music fans have high self-esteem, are creative, introvert and at ease
Rap fans have high self-esteem and are outgoing
Opera fans have high self-esteem, are creative and gentle
Country and western fans are hardworking and outgoing
Reggae fans have high self-esteem, are creative, not hardworking, outgoing, gentle and at ease
Dance fans are creative and outgoing but not gentle
Indie fans have low self-esteem, are creative, not hard working, and not gentle
Bollywood fans are creative and outgoing
Rock/heavy metal fans have low self-esteem, are creative, not hard-working, not outgoing, gentle, and at ease
Chart pop fans have high self-esteem, are hardworking, outgoing and gentle, but are not creative and not at ease
Soul fans have high self-esteem, are creative, outgoing, gentle, and at ease
I haven't read through the thread carefully, but did anybody else point out that, according to this chart, only indie rock, rock, and heavy metal fans have low self-esteem? And everybody else has high self-esteem? That's weird.
Also, I assume the opposite of "at ease" is neurotic, but none of the fans were neurotic.
Quote from: Jo498 on June 17, 2015, 08:29:47 AM
but I do not think anyone claimed that.
Right. The only thing anyone has actually claimed here is that
it's so obviously impossible that the question is stupid. That's a big claim. All I see in evidence for it is various forms of "I like Chopin, what does that tell you?"
Whoops. I amend. There has been one other enormous claim presented without a shred of evidence or argument.
Quote"The human mind" is as empty of meaning as this shell here on my table is empty of walnut.
Just when we were looking for science denial, pretty much the entire field of psychology is denied! So much at least for the computational theory of mind!
Quote from: Brian on June 17, 2015, 11:47:25 AM
I haven't read through the thread carefully, but did anybody else point out that, according to this chart, only indie rock, rock, and heavy metal fans have low self-esteem? And everybody else has high self-esteem? That's weird.
Also, I assume the opposite of "at ease" is neurotic, but none of the fans were neurotic.
Never mind, actually. ;D
Quote from: Ken B on June 17, 2015, 11:50:49 AM
"I like Chopin, what does that tell you?"
I was the very last person in the world to question your English reading comprehension skills -- until now, but
much to my chagrin I was apparently wrong. Here is the OT question:
Can you discern a persons nature from the genre of classical music they like ?Putting aside the
persons / person´s issue, your posts here seem to imply that yes, you think it possible to discern a persons nature from the genre of classical music they like- Therefore, I ask you again: what is the nature of a person who listens mostly to Baroque music?
I perfectly understand that there are biases inherent in those experiments and that therefore their results are not as generalizable as chemistry experiments. (I am not sure if anyone claims that psychology results could ever be as general as chemistry.)
But I think that this cultural bias is in this case an unavoidable feature, not a bug. (It might be a bug with a lot of psychology results generalizing from WEIRD people to the whole world with respect to all kinds of behavior that is common throughout the world.)
It is very simple, almost trivial: When you want to find connections between the reactions to or preferences for certain cultural artifacts such as musical styles or pieces and other traits of the test population, you simply need a subpopulation that has been exposed to a certain range of these musical styles. This restricts the populations you can use for your experiment. And this will of course introduce all kinds of biases.
If you go to New Guinea and play Mozart, Louis Armstrong and the Beatles for the Natives there you will very probably get rather different reactions than when you use me as a test subject who has heard music by all these before and has an aesthetic position as well as background knowledge etc. But this is just a different experiment.
I wonder. Can you discern a person's nature from spending time with them--going to concerts and movies together, talking about art and literature and science and politics? Maybe having dinner once and awhile, just the two of you?
Quote from: some guy on June 18, 2015, 12:33:46 AM
I wonder. Can you discern a person's nature from spending time with them--going to concerts and movies together, talking about art and literature and science and politics? Maybe having dinner once and awhile, just the two of you?
I may come to discern the person's nature. Or I may come to mistake the persona that the person is presenting to me, with purposeful consistency, for his nature; and his nature may be quite otherwise to the stage show.
Yes, I see. Like that time I visited you in Boston, and you thought I was a pretty nice guy in person.
Yeah....
Sometimes the guy you think is a nice guy, is simply a nice guy 8)
Quote from: some guy on June 18, 2015, 12:33:46 AM
I wonder. Can you discern a person's nature from spending time with them--going to concerts and movies together, talking about art and literature and science and politics? Maybe having dinner once and awhile, just the two of you?
My mom's grandmother had an aphorism for this. "You don't really know somebody until you eat with them, and travel with them." In my experience, this is close to the truth!
travel is certainly a situation when you get to know people. Especially if some things do not work as expected and there is usually not an easy way to "get out" (in any case, opting out quickly when confronted with minor inconvenience would also be very telling).
Quote from: some guy on June 17, 2015, 11:44:43 AM
Dear starrynight, I did not say that the human mind is empty.
Read my post again, maybe?
What I said was that "The human mind" in quotes, denoting that I am commenting on the phrase, on the concept. The concept expressed with the words "the human mind" is an empty concept is what I said, as the rest of my post makes clear.
Nothing, therefore, about "nurture" or "influences."
Everything only about how your post about the problem of stereotyping was full of stereotypes. (I'll bet you like Wagner, don't you? :P)
I think you're just trying to sidetrack things with your last point again. I never said 'all' and I said 'beyond'. As I said I go by my own experience, including on popular music forums. It's very obvious that older people can use music for other purposes beyond listening as well, I never suggested otherwise. On this forum it's been seen in the past when people want to take sides on something it becomes at its worst a kind of childish game of who has the last word, as if it is some extra-musical game. Some find it fun though to me it seems to go nowhere and seems without any serious point. While it would be foolish for anyone to claim they are perfect, everyone is trying to improve their knowledge and objectivity, I would put myself among the more critical ranks of people rather than someone who is more aligned to taking sides.
But really the
main point, as was succinctly put, is psychology. Arguably the human brain is what makes us human, it's the thing that makes us very different to any other animal (to our knowledge). If you don't think the human mind is important or is a concept that can be discussed then that's fine, that's your opinion. I'm just not sure you've made a good case for it.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 16, 2015, 10:10:51 AM
Why not? The question is very broad. Maybe there are some characteristics that are common to certain types of music. It may also depend just how specific you get, but it is an interesting question.
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.
Nicely done, Elgarian!
I would add that one can also not deduce that someone's love of myth will translate into a love of Wagner. Nor that loving to tramp over the Malvern hills would translate into a desire to listen to Elgar or Vaughan-Williams after one has showered off and is having a nice cuppa.
If it were me, I'd be likely after such a tramp to spin a Karkowski disc. Or maybe Santorsola. That is, open a sound file. My disc spinning days went out with my discs.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 19, 2015, 01:07:40 AM
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.
'... and a 15% likelihood he may have a penchant for Death Metal ....'
Quote from: some guy on June 19, 2015, 02:33:17 AM
I would add that one can also not deduce that someone's love of myth will translate into a love of Wagner. Nor that loving to tramp over the Malvern hills would translate into a desire to listen to Elgar or Vaughan-Williams after one has showered off and is having a nice cuppa.
Yes, exactly so. But again, just as in weather forecasting, there may be a probability factor that could be established: we might find that there's a 25% probability that Jill's love of myth will lead her to a love of Wagner, for instance. Likewise that Jack's Malvern tramping will lead him towards the
Introduction and Allegro, etc.
Maybe these aren't quite the kind of associations the OP had in mind, but I suspect it's about as far as we're likely to get.
Quote from: karlhenning on June 19, 2015, 03:25:02 AM
'... and a 15% likelihood he may have a penchant for Death Metal ....'
Aren't these statistical fantasy posts of ours fun to do? Or rather, perhaps we should say only that there is a 25% probability that they are ....
Quote from: Elgarian on June 19, 2015, 05:50:50 AM
Yes, exactly so. But again, just as in weather forecasting, there may be a probability factor that could be established: we might find that there's a 25% probability that Jill's love of myth will lead her to a love of Wagner, for instance. Likewise that Jack's Malvern tramping will lead him towards the Introduction and Allegro, etc.
Maybe these aren't quite the kind of associations the OP had in mind, but I suspect it's about as far as we're likely to get.
If we knew quite a lot more about Jill and Jack, maybe so.
I've always been interested in myth, but there's nothing musical about it. And I've never been all that keen on Wagner, even when I was young and could enjoy a few things for a little bit. And I cannot see how my interest in myth (literary) could every translate into any sort of prediction about what sort of music I might fancy.
And, for me anyway, my enjoyment of
Introduction and Allegro would never lead me to wanting to indulge in any Malvern tramping, nor vice versa contrariwise neither nohow.
For me, tramping on one place does translate into wanting to tramp somewhere else as well.
And one piece of music does translate into wanting to listen to another piece of music.
Not that I compartmentalize in any way, but each thing that I do seems totally complete and sufficient and satisfying all on its own, on its own terms. A synaesthesiac I am not. :)
Quote from: some guy on June 19, 2015, 06:38:29 AM
If we knew quite a lot more about Jill and Jack, maybe so.
I've always been interested in myth, but there's nothing musical about it. And I've never been all that keen on Wagner, even when I was young and could enjoy a few things for a little bit. And I cannot see how my interest in myth (literary) could every translate into any sort of prediction about what sort of music I might fancy.
And, for me anyway, my enjoyment of Introduction and Allegro would never lead me to wanting to indulge in any Malvern tramping, nor vice versa contrariwise neither nohow.
For me, tramping on one place does translate into wanting to tramp somewhere else as well.
And one piece of music does translate into wanting to listen to another piece of music.
Not that I compartmentalize in any way, but each thing that I do seems totally complete and sufficient and satisfying all on its own, on its own terms. A synaesthesiac I am not. :)
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.
Quote from: some guy on June 19, 2015, 06:38:29 AM
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.")
Quote from: Elgarian on June 19, 2015, 06:45:35 AM
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.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 19, 2015, 01:07:40 AM
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).
Quote from: karlhenning on June 19, 2015, 06:46:31 AM
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. 8)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 19, 2015, 10:45:03 AM
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.
Quote from: some guy on June 19, 2015, 10:44:15 AM
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.)
Quote from: Ken B on June 19, 2015, 10:54:33 AM
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!
Quote from: some guy on June 19, 2015, 12:23:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Ken B on June 19, 2015, 10:54:33 AM
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.
Quote from: Greg on June 19, 2015, 06:32:35 PM
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!
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. :P)
Quote from: Ken B on June 19, 2015, 06:51:52 PMBut 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. :)
Quote from: Ken B on June 19, 2015, 10:54:33 AM
"If someone wet blue sheets when he was 10 who will he kill? You can't answer!"
Fixed.
Quote from: some guy on June 19, 2015, 11:35:51 PM
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. :P)
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.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 19, 2015, 10:45:03 AM
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!
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 19, 2015, 10:45:03 AM
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.
Quote from: Florestan on June 20, 2015, 06:36:52 AM
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.
QuoteIt 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?
Quote from: Elgarian on June 20, 2015, 07:30:37 AM
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?
