TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- I abstain, therefore I'm smart
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

Classical music elitists piss me off. Even worse are the people who listen to it only to appear smarter. ******s

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On "Intelligence" is merely another projection of socialization.

No, it's not. Intelligence is a measurable characteristic of one's cognitive functionality. Historically and statistically speaking, it is typically indicative of positive socialization. It's not an arbitrary concept that has anything to do with a "projection of socialization". Intelligence is as equally measurable, and as equally important, whether you're a prominent New York yuppie or a dirt farmer in bangladesh.

quote:

Participating in activities that might make oneself more sociable in a cultural knowledge sense might very well give the appearance of intelligence.

Chances are if you are willing to participate in a social activity that will give the impression you are intelligent, it is likely to be an activity that will actually aid your intelligence. Chess and heated political debates come to mind.

quote:

Since intelligence, itself, is a paltry human scale of comparative, the retention of expressed socialization might very well be a form of intelligence.

This statement just makes no sense. I'm going to assume you mean that intelligence is an poor choice of comparison among people, civilizations, and cultures... well, this is just not the case.

quote:

Also, listening to classical music doesn't make you any smarter.

Actually, it is well-documented that listening to classical music is [probably the only genre of music] that is likely to improve memory functionality, study habits, and helps to hasten thought processing.

quote:

I'm sorry. You can harbour whatever self-delusions of intelligence and corresponding archetypes that you like, but just because it was composed by diligent, intelligent people doesn't necessarily mean that it's suddenly not just a series of organized vibrations.

I suggest you take a look into it before you accuse me of being delusional and having "corresponding archetypes" to intelligence (whichever they may be... I'm not really sure what an archetype to intelligence could be.)


FYI, check out The Mozart Effect:
The Mozart effect refers to disputed scientific studies that test a theory suggesting that classical music increases brain activity more positively than other kinds of music,[1] and that listening to certain kinds of complex music may induce a short-lived (fifteen minute) improvement in the performance of certain kinds of mental tasks known as "spatio-temporal reasoning".
[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_effect]

quote:

Originally posted by Fibonacci No, it's not. Intelligence is a measurable characteristic of one's cognitive functionality. Historically and statistically speaking, it is typically indicative of positive socialization. It's not an arbitrary concept that has anything to do with a "projection of socialization". Intelligence is as equally measurable, and as equally important, whether you're a prominent New York yuppie or a dirt farmer in bangladesh.

Yes, cognitive functionality WITHIN the realm of approved knowledge. But approved by whom? Who makes the tests? I think the answer is a social institution or construct of some sort. Are you really all sorts of hot for IQ tests? Do you honestly think they are an effective representation of one's ability to function cognitively? Like, as a universal rule? hm.

quote:

Chances are if you are willing to participate in a social activity that will give the impression you are intelligent, it is likely to be an activity that will actually aid your intelligence. Chess and heated political debates come to mind.

Here we get into the music theory you're such a huge fan of. Yes, willing participation to socialize in a supposed "intelligent" setting may very well make you appear smart - if you want it to. What you might very well gain in expressed "intelligent" patterns *is* something you gain from socializing in the first place. Assuming you are participating in socially-approved (that's not even all that important) activities, there is a transmission of socialized knowledge and practice. You are imitating a projection of sociability.

quote:

This statement just makes no sense. I'm going to assume you mean that intelligence is an poor choice of comparison among people, civilizations, and cultures... well, this is just not the case.

Ah, it was a bit of a clause.

Intelligence is a very human scale. As far as we know, we are the most intelligent beings we know of. I suppose it all depends on how much you think this says about us. Every creature operates within its own sphere of knowledge or habit, as it would be - and it's reasonably subjective how you view your own species. Human intelligence isn't a poor comparison amongst humans, but suppose one would describe a dolphin as "intelligent". It's not too far-fetched. But can a dolphin be socialized to the point of exprssing very specific human knowledge? Can a dolphin do calculus? Can a dolphin paint a picture? Can a dolphin compose classical music? They may very well express several traits that are quite conducive with sociability and intelligence in a human sense, but our methods of determination don't indicate their supposed "intelligence" is really the same kind. Is it better? Is it worse? Define your terms. They survive just fine. It is we who seem to be the most discontent with mere survival.

quote:

Actually, it is well-documented that listening to classical music is [probably the only genre of music] that is likely to improve memory functionality, study habits, and helps to hasten thought processing. I suggest you take a look into it before you accuse me of being delusional and having "corresponding archetypes" to intelligence (whichever they may be... I'm not really sure what an archetype to intelligence could be.)