Quote from: Florestan on June 20, 2015, 08:10:48 AM
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?
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."
Quote from: Elgarian on June 20, 2015, 09:13:19 AM
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?
I don't know how to answer the OP's question, but one thing for sure, some guy is one of the most snooty, hollow, obnoxious, odious asshole I've ever seen, and I didn't get that "persons nature" from the music he likes.
This post not only adds nothing to the conversation, but it constitutes an ad hominem attack of a sort which we strongly discourage. I won't delete it (yet) but I am warning this poster, and any other who cares to go down this road, that this won't be tolerated. Any further modifications to this post would be ill-advised.
GB
UPDATE In deferrence to GB, I have removed a quotation. I defer; I do not agree with GB.
I will reply to Florestan by and by but am on my cell today. In short, he is addressing the wrong question. If I say most numbers are not divsible by 5, asking what about 15 is not a cogent reply. It is trivial that statistical averages do not always apply to am individual case. That doesn't disprove the statistical claim which is about collection s not individuals.
I'm sure this was totally scientific...
http://www.metalinjection.net/latest-news/metal-science/metal-fans-are-the-least-likely-to-cheat-on-their-significant-other-according-to-new-study
>:D 8)
Ah, but how many of them have a significant other in the first place......?
>:D >:D >:D
(just being mischievous....)
Quote from: Luke on June 20, 2015, 11:46:50 AM
Ah, but how many of them have a significant other in the first place......?
>:D >:D >:D
(just being mischievous....)
Wicked! (In Boston, not a bad thing, at all.)
Quote from: Luke on June 20, 2015, 11:46:50 AM
Ah, but how many of them have a significant other in the first place......?
>:D >:D >:D
(just being mischievous....)
That thought had crossed my mind, actually.
I mean, look at this photo posted on that page. Who wouldn't be into that? ;D
(http://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaxarcana.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F12%2Fnorwegian-metal-head-1.jpg%3Fw%3D480%26h%3D603&key=rwTwUAJvZTmeXLvM3Mh8ww&w=800&h=603)
Quote from: Greg on June 20, 2015, 01:25:54 PM
That thought had crossed my mind, actually.
I mean, look at this photo posted on that page. Who wouldn't be into that? ;D
(http://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaxarcana.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F12%2Fnorwegian-metal-head-1.jpg%3Fw%3D480%26h%3D603&key=rwTwUAJvZTmeXLvM3Mh8ww&w=800&h=603)
Is that from the set of "
Game of Thrones"? ;)
Quote from: Mr Bloom on June 20, 2015, 10:40:27 AM
I don't know how to answer the OP's question, but one thing for sure, some guy is one of the most snooty, hollow, obnoxious, odious asshole I've ever seen, and I didn't get that "persons nature" from the music he likes.
This post not only adds nothing to the conversation, but it constitutes an ad hominem attack of a sort which we strongly discourage. I won't delete it (yet) but I am warning this poster, and any other who cares to go down this road, that this won't be tolerated. Any further modifications to this post would be ill-advised.
GB
Quote from: Ken B on June 20, 2015, 11:03:24 AM
If I say most numbers are not divsible by 5
There is an infinite amount of numbers divisible by 5. There is an infinite amount of numbers not divisible by 5. Which infinite is larger, I wonder? ;D
It depends. As you probably know here are as many natural numbers divisible by five as there are natural numbers, that is the infinites are of the same order. This can be "seen" by taking the unique mapping n -> 5n. But there are (infinitely) more real numbers than natural numbers.
I think with the main question one should distinguish between "discern a person's *nature* from their music preference" and "have statistical correlations between character traits and music preference". All those papers linked or refenced only claim the latter and while many of those claims might not be very plausible it does not seem a futile hypothesis in principle. Although it might be very hard to test in practice because there are so many confounders and the musical genres are so vaguely defined.
Still, if there are such correlations, one will be right more often than not, when giving the stereotyped/predjudiced answer to the question how e.g. a friend of baroque music will be like with respect to some character traits. Because there is a statistical basis for that stereotype. These connections do not even have to be very deep (like genetic) because obviously there are cultural feedback loops strengthening certain connections.
(Very stereotypical example: If there are many gay men among professional dancers and ballett lovers this becomes a stable feature of that "subculture" and more gay men will be drawn to it because it has been a "subculture" where they have been more welcome than in others for decades and they will also simply be drawn there because of their friends and lovers. But a similar thing will probably be true (or used to be true at some stage) within much smaller more local circles, e.g. rightwing intellectual Germans/Austrians drawn to Wagner.)
Quote from: Florestan on June 20, 2015, 10:14:31 AM
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?
It was a lame little joke, nothing more.
I think I answered your question earlier, though, in previous posts - at least as far as my own position is concerned. All we're likely to find are weak correlations, for the most part. Like you, I don't think we're ever going to be able to say '
If a totally committed baroque lover
then a character of such and such a type ...'. But research may well be able to establish some kind of probabilistic relationship, albeit perhaps a weak one. Not having done such research (nor ever likely to), I can't say what correlative link might be found.
Quote from: Jo498 on June 21, 2015, 01:12:02 AM
I think with the main question one should distinguish between "discern a person's *nature* from their music preference" and "have statistical correlations between character traits and music preference". All those papers linked or refenced only claim the latter and while many of those claims might not be very plausible it does not seem a futile hypothesis in principle. Although it might be very hard to test in practice because there are so many confounders and the musical genres are so vaguely defined.
I'll happily sign up to this manifesto.
I've been thinking about that unfortunate attack on
some guy a few posts back, and wondering how I'd feel if someone had written a post about me, like that. I'd find it pretty upsetting. I'd probably leave GMG in fact, and not come back.
There's quite a lot of disagreement in this thread. It's not surprising, because the question we're discussing has no easy answers, and there might not be a clear solution to it at all. Quite a lot of heat can be generated, and I'm reminded of a conversation I had about five years ago with
some guy (one of the most fascinating exchanges I've ever had on an internet forum, and one of many I've enjoyed in his company), where some of us were thrashing our way through a tricky topic, and I'd like to quote from it here. We were going at it hammer and tongs when he said:
QuoteBut, of course, with us it's not really about agreeing or disagreeing is it? It's about expressing and defending opinions elegantly and eloquently.
And I replied:
QuoteFor me it's more about using the conversations (a) to understand as well as I can what you are saying; (b) to express as well as I can what I think about it; and (c) to compare notes to see if, between us, we can push our understanding further. You're one of the very best conversationalists I know, in this respect: I don't feel that it matters who is right (if there is a 'right'), because we're both aware that the important thing is the journey we're on and the value of the observations we exchange.
I hope this might redress the balance a bit.
(The original post can be found in its context here:
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,15585.msg384499.html#msg384499 (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,15585.msg384499.html#msg384499))
What a lovely post, Elgarian. Thank you!
And I have enjoyed our conversations very much, too. Very much indeed.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 20, 2015, 02:48:12 PM
Because some guy's messages add anything to the conversations ?
To reassure Elgarian : I've had several conversations with him (not on this board), we have to deal with his usual obnoxious and contemptuous tone on several message boards (and I say "we" because I've talked with many people who feels the way as I do, meaning that some guy's behaviour is destructive in an insidious way, and that he polluates any thread he participes in), but he knows how to deal with moderation rules and never crosses any lines.
But he never left any message board : he is the one who makes people leave message boards. He doesn't care about how people reacts to
his posts or how his posts are received. He just
doesn't give a fuck. For him, it's just, as you rightfully quoted him, about "expressing opinions elegantly and eloquently", which says it all about how he considers internet message boards : nothing but a playground for his own ego.
This subject has been adressed many times to him : not only he didn't change his manners, he never even cared to answer, which is the ultimate proof of contempt, and,
as a human being, I can simply not tolerate it.
You enjoy his company, fine, but I will not bother to answer any thread some guy is lurking in.
The moderators can erase my messages or even banish me if they want to. I have little interested in participating in a message board where people like him are allowed to go unnoticed, and even more where his kind of obviously contemptuous behaviour is encouraged.
Quote from: SKYIO on June 16, 2015, 05:41:50 AMCan you discern a persons nature from the genre of classical music they like ?
Yes .. what a person likes or consumes can tell us things about that person. Ditto the artists themselves.
Quote from: Moonfish on June 20, 2015, 01:59:18 PM
Is that from the set of "Game of Thrones"? ;)
It is definitely a costume, though, yes.
Quote from: some guy on June 21, 2015, 03:01:29 AM
What a lovely post, Elgarian. Thank you!
And I have enjoyed our conversations very much, too. Very much indeed.
+1 (He typed, switching off the eloquence for the morning.)
Quote from: James on June 21, 2015, 05:36:02 AM
Yes .. what a person likes or consumes can tell us things about that person. Ditto the artists themselves.
So what can you tell about the nature of a person, if he e.g. likes Stockhausen?
"An assertion is more important than knowledge." - James
Quote from: Mr Bloom on June 21, 2015, 03:12:00 AM
Because some guy's messages add anything to the conversations ?
To reassure Elgarian : I've had several conversations with him (not on this board), we have to deal with his usual obnoxious and contemptuous tone on several message boards (and I say "we" because I've talked with many people who feels the way as I do, meaning that some guy's behaviour is destructive in an insidious way, and that he polluates any thread he participes in), but he knows how to deal with moderation rules and never crosses any lines.
But he never left any message board : he is the one who makes people leave message boards. He doesn't care about how people reacts to his posts or how his posts are received. He just doesn't give a fuck. For him, it's just, as you rightfully quoted him, about "expressing opinions elegantly and eloquently", which says it all about how he considers internet message boards : nothing but a playground for his own ego.
This subject has been adressed many times to him : not only he didn't change his manners, he never even cared to answer, which is the ultimate proof of contempt, and, as a human being, I can simply not tolerate it.
You enjoy his company, fine, but I will not bother to answer any thread some guy is lurking in.
The moderators can erase my messages or even banish me if they want to. I have little interested in participating in a message board where people like him are allowed to go unnoticed, and even more where his kind of obviously contemptuous behaviour is encouraged.
So you have a history. Lovely. He has been here for years; if you have come here to warn us that he can be an asshole at times, save your breath; that boat sailed years ago. Anyone who cares to know it is already well aware. In fact, he frequently
does add to the conversation, although often his opinions aren't congruent with those of the larger group. His motivations for holding those opinions or expressing them are far beyond anything I care to know.
Instead of worrying about it, move on and post about things you are interested in and don't engage with him. The world is full of assholes; don't add to the count, please.
GB
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 21, 2015, 06:22:39 AM
Instead of worrying about it,
Yes, I worry about human decency. If that makes me an "asshole", so be it. I also understand that is not the case of many people around here.
As a matter of fact, I didn't warn anyone about anything. People can make their own judgements. But some things need to be said.
Quote from: Mr Bloom on June 21, 2015, 07:13:58 AM
Yes, I worry about human decency. If that makes me an "asshole", so be it. I also understand that is not the case of many people around here.
As a matter of fact, I didn't warn anyone about anything. People can make their own judgements. But some things need to be said.
And now you've said them. Let's move along then.
8)
Quote from: Jo498 on June 21, 2015, 01:12:02 AM
It depends. As you probably know here are as many natural numbers divisible by five as there are natural numbers, that is the infinites are of the same order. This can be "seen" by taking the unique mapping n -> 5n. But there are (infinitely) more real numbers than natural numbers.
Think of it this way: for each and every natural number not divisible by 5 there is an infinity of numbers divisible by 5. For instance: 13 is not divisible by 5, but multiply it by 5 and you get 65; then multiply 65 by 5 and you get 325: now multiply 325 by 5 and so on and so on and so on
ad infinitum. So, the infinity of numbers divisible by 5 is an infinite order of magnitude larger than the infinity of numbers not divisible by 5.
QuoteI think with the main question one should distinguish between "discern a person's *nature* from their music preference" and "have statistical correlations between character traits and music preference".
Okay. Let´s put it this way:
Original question:
Can you discern a person´s nature from the genre of classical music they like?
My answer is: No.
Your answer is...?
Quote from: Florestan on June 21, 2015, 08:21:04 AM
Think of it this way: for each and every natural number not divisible by 5 there is an infinity of numbers divisible by 5. For instance: 13 is not divisible by 5, but multiply it by 5 and you get 65; then multiply 65 by 5 and you get 325: now multiply 325 by 5 and so on and so on and so on ad infinitum. So, the infinity of numbers divisible by 5 is an infinite order of magnitude larger than the infinity of numbers not divisible by 5.
Okay. Let´s put it this way:
Original question: Can you discern a person´s nature from the genre of classical music they like?
My answer is: No.
Your answer is...?
Yes.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 21, 2015, 07:23:39 AM
And now you've said them. Let's move along then.
8)
That was my point.
Quote from: Jo498 on June 21, 2015, 01:12:02 AM
Still, if there are such correlations, one will be right more often than not, when giving the stereotyped/predjudiced answer to the question how e.g. a friend of baroque music will be like with respect to some character traits. Because there is a statistical basis for that stereotype.
Okay again. Please give me a stereotyped/prejudiced/statistically based answer: what are the character traits most likely to be associated with a friend of Baroque music?
Quote from: Florestan on June 21, 2015, 08:21:04 AM
Can you discern a person´s nature from the genre of classical music they like?
My answer is: No.
Your answer is...?
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 21, 2015, 08:31:53 AM
Yes.
Okay. Next question for you,
Neal: a person likes mostly Baroque music. What is his nature?
Quote from: Florestan on June 21, 2015, 08:37:49 AM
Okay. Next question for you, Neal: a person likes mostly Baroque music. What is his nature?
At the very best, one could only make a few generalizations, which in the event, may or may not be accurate.
My answer is no. I would like it to be yes, then I could make a few generalized statements about someone, but seriously, my favorite genre is Classic Era chamber music. Make something of that! :)
8)
Quote from: Florestan on June 21, 2015, 08:34:27 AM
Okay again. Please give me a stereotyped/prejudiced/statistically based answer: what are the character traits most likely to be associated with a friend of Baroque music?
[...]
Okay. Next question for you, Neal: a person likes mostly Baroque music. What is his nature?
Approaching the question in this way is absolutely daft. First off the wording of the question itself should be broadened, not confined or precise .. but I get the gist of what the inquiry was meaning. And tastes and preferences do in fact tell us something about ourselves.
Tell me .. what attracts you to the music that you like? Whether it was fleeting or remaining ..
Once you start going deeper with questions like these .. the who, the why, the how, the what, the when, the where etc. then you will find your answer .. and in the process you'll find out something about yourself. Not the entire picture, but something .. and it will be personalized.
In answering the question
Can you discern a persons nature from the genre of classical music they like?you first say this
Quote from: James on June 21, 2015, 05:36:02 AM
Yes .. what a person likes or consumes can tell us things about that person. Ditto the artists themselves.
then you say this
Quote from: James on June 21, 2015, 08:59:52 AM
Approaching the question in this way is absolutely daft. First off the wording of the question itself should be broadened, not confined or precise ..
Can you please make up your mind?
Quote from: Florestan on June 21, 2015, 09:09:40 AM
In answering the question Can you discern a persons nature from the genre of classical music they like?
you first say this
then you say this
Can you please make up your mind?
Let me clarify. I read the question as broad to begin with, I wasn't hinged on it's exact wording .. so my answer, reasoning & experience is consistent.
Quote from: Florestan on June 21, 2015, 08:37:49 AM
Okay. Next question for you, Neal: a person likes mostly Baroque music. What is his nature?
I already answered this long ago. In any case, on its own, an answer will not help one way or another. But based on research and the predictability of most people, it seems logical and reasonable that we can/will be able to.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 21, 2015, 09:15:10 AM
I already answered this long ago.
No, you didn´t, but if you gave a link to your answer I would gladly stand corrected.
Quote from: James on June 21, 2015, 09:13:25 AM
Let me clarify. I read the question as broad to begin with, I wasn't hinged on it's exact wording .. so my answer, reasoning & experience is consistent.
Bottom line, can you, based on reasoning, experience, statistics and/or whatevere else you like, answer the question
What is the nature of a person who likes mostly Baroque? If yes, please give the answer, if no please say so.
This is OT, but you can look the infinity stuff up in any advanced math book or wikipedia. Natural numbers, any infinite subset of them (like 5n) and also the rational numbers are all of the same "order of infinity", that is "countable" or in fancy notation "aleph zero".
As for the question with the person's "nature", my answer is also no. But if the question is put in the weaker way I gave above, my answer is "probably to some extent". I do not think that such preferences are totally random in correlation with other preferences. This seems obvious from "subcultures" or "milieus" (see the (admittedly extreme) example with the gays in ballett above). And I'd also expect some correlations with personality traits.
For the person who likes mainly Baroque music, there are of course still several options. It's a 150 years of very diverse music. Someone who mainly listens to Vivaldi concertos might treat them as "light" and diverting music but I would not suspect this from one immersing himself in the church music of Schuetz or Bach.
Still, I'd probably take a bet that a friend of baroque music would rate in the "big 5 personality as below (plus, minus, o = neutral).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Conscientiousness
(look there for example questions about what is meant with those traits)
openness ++
conscientiousness ++
extraversion -
agreeableness +
neuroticism o
(in the last one a "-" is more likely, but I simply do not know)
At least in Europe I'd also bet that s/he is more likely to be religious/churchy and more likely to have an interest in history than the average person.
This may sound stereotyped, but that was precisely the point ;)
Quote from: Jo498 on June 21, 2015, 09:29:19 AM
I'd probably take a bet that a friend of baroque music would rate in the "big 5 personality as below (plus, minus, o = neutral).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Conscientiousness
openness ++
conscientiousness ++
extraversion -
agreeableness +
neuroticism o
At least in Europe I'd also bet that s/he is more likely to be religious/churchy and more likely to have an interest in history than the average person.
This may sound stereotyped, but that was precisely the point ;)
Finally,
an answer! Thank you very much!
Quote from: Florestan on June 21, 2015, 09:22:15 AMBottom line, can you, based on reasoning, experience, statistics and/or whatever else you like, answer the question What is the nature of a person who likes mostly Baroque? If yes, please give the answer, if no please say so.
Again, you approach it in a totally daft manner, and with a restricted wording/approach. The question is more along the lines of .. why do we like what we like, and what does it say about us? ("our nature", character, personality, head-space etc.) ..
The answer is of course it can be apart of our personal profile and say something about us to ourselves and to others.
Quote from: Florestan on June 21, 2015, 09:19:47 AM
No, you didn´t, but if you gave a link to your answer I would gladly stand corrected.
Reply 54.
Oh for f sake Andrei.you are insisting on specifying one particular thing, baroque, while insisting that there can be no correlation about anything. What about 'contrapuntal'? You have proof that that cannot be related to ANYTHING on an MMPI?
If we say there might be a coffee between physical attributes and politics, asking about Brown eyebrows does not answer the claim. Men and women might still differ.
I might also point out that 'Baroque' in not a genre. "Baroque solo organ music" is a genre, as is "Passion Oratorios". As is "Baroque Instrumental Suites". I would suggest that they have varying appeal for different people. So Ken's comment:
Quote from: Ken B on June 21, 2015, 09:49:58 AM
Oh for f sake Andrei.you are insisting on specifying one particular thing, baroque, while insisting that there can be no correlation about anything.
more than a little agrees with my own feelings.
My answer was no, BTW, and I haven't seen a reply yet to MY question... sorry, just nagging.... :D
8)
It is like he is trying to narrow it down somehow in order to get some scientific cover-all answer or something. Obviously the wrong approach. He would have to simply discuss it with the Baroque music lover, and from there we can open things up and see what the relationship is about, which would provide insights into a person's character etc. .. but here is the kicker, he can then ask a different Baroque music lover and get different answers/reasons. Still though, through this process .. we can get closer to answers for questions like these.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 21, 2015, 09:43:01 AM
Reply 54.
Here is reply 54
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 17, 2015, 05:57:36 AM
But that is not in the spirit of the question. In any case, I don't know. Did you look at the wiki link? I thought some of the traits described were interesting.
It seems to me that the your issue with all this is that you don't like the idea that someone could draw some conclusions about you from this type of information. I could be wrong, but that seems to me to be the gist of the objection based on your comments here.
Can anyone see in it something of an answer to the question
What is the nature of e person who listens mostly to Baroque music?? I confess I can´t.
EDIT: I am wrong, there actually
is an answer:
I don´t know. Why, yes, this has been my point all along: you don´t know. Thanks for admitting it.
Quote from: Ken B on June 21, 2015, 09:49:58 AM
Oh for f sake Andrei.you are insisting on specifying one particular thing, baroque, while insisting that there can be no correlation about anything. What about 'contrapuntal'? You have proof that that cannot be related to ANYTHING on an MMPI?
Where did I say that there are no correlations? Name that post of mine. All I said is that I cannot predict a person´s nature based on his musical preferences and that I doubt anyone can do that. You and Neal say yes, you can. Then I take the next step: I keep asking aboput Baroque because I happen to know two persons who listen mostly to that kind of music. According to Neal and you, that is enough for you to discern their nature, therefore I invite you both, for the umpteenth time, to tell me, even vaguely, broadly, tentatively, statistically, whatever you want, what is their nature. See reply 157. It is really beyond me why it is so difficult to get a straight answer from you if you say "yes I can discern a person´s nature from the genre of classical music they like"? Fine, I believe you! Here is that person who likes that genre of classical music --- discern his nature, please!
I am just wondering - looking at all the circles being traversed - whether some of us are interpreting the original question differently. The question is: "Can you discern a person's nature from the genre of classical music they like?"
It seems to me that this can be read in two ways.
1. The literal: Can you, the person reading this, here and now, discern a person's nature from the genre of classical music they like?.
Most of us would reply 'no', surely. We just plain can't.
or
2. The hypothetical. Can one (that is, is it generally possible for someone to) discern a person's nature from the genre of classical music they like?