By "corresponding archetypes", I meant what social sense people imagine when "intelligence" comes to mind. I would say most people regard the well-bred, the well-red, the well-travelled, pipe-smoking, classical music-listening elite to be beacons of intelligence. Is this necessarily true? No, not necessarily. But the necessity of an image has sparse prevented people from holding it to be a projection of the generalization. And this is where the appearance of sociability comes into play - after all, since intelligence is a mere comparative, there must be a judge and a witness to the comparison, no?

"Good" habits are indeed associated with intelligence, but are they definitive of it? Who can really say? Whatever works is smart and whatever's smart, works. Is it the effect or the means? Come to think of it, what, truly, is the necessity of intelligence? I think the study represents only an opening of the mind - or perhaps a closing? It is a pattern, a structure - a construct of a prodigious man some few hundred years ago that people have jerked off over ever since. Mozart's music changed the world because people were willing to relate it to their society - to accept it, to assimilate it, to discard him. And so the same society that sets the standards for what is intelligent and what is not can set the standards for which its very own definition can be self-fulfilled. Ahh.

quote:

FYI, check out The Mozart Effect: The Mozart effect refers to disputed scientific studies that test a theory suggesting that classical music increases brain activity more positively than other kinds of music,[1] and that listening to certain kinds of complex music may induce a short-lived (fifteen minute) improvement in the performance of certain kinds of mental tasks known as "spatio-temporal reasoning". [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_effect]

Yeah, it seems disputed because it seems barely science. Cognitive functionality within the spheres of human intelligence does not make for effective progression - the push on what we know, the stress and the destruction of petterns - that is where true intelligence lies.

quote:

Originally posted by Fibonacci Actually, it is well-documented that listening to classical music is [probably the only genre of music] that is likely to improve memory functionality, study habits, and helps to hasten thought processing.

i don't care what the "studies" say, there is nothing inherent about any form of music that achieves this ^^ better than any other form. indeed, classical is as diverse as EDM, so i think the studies are bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i don't care what the "studies" say, there is nothing inherent about any form of music that achieves this ^^ better than any other form. indeed, classical is as diverse as EDM, so i think the studies are bullshit.

Yeah, or they're focused and funded by rich old white people who are so high on preserving their "cultural heritage", it doesn't really matter whether the study is bunk or not, as long as "experts" determine that people are "smarter" by listening to music.

I feel smarter every time I take a huge dump. It's also arousing.

quote:

Originally posted by Fibonacci Actually, it is well-documented that listening to classical music is [probably the only genre of music] that is likely to improve memory functionality, study habits, and helps to hasten thought processing.

If anything, good rap music would be better. You may think that sounds silly, but freestyling aint easy. Not only do you have to be quick with words, and good with using words, but you also have to manipulate said words to create a rhythm that people can move to. In order to do that you have to have a good vocabulary while also simultaneously pulling off a beat that flows to a background melody. Classical music I dont think compares to the number of dimensions of rap music in terms of "memory functionality" and "thought processing."

Of course you may think of the standard, generic, tired as shit mainstream rap music that annoys the hell out of most people, but there is some rap out there that is nothing but pure poetry going along to a beat. Regardless, I dont think its possible whatsoever to label a person's intelligence according to their musical tastes.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie I feel smarter every time I take a huge dump. It's also arousing.

you might feel smarter, but after a huge dump you are actually dumber, shit for brains...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you might feel smarter, but after a huge dump you are actually dumber, shit for brains...

haha, awesome.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you might feel smarter, but after a huge dump you are actually dumber, shit for brains...

LoL, I like your style.

Re: I abstain, therefore I'm smart

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Something I find annoying: "I don't like or do [y]. Only a stupid person could possibly like or want to do [y]. Therefore I must be smart."

they're idiots because everyone knows a false positive is not the same as a contrapositive.


Itchy

i abstain from abstaining.

here and only here.
now.

then?

Re: Re: I abstain, therefore I'm smart

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Itchy Tits they're idiots because everyone knows a false positive is not the same as a contrapositive. Itchy

I can't put my finger on it, but something about your post is hard to take seriously...

Re: Re: Re: I abstain, therefore I'm smart

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I can't put my finger on it

CUZ ITLL JUST MAKE THEM ITCH MORE LOL

what's a contrapositive?

Re: Re: Re: Re: I abstain, therefore I'm smart

quote:

Originally posted by wizniz CUZ ITLL JUST MAKE THEM ITCH MORE LOL

I feel like that's a hint...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN what's a contraceptive?

Well, you see pkc, when a man and a woman care about each other very deeply (or are just horny as hell), they have a desire to express that affection (lust) for each other. So they have passionate lovemaking (dirty sex). However, sometimes when a man vigorously dry-humps (penetrates) a woman, and he is sick with something (like AIDS), it can spread from one person to another. A contraceptive is a safety precaution to prevent that spread.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I abstain, therefore I'm smart

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I feel like that's a hint...

yea... time to get some cream.

quote:

Originally posted by Fibonacci Actually, it is well-documented that listening to classical music is [probably the only genre of music] that is likely to improve memory functionality, study habits, and helps to hasten thought processing. FYI, check out The Mozart Effect: The Mozart effect refers to disputed scientific studies that test a theory suggesting that classical music increases brain activity more positively than other kinds of music,[1] and that listening to certain kinds of complex music may induce a short-lived (fifteen minute) improvement in the performance of certain kinds of mental tasks known as "spatio-temporal reasoning". [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_effect]

Not only is this allmost certainly bullshit from how hard this would be to test but you kind of suggested classical makes you more intelligent.

I do not count 15 minutes as "more intelligent" (permanently). Sad music makes you sad? Sad is a mood. Mood is a temporary change of personality... and personality like many things can form habits. So listening to lots of sad music makes you a sad person. Who doesn't allready know sad music makes you sad?

I'm not sure however that intelligence works the same way and besides... wtf were they testing this against? Is this the best classical piece ever v.s. a random pop song for a classical listener? Or what? I know that 140 bpm+ stuff makes me better at maths (wheras ambient is better for creative/social stuff... but thats a bit different). I'd really like to see how they determine this temporary increase of intelligence. Methinks it's comepletely bullshit. After all if music is mostly mathematical... surely a synthesizer would increase your intelligence more?

So in short: Does a temporary increase of intelligence sometimes form a habit(I.E. from listening to music)? and... WTF were the test ground on this musical test? Maybe it's mostly determined by BPM... maybe it's mostly determine by how much you like it... regardless I highly doubt Classical is the only music genre that can do anything as good as Classical.

How can you test permanent intelligence changes? You'd have to force someone to listen to only classical and someone else to listen to a specific music genre (otherwise... say perhaps variety doesn't make you as intelligent as one music genre?). Not only that... but music affects mood which IMO affects personality. How are you going to test a permanent change of intelligence without outside factors... including personality changes(maybe they feel more like a certain group of people... they hang out with them and they do more or less memory intensive stuff together)?

In addition:

quote:

Originally posted by Fibonacci FYI, check out The Mozart Effect: The Mozart effect refers to disputed scientific studies that test a theory suggesting that classical music increases brain activity more positively than other kinds of music,[1] and that listening to certain kinds of complex music may induce a short-lived (fifteen minute) improvement in the performance of certain kinds of mental tasks known as "spatio-temporal reasoning". [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_effect]

Fibonacci, you also sourced a wiki article, which is fairly poor form, really. Have you got any links to the studies themselves? I would be quite interested to read up on the kind of statistical methodology they used to reach their conclusions.

Soooo listening to music may make people smarter, just not Fibonacci. Lulz.

quote:

Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000 Classical music I dont think compares to the number of dimensions of rap music in terms of "memory functionality" and "thought processing."