And the answer to this is, surely, that if the appropriate research were done, and if certain correlations were found, and if we knew about it, we might be able to make a reasonable guess at some aspects of the person's nature, with some sort of probability estimate assigned to our answer.
Not having done any such research, and never having read about any ... I don't think I can go any further.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 21, 2015, 11:27:41 AM
I am just wondering - looking at all the circles being traversed - whether some of us are interpreting the original question differently. The question is: "Can you discern a person's nature from the genre of classical music they like?"
It seems to me that this can be read in two ways.
1. The literal: Can you, the person reading this, here and now, discern a person's nature from the genre of classical music they like?.
Most of us would reply 'no', surely. We just plain can't.
My point exactly.
Quote
or
2. The hypothetical. Can one (that is, is it generally possible for someone to) discern a person's nature from the genre of classical music they like?
And the answer to this is, surely, that if the appropriate research were done, and if certain correlations were found, and if we knew about it, we might be able to make a reasonable guess at some aspects of the person's nature, with some sort of probability estimate assigned to our answer.
Not having done any such research, and never having read about any ... I don't think I can go any further.
Nothing to disagree with here.
I guess humanity loves stereotypes....?
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2008/sep/08/classical.metal.fans.study (http://www.theguardian.com/music/2008/sep/08/classical.metal.fans.study)
Quote from: Florestan on June 21, 2015, 10:43:56 AM
Here is reply 54
Can anyone see in it something of an answer to the question What is the nature of e person who listens mostly to Baroque music?? I confess I can´t.
EDIT: I am wrong, there actually is an answer: I don´t know. Why, yes, this has been my point all along: you don´t know. Thanks for admitting it.
This is why the question is pointless. I may not know it, but it is surely knowable (roughly) with the right knowledge and understanding. Who cares if I, personally, can know it? Should you wish to fund my PhD in the area, an offer I would gladly accept (cash in advance please :) (upon acceptance to a program of course)), I will make this my thesis. Then I will be able to provide you a more detailed answer.
By the way, to end this conversation, all you need to do is show that it cannot be known.
Quote from: Moonfish on June 21, 2015, 11:51:16 AM
I guess humanity loves stereotypes....?
That is
such a stereotype. :laugh:
Everybody generalizes.
Quote from: Florestan on June 21, 2015, 11:37:28 AM
Nothing to disagree with here.
Wait. Huh? So why are we arguing about this?
Quote from: Elgarian on June 21, 2015, 11:27:41 AM
I am just wondering - looking at all the circles being traversed - whether some of us are interpreting the original question differently. The question is: "Can you discern a person's nature from the genre of classical music they like?"
It seems to me that this can be read in two ways.
1. The literal: Can you, the person reading this, here and now, discern a person's nature from the genre of classical music they like?.
Most of us would reply 'no', surely. We just plain can't.
or
2. The hypothetical. Can one (that is, is it generally possible for someone to) discern a person's nature from the genre of classical music they like?
And the answer to this is, surely, that if the appropriate research were done, and if certain correlations were found, and if we knew about it, we might be able to make a reasonable guess at some aspects of the person's nature, with some sort of probability estimate assigned to our answer.
Not having done any such research, and never having read about any ... I don't think I can go any further.
Yes. Exactly. But everyone agreed on reading 1. No-one claimed we could do that. Neal, and I, and Jo, and James have been explicit on that. We have been discussing ONLY reading two. And we get told that people know it's impossible. And you are right: they don't.
I still think that even without further inquiry or research, "we just plain can't" is too hard the other way and false .. it is safe to make broad observations, assumptions, or even accurate insights about a person's character based on what 'we see' (on the surface, first hand) what they tend to mainly listen-to & absorb, consume etc. We aren't completely in the dark .. of course it's easier to just ask that person.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 21, 2015, 12:55:44 PM
By the way, to end this conversation, all you need to do is show that it cannot be known.
Nope. The burden of proof is on he who claims something, not on he who denies it. You claim you can, so you must prove it --- but unfortunately I cannot fund your research. :D
One thing I agree with, though: let´s end it here.
Quote from: James on June 21, 2015, 03:54:03 PM
it is safe to make broad observations, assumptions, or even accurate insights about a person's character based on what 'we see' (on the surface, first hand) what they tend to mainly listen-to & absorb, consume etc.
And yet when I asked you to do exactly that, you didn´t. Why?
Quote from: Ken B on June 21, 2015, 03:31:58 PM
Yes. Exactly. But everyone agreed on reading 1. No-one claimed we could do that. Neal, and I, and Jo, and James have been explicit on that. We have been discussing ONLY reading two. And we get told that people know it's impossible. And you are right: they don't.
For what James has been explicit on, see reply 174.
The big difference between Jo and the rest of you is that he did answer my question. He did take a bet on what the character of a person who listens mostly to Baroque music is. You didn´t. Neal didn´t. James didn´t.
Quote from: Florestan on June 21, 2015, 09:17:24 PM
For what James has been explicit on, see reply 174.
The big difference between Jo and the rest of you is that he did answer my question. He did take a bet on what the character of a person who listens mostly to Baroque music is. You didn´t. Neal didn´t. James didn´t.
Actually, I did answer your question (he repeats yet again).
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 21, 2015, 10:20:19 PM
Actually, I did answer your question (he repeats yet again).
You actually did. Correct me if I´m wrong: what you basically say is "it is possible
in theory to discern a person´s nature from the genre of classical music they like, but
for all practical purposes pèrsonally I cannot do it." Is that correct?
Quote from: Florestan on June 22, 2015, 12:10:37 AM
You actually did. Correct me if I´m wrong: what you basically say is "it is possible in theory to discern a person´s nature from the genre of classical music they like, but for all practical purposes pèrsonally I cannot do it." Is that correct?
More or less, though
for all practical purposes=I haven't the knowledge/study/experience to do it at this time. And whether it is 'in theory' or applicable today may be up for debate.
What I objected to at the beginning was simply a rejection of even the possibility there could be something there. It seemed common sense to me. I wasn't expecting quite the discussion that followed, though some of it was quite illuminating.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 22, 2015, 12:29:05 AM
More or less, though for all practical purposes=I haven't the knowledge/study/experience to do it at this time. And whether it is 'in theory' or applicable today may be up for debate.
Okay, thanks. That settles the matter, I think, and we can let it rest for good. :)
If one puts it the other way round: Would not most of us avid classical music fans in this forum agree that our love of music is a pretty important part of our personality? (I really want to avoid "nature" here, in my way of speaking we all share the human nature, we are all homines sapientes and rational animals and I would not want to call a personal essence nature)
Someone above hinted at a similarity with dating and dating profiles. If one tells something about oneself would it not be an important part of it if classical music is something one spends 1-2 hours or more listening to everyday (and half an hour or more discussing it on certain internet boards).
And do we really believe that our hobbies, music preferences etc. are just random preferences, not at least partially integrated into something we call personality (or certain parts/aspects thereof)?
I get that some people violently disagree with stereotyping and simplifying and I agree that there is a certain danger. But is not what I wrote just above the usual way we see ourselves. And if this is not an illusion there should be connections between more general personality traits and e.g. music preferences. These are not transparent connections and establishing statistical correlations would only be a first step. But if the question were absurd, I'd have to seriously re-consider the image I have of myself in which I view my deep affinity to certain music as a pretty important part of what it is to be the person I am (rather than somebody else).
http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/abs/10.1027/1614-0001/a000082 (http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/abs/10.1027/1614-0001/a000082)
QuoteIndividuals open to experience prefer reflective and complex music (e.g., classical) and intense and rebellious music (e.g., rock), whereas they dislike upbeat and conventional types of music (e.g., pop music). Extraverts, on the other hand, prefer upbeat and conventional and energetic and rhythmic types of music (e.g., rap/hip-hop)
So, according to the study, if an individual is both open to experience and extravert (a combination which is not all infrequent) he dislikes "upbeat and conventional types of music" (whatever this means) while at the same time liking it. Is it not mindboggling, really?
Quote
The present study is the first to examine the relationship between music preferences and personality among a sample of young Germans (N = 422, age range 21–26 years).
This is even more mindboggling. 422 young Germans are supposed to be representative for what, other than a group of 422 young Germans? Can one extrapolate the correlations found among them to 5000 Germans aged 40-45?
What is then the value of these studies, other than securing tenure and list of publications to some guys and girls? ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Jo498 on June 22, 2015, 01:20:06 AMIf one puts it the other way round: Would not most of us avid classical music fans in this forum agree that our love of music is a pretty important part of our personality? (I really want to avoid "nature" here, in my way of speaking we all share the human nature, we are all homines sapientes and rational animals and I would not want to call a personal essence nature) Someone above hinted at a similarity with dating and dating profiles. If one tells something about oneself would it not be an important part of it if classical music is something one spends 1-2 hours or more listening to everyday (and half an hour or more discussing it on certain internet boards).
And do we really believe that our hobbies, music preferences etc. are just random preferences, not at least partially integrated into something we call personality (or certain parts/aspects thereof)?
I get that some people violently disagree with stereotyping and simplifying and I agree that there is a certain danger. But is not what I wrote just above the usual way we see ourselves. And if this is not an illusion there should be connections between more general personality traits and e.g. music preferences. These are not transparent connections and establishing statistical correlations would only be a first step. But if the question were absurd, I'd have to seriously re-consider the image I have of myself in which I view my deep affinity to certain music as a pretty important part of what it is to be the person I am (rather than somebody else).
Well said.Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 21, 2015, 10:20:19 PM
Actually, I did answer your question (he repeats yet again).
Yea .. I answered & interpreted the thread's question too, straight off, and repeated it several times, even including how to better approach it, and what to consider.
Quote from: Florestan on June 21, 2015, 09:05:39 PM
Nope. The burden of proof is on he who claims something, not on he who denies it.
And the only people who did claim anything for sure were those who denied it was even remotely possible. What else can saying it's obviously false and not a fit question for adults mean?
Quote from: Jo498 on June 22, 2015, 01:20:06 AM
If one puts it the other way round: Would not most of us avid classical music fans in this forum agree that our love of music is a pretty important part of our personality? ... if the question were absurd, I'd have to seriously re-consider the image I have of myself in which I view my deep affinity to certain music as a pretty important part of what it is to be the person I am (rather than somebody else).
Yes, this is much the same as my own thoughts when we started on all this. The most interesting answers (which won't satisfy a scientific reductionist, of course) are more likely to be found by intelligent introspection. I
know that my deepest musical passions are related in some important way to my personality - or at least, to my own understanding of it. I can't conceive how I could retain my sense of identity otherwise.
Quote from: Ken B on June 16, 2015, 11:33:11 AM
I am going to leap to Neal's defence here. I don't think it impossible that there can be connections between personality factors, especially as measured on some standardized tests, and tastes. Obviously if there were a strong and obvious correlation we would know it (and the La Mer fan club would probably all be arrested!!) but I for one can't discount some broad tendencies, as Neal observes about how specificity matters.