Maybe, but rappers don't need to bother much with tonality or harmony.

The most "mental" music may be jazz, which like rap is very improvisational. Classical used to be pretty improvisational, too, but the virtuoso / concert tradition has overshadowed that since the Romantic era.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Yes, but I am questioning whether or not intentional abstinence, a practice of self-control, completely independent of social influence, is even possible. I am well aware that many people draw a distinction between the two, but I very much doubt the genuineness in some people, especially when there is, in fact, motive (deterrence or encouragement) on a social sense to be something - even if it is merely a projection of overdeveloped spiritual productivity. I am not saying it is impossible. I am merely saying that it is extremely rare, at most.

Even so, what difference does it make whether people use personal goals or societal compulsions to abstain from doing things ? There are many people who cannot exercise the type of abstinence that requires self control even if it is driven by social compulsions.

How hard is it for a chain smoker to quit ? Or for a meth addict to give up his drug ? They must choose intentional abstinence, if they want to live a healthy life (or even stay alive). There are many instances like this where self control does not have anything to do with the society. It's not really as rare as you think.

quote:

Monks are not disconnected from society. Perhaps society outside of their own order, but they still uphold traditions as a result of social programming. The movement towards spiritual goals within their society IS encouraged on a social level - are monks really who you think of when you imagine ideal individual goals? I assure you, they are very much a social organism: dressing alike, chanting alike, working alike and praying alike, they are quite possibly the quintessential like-mind and say very little about self-control and intentional abstinence for the sake of higher intelligence or enlightenment. I am well aware of Buddha's tenets of self-deprivation; it's an institution that is the unfortunate antithesis towards overindulgent western aims, admittedly, but an opposition nevertheless.

Fundamentally, monks really don't care about social structures. Their goals are neither ego based nor driven by society (unlike ours). They may form their own groups for praying or chanting. In the end however, they meditate alone for a purely personal goal of enlightenment. You can argue that the person is striving for personal greatness or respect in a society, but I don't think an enlightened person is searching for this type of recognition.

Sorry excuse me I thought this was the COR... passing though.

Surely the cornerstone of this (current) debate is the definition of intelligence? Which is a hell of a big subject....bigger even than jennypie's dumps...

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M Even so, what difference does it make whether people use personal goals or societal compulsions to abstain from doing things ? There are many people who cannot exercise the type of abstinence that requires self control even if it is driven by social compulsions. How hard is it for a chain smoker to quit ? Or for a meth addict to give up his drug ? They must choose intentional abstinence, if they want to live a healthy life (or even stay alive). There are many instances like this where self control does not have anything to do with the society. It's not really as rare as you think.

Something that is socially-inspired and influenced can be controlled by society as well. Of course there are no truly isolated frames of thought out there - everything is an amalgam of self and society, but if social pressures were what lead to an addiction or a need to find oneself in the first place, and can also be the path and the influence by which the means or solution are met, where does that truly place the individual?

I am saying that self-control, in an overwhelming majority of cases, is an illusion; a prescription of society. I am not saying this is a bad thing, as I think that would be a very, very limited consideration, I am just saying that there is far more at play than merely setting one's mind to do something. I think that, through realization of this, it's possible to gain a very significant degree of empathy for fellow people, animals and maybe all living things. I know this is really idealistic viewpoint, quite contrary to my typical cynicism, but I also hold that every individual is weak. Everyone.

quote:

Fundamentally, monks really don't care about social structures. Their goals are neither ego based nor driven by society (unlike ours). They may form their own groups for praying or chanting. In the end however, they meditate alone for a purely personal goal of enlightenment. You can argue that the person is striving for personal greatness or respect in a society, but I don't think an enlightened person is searching for this type of recognition.

Ideally, yes. How could you ever truly tell what latent social control has a grasp of people though? My point is that individualism and society are quite inextricable - that one has a definite hold over the other at all times. Perhaps there is a threshold one can pass, and this realization is all that we know of enlightenment, but true oneness with everything has exclusions? I guess I do not understand this. I'll meditate on it for a while.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.