That is what
Florestan reads as me saying you can defintitey,l positively tell character from one specific musical preference. ::)
Quote from: James on June 22, 2015, 03:05:22 AM
Yea .. I answered & interpreted the thread's question too, straight off, and repeated it several times, even including how to better approach it, and what to consider.
Yes. Me too.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 22, 2015, 04:38:45 AM
Yes, this is much the same as my own thoughts when we started on all this. The most interesting answers (which won't satisfy a scientific reductionist, of course) are more likely to be found by intelligent introspection. I know that my deepest musical passions are related in some important way to my personality - or at least, to my own understanding of it. I can't conceive how I could retain my sense of identity otherwise.
Well normally I would consider that a cogent, intelligent comment. But now I understand that all tha really matters is if you can tell me what your love of baroque music says about you. ::)
Quote from: Ken B on June 22, 2015, 04:35:28 AM
And the only people who did claim anything for sure were those who denied it was even remotely possible.
Yes, I still deny it´s even remotely possible for you,
Ken, to tell the nature / personality / whatever term you want to use, of a person from the classical music genre they like --- and I stand by it. And you can still prove me wrong by actually doing just that, which is what I invited you to do all along.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 22, 2015, 04:38:45 AM
Yes, this is much the same as my own thoughts when we started on all this. The most interesting answers (which won't satisfy a scientific reductionist, of course) are more likely to be found by intelligent introspection. I know that my deepest musical passions are related in some important way to my personality - or at least, to my own understanding of it. I can't conceive how I could retain my sense of identity otherwise.
I think this is where you and Jo are correct, on the one hand, but missing the point on the other. Since the question, such as it is (which the 'failure to return' of the OP is duly noted), lies in whether
I can tell something about your identity from what music you like. And while there is no denying that your preferences shape your personality, for me to be able to interpret how is not possible unless I am intimately familiar with you over an extended period. Possibly my wife could tell you how music has changed ME over the last 30 years, especially once I found a genre to specialize in, but you certainly couldn't tell on your own. :)
8)
Quote from: Elgarian on June 22, 2015, 04:38:45 AM
I know that my deepest musical passions are related in some important way to my personality - or at least, to my own understanding of it.
Of course. I don´t deny it. But let me put it in a different way: I too
know that
my reasons for loving Haydn´s music are different, sometimes markedly so, than
Gurn´s. We both love Haydn´s music but we approach it from different, even divergent, angles. And that is why I say, claim and maintain, that no amount of sampling young Germans / Americans / Romanians / Whatever will ever be able to tell, even with the vaguest and broadest accuracy, what is my personality, or what is Gurn´s personality, from the mere fact that we both love Haydn´s SQs and symphonies. Yet I can be proved wrong in a minute, by anyone being able to do just that.
Quote from: Florestan on June 22, 2015, 04:44:24 AM
Yes, I still deny it´s even remotely possible for you, Ken, to tell the nature / personality / whatever term you want to use, of a person from the classical music genre they like --- and I stand by it. And you can still prove me wrong by actually doing just that, which is what I invited you to do all along.
And I doubt that you can tell anything about a person's politics from whether someone has Morton's Toe, but that does not constitute an argument against the claim that political opinions and physical traits can be related. The difference is, I don't claim to have refuted the broader claim with my negative example, and you do.
Quote from: Ken B on June 22, 2015, 05:19:20 AM
And I doubt that you can tell anything about a person's politics from whether someone has Morton's Toe, but that does not constitute an argument against the claim that political opinions and physical traits can be related. The difference is, I don't claim to have refuted the broader claim with my negative example, and you do.
There
was no broader claim, only a question in the sense of 'what do you think?'.
I don't want to run this gamut all over again, I thought it was silly the first time. But I am trying to imagine what sort of evidence it would take to refute the claim positively, to your satisfaction. It is an 'angels dancing on the head of a pin' sort of thing to start with, and so for every refutation, the simple question 'what about this one?' will cancel it out and start you over. Your sense of metaphysics has outweighed your logic in this case, I think. :)
8)
Quote from: Ken B on June 22, 2015, 05:19:20 AM
And I doubt that you can tell anything about a person's politics from whether someone has Morton's Toe, but that does not constitute an argument against the claim that political opinions and physical traits can be related.
Sure, anyone can claim whatever correlation crosses his mind. It´s only that the burden is on him to prove it. Fort instance, it seems to me that moonlight might have an effect on how quick rubber-made sneakers deteriorate --- but unfortunately I am not an academic so there´s no chance I ever get funding for doing some research and publishing an article in the
International Journal of Moonlight Science and Technology. :laugh:
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 22, 2015, 04:54:06 AM
I think this is where you and Jo are correct, on the one hand, but missing the point on the other.
Yes, I think that's right as far as it goes, Gurn. I think I want to add though that I was taking the ball and running with it, rather than batting it back. I mentioned earlier that I suspect the question itself arises because we feel intuitively that there
is some important link in all this. 'My music' and 'me' feel as if they're connected, so we seem to have an insight into the connection between 'our music' and our own natures. So not perhaps unnaturally, we think we might be able to reverse it. To misquote Ruskin: 'Tell me what you listen to and I'll tell you what you are'. But it doesn't follow that we can, as we seem to be mostly agreeing.
Well, things seem to have settled down to the extent that perhaps another question or two could be usefully floated.
If this sets off another flame war, I swear I will go live in a monastery in Tibet.
Anyway, with some trepidation, here goes:
1) Why would you want to try to discern a person's nature from the kind of classical music they like?
2) If you could actually do said discerning, what do you suppose you would have as a result?
Bonus) How may classical listeners confine themselves to only one kind of classical music? I listen to every genre there is, from every era. My knowledge, and my listening time, drops off rather sharply around 1700, but there's plenty of music before that that I enjoy.
My knowledge, and my listening time, does a sharp uptick around 1906, but again, there's plenty of music from before that that I enjoy.
I do tend to enjoy the music of people who are alive. I certainly enjoy the company of people who are alive.
Generally we get to know people by hanging out with them. It's neither efficient nor reliable, but I can't think of any better way of doing it.
Quote from: some guy on June 22, 2015, 07:49:48 AM
Well, things seem to have settled down to the extent that perhaps another question or two could be usefully floated.
If this sets off another flame war, I swear I will go live in a monastery in Tibet.
Anyway, with some trepidation, here goes:
1) Why would you want to try to discern a person's nature from the kind of classical music they like?
I really don't know, except as some sort of a metaphysical exercise. I agree, I would rather talk with them (at a distance, of course) than divine answers from their preferences.
Quote2) If you could actually do said discerning, what do you suppose you would have as a result?
Nothing of value since it is without the context of the individual.
QuoteBonus) How may classical listeners confine themselves to only one kind of classical music? I listen to every genre there is, from every era. My knowledge, and my listening time, drops off rather sharply around 1700, but there's plenty of music before that that I enjoy.
At one time I listened to everything (except chant, dammit!). Now I don't. 95% of my listening is confined to 18th century Austria because I am trying to learn something, and this is the only way I can do it. Not that I don't like and appreciate other music, but time is finite, despite what the science says. >:D
QuoteI do tend to enjoy the music of people who are alive. I certainly enjoy the company of people who are alive.
Generally we get to know people by hanging out with them. It's neither efficient nor reliable, but I can't think of any better way of doing it.
I enjoy musicians who are alive. Composers I can take or leave. Dead is good too. Better, generally. I agree with your second. It is neither safe nor sanitary, but it's the best we have. :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 22, 2015, 08:00:44 AM
Composers I can take or leave. Dead is good too.
Eeek!8)
I know, I know . . . that's not at all what you meant . . . still, it gives a chap pause . . . .
;)
Quote from: karlhenning on June 22, 2015, 08:14:49 AM
Eeek!
8)
I know, I know . . . that's not at all what you meant . . . still, it gives a chap pause . . . .
;)
Actually, I did it intentionally to make you come to the top and grab the lure. :D It is part of my persona which should be obvious due to my love of the witty Mr. Haydn. :D :D :D
8)
At least, I know when my chain is being pulled 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on June 22, 2015, 08:24:31 AM
At least, I know when my chain is being pulled 8)
Is it chain or leg? Oooops, wrong thread, that should be in the Cato´s Grammar Grumble. :laugh:
Quote from: some guy on June 22, 2015, 07:49:48 AM
1) Why would you want to try to discern a person's nature from the kind of classical music they like?
To show how smart / intellectual / scientific type of person you are? ;D :P >:D
QuoteHow may classical listeners confine themselves to only one kind of classical music?
Judging by GMG, more than you would expect... ;D
Quote
Generally we get to know people by hanging out with them. It's neither efficient nor reliable, but I can't think of any better way of doing it.
Agreed.
Well, I'm relieved. Just good clean fun.
If there's a shitstorm later on, I'll just remember these last few posts.
I grinned out loud to all of them.
Quote from: some guy on June 22, 2015, 11:07:55 AM
I grinned out loud to all of them.
I'm not sure that is anatomically possible, but we get your drift! :)
Quote from: some guy on June 22, 2015, 07:49:48 AM
1) Why would you want to try to discern a person's nature from the kind of classical music they like?
When you put it like that, it seems a pointless exercise. Much better, as you say, to hang out with the people whose nature you want to discern.
But there's something bubbling beneath the question, and it's that bubbling thing that interests me: what is it about certain types of music that I seem to have a natural affinity for, and why is it so? Not just like or dislike - it's
more than that. I have the feeling that there are certain pieces of music that I was born to hear. Very hard to express this, and of course I'm using 'I' and 'me' when maybe I should be generalising into 'one', and you could just dismiss all these claims as mere romanticism. Alright: but I don't think it is. This music that I'm talking about strikes at what I think of as my 'essence'. Drogulus would tell me I'm mistaken - that we have no 'essences' - but (
pace Ernie) that's no more than an assertion, and we have the choice of following our intuition, or demanding some sort of objective proof.
I can't believe I'm alone in this, especially not here at GMG. I find it impossible to dismiss the idea that there is some significant link between who we are , and the music we most long to hear; and maybe the only answer is metaphysical, but I can't help being curious about it.
Bubbling fuzziness and curiosity are good things.
Quote from: karlhenning on June 22, 2015, 11:51:36 AM
Bubbling fuzziness and curiosity are good things.
They make you sneeze though ...
I knew we'd get around to Kodaly, eventually. :)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 22, 2015, 05:34:28 AM
There was no broader claim, only a question in the sense of 'what do you think?'.
I don't want to run this gamut all over again, I thought it was silly the first time. But I am trying to imagine what sort of evidence it would take to refute the claim positively, to your satisfaction. It is an 'angels dancing on the head of a pin' sort of thing to start with, and so for every refutation, the simple question 'what about this one?' will cancel it out and start you over. Your sense of metaphysics has outweighed your logic in this case, I think. :)
8)
What
are you talking about Gurn? Saying the question isn't fit for adult discussion
is making a claim. So claims have been made.
As for logic, no, I am correct. Citing one example does not prove a general case.
But there are lots of negatives that can be demonstrated. You cannot trisect an arbitrary angle with a ruler and compass. You cannot cool your apartment by running the refrigerator. These are proven by more general arguments. Only Todd has even tried that here, and Jo's response is good.
Quote from: some guy on June 22, 2015, 01:30:39 PM
I knew we'd get around to Kodaly, eventually. :)
I don't get it! Please say more ...
Quote from: Ken B on June 22, 2015, 03:34:24 PM
Saying the question isn't fit for adult discussion is making a claim.
Oh, come on,
Ken! That claim was made by only one poster on page 1 and now we are on page 11, so obviously nobody else agreed with him.
And BTW, here is the OP:
Quote from: SKYIO on June 16, 2015, 05:41:50 AM
Can you ?
Nature/personality/character/temperament etc
Even if its just a few similar traits its still a connection and so interests me.
It seems pretty obvious to me that by "you" he means we, the GMG-ers who happen to read his post.
Nobody ever denied that there are studies who attempt to find meaningful correlations between musical preferences and personality, but as has been pointed out by
Todd and
Jo their methodology is dubious and their practical value is limited (and mostly consists of securing tenure and lists of publications to their authors).
Sorry guys, but for me there is nothing "metaphysical" about that. What Elgarian and I said seems basic common sense to me. I completely agree that it might be difficult to quantify such things in a way that they are open to the style of psychological research we find in the papers linked to. But for me, that's not the point. Such connections between "character" and e.g. musical preferences are fairly obvious from the first person (introspective) perspective. It's not only an important part of me that I am into classical music in general but also that I love Beethoven's music and do not care much for most of Puccini's etc.
Such a presupposition is also shown by the prevalence of such preferences in formulating dating profiles, forming friendships (the tribalism of some popular music extending to clothes, hairstyle etc. has been mentioned).
So in the daily practice of living, forming social relationships etc. we all seem to believe that hanging out with people who share some of our (e.g.) musical preferences is more likely to lead to friendship or a nice time in pleasant company or even to romantic relationships because we assume that these people will also more likely to be compatible with us in many other ways. Of course it does not have to work out (more likely means only prob > .5) but if this "strategy" was so terrible I would really wonder why it has been a rather stable way to initiate social relationsships for decades or centuries (this is actually a reason to assume a probability much higher then .51).
Sure, it is complicated to analyse how much of those preferences we "find within us" pre-reflectively and how much we cultivate (because we want to be a person who appreciates this or that or want to belong to a certain tribe). But there has to be something there to cultivate. Someone who only goes to the opera to please the in-laws might remain indifferent but he could also begin to develop a genuine love for opera. And I do not think it is completely random if one develops that.
So I do not see any reason why the connection of those preferences to more general character traits (as the ominous "big five") should be intractable. I am pretty sure that they exist by introspection and anecdotal evidence, I fail to see why they should be indiscoverable in principle.
We are not talking about mind-reading here, only about connecting different publicly available "manifestations of character". Neither am I presupposing that there are simple law-like correlations; it might be extremely complicated (too complex to have real predictive power) or experimentally feasible distinctions might be to coarse-grained to be meaningful. I do not know about methods but maybe one would need different methods with in-depth interviews and people describing introspectively their love for certain music more specifically.
I might still be mis-understanding some statements, so sorry if this only adds confusion or reiterates points almost everyone agrees with... ;)
Quote from: Jo498 on June 23, 2015, 12:30:02 AM
Such connections between "character" and e.g. musical preferences are fairly obvious from the first person (introspective) perspective. It's not only an important part of me that I am into classical music in general but also that I love Beethoven's music and do not care much for most of Puccini's etc.
Yes, yes, yes.
Quotehanging out with people who share some of our (e.g.) musical preferences is more likely to lead to friendship or a nice time in pleasant company or even to romantic relationships because we assume that these people will also more likely to be compatible with us in many other ways. Of course it does not have to work out (more likely means only prob > .5)
Yes, yes, yes.
QuoteSo I do not see any reason why the connection of those preferences to more general character traits (as the ominous "big five") should be intractable. I am pretty sure that they exist by introspection and anecdotal evidence, I fail to see why they should be indiscoverable in principle.
Yes, yes, yes.
QuoteNeither am I presupposing that there are simple law-like correlations; it might be extremely complicated (too complex to have real predictive power) or experimentally feasible distinctions might be to coarse-grained to be meaningful. I do not know about methods but maybe one would need different methods with in-depth interviews and people describing introspectively their love for certain music more specifically.
Yes, yes, yes.
Quote from: Jo498 on June 23, 2015, 12:30:02 AM
Sorry guys, but for me there is nothing "metaphysical" about that. What Elgarian and I said seems basic common sense to me. I completely agree that it might be difficult to quantify such things in a way that they are open to the style of psychological research we find in the papers linked to. But for me, that's not the point. Such connections between "character" and e.g. musical preferences are fairly obvious from the first person (introspective) perspective. It's not only an important part of me that I am into classical music in general but also that I love Beethoven's music and do not care much for most of Puccini's etc.
Such a presupposition is also shown by the prevalence of such preferences in formulating dating profiles, forming friendships (the tribalism of some popular music extending to clothes, hairstyle etc. has been mentioned).
So in the daily practice of living, forming social relationships etc. we all seem to believe that hanging out with people who share some of our (e.g.) musical preferences is more likely to lead to friendship or a nice time in pleasant company or even to romantic relationships because we assume that these people will also more likely to be compatible with us in many other ways. Of course it does not have to work out (more likely means only prob > .5) but if this "strategy" was so terrible I would really wonder why it has been a rather stable way to initiate social relationsships for decades or centuries (this is actually a reason to assume a probability much higher then .51).
Sure, it is complicated to analyse how much of those preferences we "find within us" pre-reflectively and how much we cultivate (because we want to be a person who appreciates this or that or want to belong to a certain tribe). But there has to be something there to cultivate. Someone who only goes to the opera to please the in-laws might remain indifferent but he could also begin to develop a genuine love for opera. And I do not think it is completely random if one develops that.
So I do not see any reason why the connection of those preferences to more general character traits (as the ominous "big five") should be intractable. I am pretty sure that they exist by introspection and anecdotal evidence, I fail to see why they should be indiscoverable in principle.
We are not talking about mind-reading here, only about connecting different publicly available "manifestations of character". Neither am I presupposing that there are simple law-like correlations; it might be extremely complicated (too complex to have real predictive power) or experimentally feasible distinctions might be to coarse-grained to be meaningful. I do not know about methods but maybe one would need different methods with in-depth interviews and people describing introspectively their love for certain music more specifically.
I might still be mis-understanding some statements, so sorry if this only adds confusion or reiterates points almost everyone agrees with... ;)
I'll my chorus of yeses to those already posted by Elgarian. :)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 23, 2015, 12:49:36 AM
I'll my chorus of yeses to those already posted by Elgarian. :)
We have a trio of yessers. We can make music affirmatively!
Quote from: Elgarian on June 23, 2015, 12:53:03 AM
We have a trio of yessers. We can make music affirmatively!
Yes, yes, yes, yeees! Yes, yes, yes, yeees!
G G G E F F F D
Quote from: Florestan on June 23, 2015, 01:22:24 AM
Yes, yes, yes, yeees! Yes, yes, yes, yeees!
G G G E F F F D
Gentlemen - fate knocks at the door. We have a
quartet!!
Quote from: Florestan on June 23, 2015, 01:22:24 AM
Yes, yes, yes, yeees! Yes, yes, yes, yeees!
G G G Eb F F F D
FTFY 8)
Quote from: Elgarian on June 22, 2015, 11:44:45 PM
I don't get it! Please say more ...
Háry János has a big orchestral sneeze in it. In Hungarian folklore, a sneeze means something, but I found only conflicting information about it online. The way I heard it when I was a kid, whatever followed a sneeze was true, no matter how outlandish. In the Wiki article on the opera, the sneeze supposedly follows the tall tale as confirmation of the improbabilities. In a program note I found online, the sneeze precedes the story, but indicates that what follows is not to be taken literally.
Just some struggling with the concept of humor, there, I guess. Anyway, a sneeze indicates either that an improbable story is about to be related or confirms/asserts the veracity of the tall tale after it's been told. I couldn't find which option was true. (Maybe if someone had sneezed as I was reading one explanation or other, I would know.)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 23, 2015, 12:49:36 AM
I'll my chorus of yeses to those already posted by Elgarian. :)
In my own defense, I do sing in a chorus.
I'm glad some are going down the line now that making too much of a connection between the music and yourself isn't that helpful. It's something that people do all the time. Why else do you see all the threads about 'why you like your favourite music' on music forums? This thread fits into that whole theme. The standard answer that people love is that they have a strong connection to some music because it somehow represents their essence and is inevitable in some way, and it's then seen as validating in their eyes why they like some music and not others. Explode that and music is simply music, something to be understood and enjoyed on its own terms. Nothing so mysterious and unquestionable at all.
Quote from: some guy on June 23, 2015, 02:17:47 AM
Háry János has a big orchestral sneeze in it. In Hungarian folklore, a sneeze means something, but I found only conflicting information about it online. The way I heard it when I was a kid, whatever followed a sneeze was true, no matter how outlandish. In the Wiki article on the opera, the sneeze supposedly follows the tall tale as confirmation of the improbabilities. In a program note I found online, the sneeze precedes the story, but indicates that what follows is not to be taken literally.
Just some struggling with the concept of humor, there, I guess. Anyway, a sneeze indicates either that an improbable story is about to be related or confirms/asserts the veracity of the tall tale after it's been told. I couldn't find which option was true. (Maybe if someone had sneezed as I was reading one explanation or other, I would know.)
Super tale, thank you. I didn't know any of this.
Now I don't know whether to laugh or sneeze.
Keep the hankie on hand for either contingency.
Quote from: starrynight on June 23, 2015, 04:42:22 AM
The standard answer that people love is that they have a strong connection to some music because it somehow represents their essence and is inevitable in some way, and it's then seen as validating in their eyes why they like some music and not others. Explode that and music is simply music, something to be understood and enjoyed on its own terms. Nothing so mysterious and unquestionable at all.
Well I can't speak for anyone else but this doesn't fit my circumstances at all. I would urgently distinguish between the music I 'like', and the kind of musical response that I was referring to in my post. To talk about 'liking' Wagner, or Elgar (for me) would be entirely to misrepresent the nature of the response.
When I say I 'like' something, I'm talking about taste, in the way that I like cheese, or damson jam, or the smell of coffee, or a tune I enjoy whistling, or the colour blue. But these musical experiences I'm referring to (and there are parallels in the visual arts as well) aren't like that. Initially they come as revelations, seemingly bringing significant insight into who I am and how I relate to the world, as if they're windows opening onto a new landscape that's both strange, and yet somehow familiar once I've seen it.
The fact that you don't think it's mysterious clearly shows we're not talking about the same kind of experience. It's infinitely mysterious, to me, and has been all my adult life. Hence my curiosity about it, and the relationship between me and it, and what it signifies.
Quote from: some guy on June 22, 2015, 07:49:48 AM
Anyway, with some trepidation, here goes:
1) Why would you want to try to discern a person's nature from the kind of classical music they like?
Generally we get to know people by hanging out with them. It's neither efficient nor reliable, but I can't think of any better way of doing it.
Quote from: Jo498 on June 23, 2015, 12:30:02 AM
Such connections between "character" and e.g. musical preferences are fairly obvious from the first person (introspective) perspective. It's not only an important part of me that I am into classical music in general but also that I love Beethoven's music and do not care much for most of Puccini's etc. So in the daily practice of living, forming social relationships etc. we all seem to believe that hanging out with people who share some of our (e.g.) musical preferences is more likely to lead to friendship or a nice time in pleasant company or even to romantic relationships because we assume that these people will also more likely to be compatible with us in many other ways.
+1
"Can you discern a person's nature from the genre of classical music they like?"
Yes, I can; and have I ever got serious questions for the lot of you. Except for the Haydnistas.
Others abide our question. They are free 0:) :) 8)
Can you discern my nature by how many fingers I am holding up?
Quote from: MN Dave :) on June 23, 2015, 11:28:09 AM
Can you discern my nature by how many fingers I am holding up?
One finger: you are rude.
Two fingers: you are Churchill.
More than two fingers: I don´t know.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 23, 2015, 06:25:10 AM
Now I don't know whether to laugh or sneeze.
Gesundhaha! $:)
Quote from: Elgarian on June 23, 2015, 06:42:17 AM
Well I can't speak for anyone else but this doesn't fit my circumstances at all. I would urgently distinguish between the music I 'like', and the kind of musical response that I was referring to in my post. To talk about 'liking' Wagner, or Elgar (for me) would be entirely to misrepresent the nature of the response.
When I say I 'like' something, I'm talking about taste, in the way that I like cheese, or damson jam, or the smell of coffee, or a tune I enjoy whistling, or the colour blue. But these musical experiences I'm referring to (and there are parallels in the visual arts as well) aren't like that. Initially they come as revelations, seemingly bringing significant insight into who I am and how I relate to the world, as if they're windows opening onto a new landscape that's both strange, and yet somehow familiar once I've seen it.
The fact that you don't think it's mysterious clearly shows we're not talking about the same kind of experience. It's infinitely mysterious, to me, and has been all my adult life. Hence my curiosity about it, and the relationship between me and it, and what it signifies.
Your last three words are the haunting ghosts of our existence! And our exorcists are the arts themselves, offering us magnifying lenses and maps into the terra incognita of our conscious and unconscious personas.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 23, 2015, 06:42:17 AM
Well I can't speak for anyone else but this doesn't fit my circumstances at all. I would urgently distinguish between the music I 'like', and the kind of musical response that I was referring to in my post. To talk about 'liking' Wagner, or Elgar (for me) would be entirely to misrepresent the nature of the response.
When I say I 'like' something, I'm talking about taste, in the way that I like cheese, or damson jam, or the smell of coffee, or a tune I enjoy whistling, or the colour blue. But these musical experiences I'm referring to (and there are parallels in the visual arts as well) aren't like that. Initially they come as revelations, seemingly bringing significant insight into who I am and how I relate to the world, as if they're windows opening onto a new landscape that's both strange, and yet somehow familiar once I've seen it.
The fact that you don't think it's mysterious clearly shows we're not talking about the same kind of experience. It's infinitely mysterious, to me, and has been all my adult life. Hence my curiosity about it, and the relationship between me and it, and what it signifies.
Revelations perhaps come when someone is prepared to understand something, in that sense they probably aren't that random. Not saying you agree or disagree, just putting my point.
I'm not sure how much music changes my feelings about the world, there's the same kind of ignorant arrogant people I often have to meet however beautiful some of the music I may listen to. Maybe music may crystallise some feelings at times, but I'm not sure I'd say that changes my opinion on anything so much as my experience in the real world would.
Maybe it's just the definition of mysterious we disagree on. Of course curiosity can be a huge factor in wanting to expand your knowledge and understanding of something. But knowledge is like the opposite of mystery, and our facing of the unknown before acquiring that knowledge is simply an intended temporary experience and could be more a frustration while it lasts. Of course some things like different periods and cultures may provide a 'strangeness' at first, but then that's something we adapt to. And I'm not sure our reactions are that big a mystery.
Looking at your earlier post, I would reply to that that there are quite a few pieces of music across various styles, periods and culture that have appealed to me greatly. I can't really say it's particularly about me though because many others will feel the same way, and I'm not sure what the link is musically between them either.
Quote from: starrynight on June 23, 2015, 12:38:19 PM
Revelations perhaps come when someone is prepared to understand something, in that sense they probably aren't that random. Not saying you agree or disagree, just putting my point.
I'm not sure how much music changes my feelings about the world, there's the same kind of ignorant arrogant people I often have to meet however beautiful some of the music I may listen to. Maybe music may crystallise some feelings at times, but I'm not sure I'd say that changes my opinion on anything so much as my experience in the real world would.
Maybe it's just the definition of mysterious we disagree on. Of course curiosity can be a huge factor in wanting to expand your knowledge and understanding of something. But knowledge is like the opposite of mystery, and our facing of the unknown before acquiring that knowledge is simply an intended temporary experience and could be more a frustration while it lasts. Of course some things like different periods and cultures may provide a 'strangeness' at first, but then that's something we adapt to. And I'm not sure our reactions are that big a mystery.
Looking at your earlier post, I would reply to that that there are quite a few pieces of music across various styles, periods and culture that have appealed to me greatly. I can't really say it's particularly about me though because many others will feel the same way, and I'm not sure what the link is musically between them either.
The problem is that I can't perceive what you are experiencing when you listen to music that affects you profoundly, any more than you can perceive what happens when I do it. All we can do is talk about it and compare notes, and I think we're struggling in that respect.
But briefly, I'd say that I'm not talking about knowledge at all. I'm talking about perception. I don't acquire
knowledge by listening to the music that affects me most deeply; rather, I 'see' something that I couldn't have seen unaided; and the thing I 'see' is something I can't analyse or quantify. It is in essence mysterious. And it has nothing to do with what I 'like'. My liking for butter or jam is just a surface thing. I'd still be me if it were different. But my response to some of Elgar's music (say) has, by contrast, become a defining component of my identity. I can't help that - it's just the way it is for me.
.
(http://media.hamptonroads.com/cache/files/images/1727061.jpg)
Knowledge can be subliminal and mysterious in a way, our brain works on stuff without us even being conscious that it's doing that. It's working on things we have experienced so we can understand things better when we next experience them.
Identity is a more complex thing I'm sure than what we outwardly project. The latter is more a conscious decision on our part and could be for various circumstances, inwardly though we are probably more a bundle of contradictions which it may be hard for us to understand.
Not directly related to the topic at hand but not completely irrelevant either. Interesting anyway.
http://hci.ucsd.edu/102b/readings/WeirdestPeople.pdf (http://hci.ucsd.edu/102b/readings/WeirdestPeople.pdf)
Thanks again, Jo!
Also if somebody thinks that some music is their natural preference while other types aren't then they might not be inclined to explore that other music for different experiences, so not putting their initial preference within a wider more knowledgable context.
This is true, but I think "openness to experience" is a fairly common trait among serious lovers of all kinds of music so most of them will at least to some extent a broader spectrum of music.
I do not think that my strong preference for Beethoven's music is innate. Of course it is a product of my biography.
It wasn't even the first music that made me interested in classical. But as soon as I got to know it, it became a favorite as stayed ever since for more than 25 years. (I love lots of other composers but if I have to spontaneously name ONE favorite, it's Beethoven.)
Quote from: Jo498 on June 24, 2015, 12:11:19 AM
I do not think that my strong preference for Beethoven's music is innate. Of course it is a product of my biography.
I'm not sure I'd know how to distinguish the two. I was thinking about what you'd written here, and about the way I'd been expressing myself ... and another image came to mind. When I first heard Elgar's 'Introduction and Allegro for Strings', for instance,
it felt as if a hole was being filled. As if I'd been aware of some deficit that I couldn't define or imagine, and this music filled it, saying 'Here, this is what you were waiting for'. The revelation involved discovering what the hunger had been for. Completely different to hearing, say, something by Grieg, or Dvorak. They were lovely, but just not the same sort of impact at all. That's how the Elgar comes to seem especially linked to my identity.
I can see now why I've been wanting to extend the theme a bit in this thread. Interesting to get this far ...
Quote from: Jo498 on June 24, 2015, 12:11:19 AM
I do not think that my strong preference for Beethoven's music is innate. Of course it is a product of my biography.
Absolutely. Had you been born in Afghanistan or Papua-The New Guinea, the chances that you ever heard of Beethoven, let alone hear his music, would have been infinitely smaller. And this applies for each and every one of us here at GMG, who are mostly (exclusively?) WEIRD. ;D
Quote
It wasn't even the first music that made me interested in classical. But as soon as I got to know it, it became a favorite as stayed ever since for more than 25 years. (I love lots of other composers but if I have to spontaneously name ONE favorite, it's Beethoven.)
My feelings / thoughts / experience exactly. :D
Beethoven may not have been your first interest in classical music, but it was likely near the start and probably one of those first composers you looked at quite a few works from. People tend to listen to the famous composers near the start. Repetition can create love, so the things people have listened to the longest can carry special weight.
I'm sure many musical hungers can lie dormant that people are never aware of until they actually are awoken, and in many cases they may never be.
And of course people can make an effort to see beyond what is readily available, as in seen in some more challenging music. But virtually everyone has put up some limitations of some kind, and not necessarily against complex music either, often saying that it isn't music or isn't worthy of serious consideration, even if that makes no sense.
Quote from: starrynight on June 24, 2015, 08:46:55 AM
Beethoven may not have been your first interest in classical music, but it was likely near the start and probably one of those first composers you looked at quite a few works from. People tend to listen to the famous composers near the start. Repetition can create love, so the things people have listened to the longest can carry special weight.
Yes, that is true, too. And in my case (and probably others´ as well) there is more: there are a few composers whom I dearly love because I first heard their music in particular circumstances of my life.
Quote
I'm sure many musical hungers can lie dormant that people are never aware of until they actually are awoken, and in many cases they may never be.
True as well. When i first started listening to classical music I had no idea that I would eventually dig scores of dozens of obscure Baroque or Classical or Romantic composers.
This thread is hereby revived to convey this news (French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu covered this territory before and more interestingly, dunno why it needs to be done yet again) :
http://music.cbc.ca/#!/blogs/2015/6/What-your-musical-tastes-say-about-your-social-class-a-new-study
Revival!
:-)
Quote from: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on August 07, 2015, 05:23:20 AM
This thread is hereby revived to convey this news (French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu covered this territory before and more interestingly, dunno why it needs to be done yet again) :
http://music.cbc.ca/#!/blogs/2015/6/What-your-musical-tastes-say-about-your-social-class-a-new-study
It could have changed since Bourdieu's studies (in the 1970, I think) or could be different between France and Canada.
In any case, it's an interesting result because I am pretty sure that I have seen (or been referred to) several studies that claimed to have evidence for the some "omnivore" phenomenon, namely, that "lower class" listeners tend to have more narrow tastes whereas middle/upper class are omnivores who listen to a very broad range that usually includes at least some of the music favored by the "lower class"
http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/1/1.abstract
Quote from: Jo498 on August 07, 2015, 07:10:54 AM
It could have changed since Bourdieu's studies (in the 1970, I think) or could be different between France and Canada.
In any case, it's an interesting result because I am pretty sure that I have seen (or been referred to) several studies that claimed to have evidence for the some "omnivore" phenomenon, namely, that "lower class" listeners tend to have more narrow tastes whereas middle/upper class are omnivores who listen to a very broad range that usually includes at least some of the music favored by the "lower class"
http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/1/1.abstract
"Class" may have less to do with it than other traits, like intelligence or innate ability for music. In my own case, my parents and grandparents were barely middle-class from an economic point of view. Yet I latched onto classical music instinctively at an early age.
To be sure, intelligent people tend not to be members of the "lower class." But I have always objected to the idea that classical music is only for smart people or people of a certain income.
Quote from: Cato on August 07, 2015, 07:23:54 AM
"Class" may have less to do with it than other traits, like intelligence or innate ability for music. In my own case, my parents and grandparents were barely middle-class from an economic point of view. Yet I latched onto classical music instinctively at an early age.
To be sure, intelligent people tend not to be members of the "lower class." But I have always objected to the idea that classical music is only for smart people or people of a certain income.
Agreed. I will also add that I've known plenty of college-educated people (mostly Bachelor's but a few with Masters and Doctorates) that have, what I believe, poor tastes in music. Some of these people would never listen to anything but Indie Rock (not that there's anything wrong with that), but it only proves that a 'study' is nothing more than a generalization and should only be taken with a grain of salt.
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 07, 2015, 07:38:07 AM
Agreed. I will also add that I've known plenty of college-educated people (mostly Bachelor's but a few with Masters and Doctorates) that have, what I believe, poor tastes in music.
I once knew a teacher - who was on his way to becoming a principal - who actively and openly
hated classical music, and he would have banned it from my classroom, if he had obtained the power.
I am reasonably skeptical wrt such studies, partly because the methods seem to allow only a very coarse-grained and shallow estimation of people's tastes. And while only the abstracts are freely readable, those studies point in different directions, so apparently it seems still an open question whether higher class (or status) people tend to be cultural omnivores and lower class univores (Goldthorpe's finding in England) or whether the "homology" thesis defended by the paper Zauberdrachen linked to is true.
I read that Goldthorpe paper 10 years ago and while I do not remember the details they are considerably more sophisticated than simply looking at income brackets. Rather they do some complicated stats wizardry to identify "types" according to several criteria, certainly also including education etc.
Of course all such findings are only are about statistical averages, so they are perfectly compatible with some highly educated people hating classical music and some hobos loving classical.
Whatever, I think among "younger" (than about 50 ;)) people there is (or was when growing up) certainly some social pressure (if necessary at all) to become at least a little omnivore because if one listens only to classical one will both be seen as a snob and will be excluded from lots of social activities and interactions that are somehow connected to popular music and pop culture in general. Sure, there are some kinds of popular music it may be "cool to hate" (like country and western or christian rock or whatever), but a complete detachment from popular culture would make it rather hard to find friends, I am afraid.
Quote from: Cato on August 07, 2015, 07:55:37 AM
I once knew a teacher - who was on his way to becoming a principal - who actively and openly hated classical music, and he would have banned it from my classroom, if he had obtained the power.
Thank goodness you dodged that bullet, Cato. ;D
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 07, 2015, 06:19:34 PM
Thank goodness you dodged that bullet, Cato. ;D
He was a classical slacker on his way out: did less than a minimum amount of work in the classroom, took classes to get the certificate to become a principal, and then left for the first public-school opening in administration that came his way.
He followed
Cato's Rule of Education #1: "In general, public-school bureaucrats and administrators tend to have been failures in the classroom, or had little to no experience in the classroom."
Rule #1 A: "It is not impossible for this to happen outside of public schools." ;)
Quote from: Cato on August 07, 2015, 07:07:51 PM
He was a classical slacker on his way out: did less than a minimum amount of work in the classroom, took classes to get the certificate to become a principal, and then left for the first public-school opening in administration that came his way.
He followed Cato's Rule of Education #1: "In general, public-school bureaucrats and administrators tend to have been failures in the classroom, or had little to no experience in the classroom."
Rule #1 A: "It is not impossible for this to happen outside of public schools." ;)
;D
At the risk of committing a truism, I think a person's nature is better reflected in how they listen than what they listen to.
There is also definitely music (composers/works/recordings) that fits around people 'like a glove' whereas other people will find it merely enjoyable. Or not even that. I've found that I have cravings for particular pieces of music, and this music often harmonises with my movements and thoughts in certain ways, but most of my personality is based around being a musician so a lot of this is probably subconscious analysis or something. I have no idea why you guys do that. ;)
Quote from: Cato on August 07, 2015, 07:07:51 PM
He was a classical slacker on his way out: did less than a minimum amount of work in the classroom, took classes to get the certificate to become a principal, and then left for the first public-school opening in administration that came his way.
He followed Cato's Rule of Education #1: "In general, public-school bureaucrats and administrators tend to have been failures in the classroom, or had little to no experience in the classroom."
Rule #1 A: "It is not impossible for this to happen outside of public schools." ;)
I think that bonmot "Those who can, do, those who can't, teach" is rather wrong. (Certainly my punctuation is also wrong but I can't do it properly in English.)
It should got "Those who can do, those who can't, administrate (and make life complicated for both doers and teachers because otherwise they'd have not enough administration to do"
You know, some of these comments about class have led me to believe that we could probably include race and gender pretty easily.
You know, if you're going to be a bigot, then really be a bigot. None of this pansy-ass tiptoing around race and gender. Come right out with it! Classical music is for rich white men!!
It's not about bigotry but this is apparently serious and peer-reviewed psychological or sociological research. As I cannot access the full papers I do not know whether these researchers were too squeamish or simply not interested in gender and race.
But certainly we would not expect a random distribution of musical tastes wrt theses factors. No "essentialist" or racist assumptions are necessary to suspect that music appreciation differs between "subcultures" and that the latter exist and music often plays a central role for "tribal" identification (e.g. when I was teenager in the mid/late 1980s heavy metal fans vs. "pop", among lily-white German high school students) seems impossible to deny.
Quote from: some guy on August 07, 2015, 11:39:29 PM
Classical music is for rich white men!!
I am already white... but.... when will I become rich? :D :laugh:
Q
Quote from: Que on August 08, 2015, 12:52:02 AM
I am already white... but.... when will I become rich? :D :laugh:
Never, if you keep squandering so much money on classical music... :D
This article does not mention classical music, but contains a report on the latest research:
QuoteNot surprisingly, the music you like says something about your personality. In the past, researchers on this beat have worked to correlate tastes for tunes to the "big five" personality traits—extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to new experience...
To find out, the scientists came up with a better way of slicing and dicing music instead of relying on vague traditional genre labels. Mr. Greenberg and his colleagues instead used a system that weighs sonic and psychological factors while cutting across musical genres.
The new paper describes one study in which more than 4,000 volunteers were tested for empathy and then asked to rate 50 pieces of music. Those who scored high on empathy tended to prefer "mellow" music, such as R&B and soft rock; "unpretentious" music, including folk and country; and "contemporary" music, including Euro pop. But they didn't like intense styles such as heavy metal. The results also applied within genres; empathizers preferred gentler jazz, for instance...
The results held up even when scientists controlled for gender and personality types. In a second study that included systemizers, the group preferred more intense music like punk and heavy metal, while empathizers liked sadder, lower energy music with more emotional depth.
A key question for further research, Mr. Greenberg says, is whether the arrow of causation might run in both directions. In other words, perhaps certain types of music can more effectively increase empathy. Or maybe playing a Bach fugue can increase systemizing when you sit down to do your income taxes.
See:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/if-youre-empathetic-you-probably-arent-into-ac-dc-1438964607 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/if-youre-empathetic-you-probably-arent-into-ac-dc-1438964607)
Quote from: Jo498 on August 08, 2015, 12:40:21 AM
It's not about bigotry but this is apparently serious and peer-reviewed psychological or sociological research. As I cannot access the full papers I do not know whether these researchers were too squeamish or simply not interested in gender and race.
I was referring to the ready acceptance of class distinctions by the gmg posters, not to the researchers (and I would not conclude that their efforts were serious :)), and to some of the generalizations about classes made by gmg posters.
Quote from: Jo498 on August 08, 2015, 12:40:21 AM...music appreciation differs between "subcultures"
Music appreciation differs between individuals. And there I think the inarguable conclusion is "no, duh," which is what led me to conclude that the study was not serious research. And the groups that people divide themselves into often clash. Also true.
Serious research would see if there's a way to avoid that happening, eh?
Edit: I just now read through the snippet that Cato shared. Shouldn'ta done that. Anyway, I for my sins, have taken many psychological tests. I obviously don't know how the tests I took would correlate with the tests these researchers gave to their 4000 subjects, but I always scored very high on the empathy stuff. And I don't like any of the music these guys identify as going along with empathetic types. Heavy metal, though? Sure. Though I find heavy metal a bit too gentle for my tastes. Death metal is better.
And noise bands are even better than that.
I suppose that when all is said and done, my chief problem with studies of this sort is how reductionist they are. Reduce all the complexity and all the contrariness and contradictions and variety of each individual person into groups. And then try to ameliorate the obviously bad effects of your reductionism with ever more complex categories. But never quite getting to the individual in all her unique glory. No. Bad marketing tactics. Group dynamics only. Then we can sell those suckers some deodorant. Or maybe even some smooth jazz. Cause we all know that white women between the ages of 18 and 37 who have attended at least two years of high school and who live in a trailer park will buy deodorant and smooth jazz like crazy sauce.
Quote from: some guy on August 08, 2015, 04:10:30 AM
Heavy metal, though? Sure. Though I find heavy metal a bit too gentle for my tastes. Death metal is better.
Agreed. :D
btw, I wouldn't be surprised at all if people who are into death metal have a higher than average sense of empathy, or even the highest out of all of the musical genres. I also wouldn't be surprised if people who only listen to soft pop music have the least amount of empathy. People who like both, I'm not sure (doesn't seem to be many of them).
Quote from: Greg on August 08, 2015, 08:10:28 AM
I also wouldn't be surprised if people who only listen to soft pop music have the least amount of empathy.
http://www.youtube.com/v/Pmx8DXx_5VI
Psychotic and extreme sociopath, Hannibal 'Cannibal' Lecter was very keen on Bach's Goldberg Variations, ergo....
Yeah, right.
Well, I tend to gravitate to more "quiet", introverted solo music-Bach Keyboard Partitas on harpsichord, and the Cello Suites for example.
Would you then assume I am an anti-social introvert with no patience for other people and a short temper?
You would be right!!!!! :laugh: