quote:

Originally posted by flavdave There's not really any way this could be biased given how he did the chart. You guys should probably read how he did this. He went to Facebook and compared the top "favorite music" listings for each school with the average SAT score ranges of accepted students. The reason why "techno" is on the chart as just a broad category is because that is what people are putting in their Facebook profiles. That also explains why "classical" and "Beethoven" show up separately on the chart.

which raises another question which is: "do they have a right to collect data from private entities (to what extent)?" How protected is our information in this day and age?

___________________
"I think the scientific and the artistic spirit have something in common. The scientist wants not only to learn the facts, but to understand how they cohere, fit together and make a whole. He even uses criteria such as beauty and symmetry to help decide which theory he wants.

The scientist cannot capture the whole cosmos in thought. In his mind he makes a kind of microcosm, which we see as an analogue of the cosmos. In this way we try to get a feeling for the whole. The artist, I suppose, gets a feeling for the whole some other way.”

David Bohm in “Art, Dialogue and the Implicate Order”, published in On Creativity RC (Routledge Classics)

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles The reason I don't think that complex music necessarily requires more intelligence to appreciate is that you can like even very complex music for very simple and pedestrian reasons, e.g. "classical music relaxes me" or something like that.

Yeah but those "simple" and "pedestrian" reasons that you say maybe arise from the fact that one doesn't have the necessary intelligence to fully appreciate it to the deeper level. As a result, this could make a "less cognitively capable" individual to appreciate it at a more superficial level-that is-"relaxing" or as a living-room filler.



I mean if one has the capacity to pay attention to the whole of a classical symphony, he/she would feel all sorts of things and probably at a very intense level IMO, he/she would go up, down, feel desperate, angry, ecstatic, hopeful, victorious etc. On the contrary, if one doesn't pay the larger-than-normal amounts of attention and doesn't remember the numerous changes (that contribute to the "deeper", more "adventurous" emotional journey)he/she would probably perceive a kind of "broader musical aesthetic" which could lead to a broader and less intense emotion such as "relaxed" or "joyful". Well at least this is my take on it



Ofcourse people of lower intelligence could still enjoy a classical tune in all its' glory. Its just that they would need to give more effort in comparison to the inherently more intelligent individuals, and if the required amounts are extremely high, the "pain/tiredness" of effort would mask the "pleasure" of the musical content. Still, (i guess that) if one really wants to (e.g. an individual could feel deep down that classical has a lot more to offer than relaxation, or maybe an individual who is of higher economic status could believe the norm/stereotype that suggests high socioeconomic status to be asociated with the enjoyment of more complicated forms of art etc.), he/she could "train" his brain/mind to anjoy it, although i don't know to what extend.


I guess that there must be some research in those areas although im personally not aware of it.

quote:

Originally posted by winston which raises another question which is: "do they have a right to collect data from private entities (to what extent)?" How protected is our information in this day and age?

There is nothing private about the information he used.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN

I think I will have to mostly disagree with you. Certainly I agree that it takes more intelligence to understand more complex music, but the language of music is not that complex and I think is mostly hard-wired in our collective consciousness. Appreciating crescendos, trebles, basses, percussive noises, acceleration, deceleration etc is not the same as being able to define 'laconic' or 'umbrageous'..

but a word on that collective consciousness. i am one of thee types who believes in a universal collective consciousness, call it what you will 'zeitgeist', 'superego', 'overmind', etc

however, I think that while music takes many cues from this, it also is very influenced by cultural 'local consciousness'. In other words, certain music is just not people's 'scenes' for whatever reason - geographic seclusion, economic division, cultural taboo, etc. It's not that one is less intelligent, it's that there are certain linguistic 'shibboleths' germane to certain forms of music that tend to stratify listeners based on all manner of cultural divisions.

It's not that one doesn't have the intelligence to understand music, it's that one just may not speak its language well enough. However, like I said there are certain 'gestures' in music that supercede any linguistic specificity and stir the spirits of any human listener.

There is a difference between 'hearing' and 'listening', which I will define as 'beholding' or 'understanding'. The senses are abstractions of the musical reality, which affects all of our senses, even those which we don't have a name for. Beholding music creates mental images in the brain (as opposed to simply acknowledging the presence of sound)- not necessarily visual, but a deep resonance which is felt, heard, seen, tasted, smelled, etc, the ripples and reverberations of which lap at the shores of memory.

IQ TEST HERE
EQ TEST HERE
LSAT
SAT
GMAT
HOW INTELLIGENT ARE YOU?
HOW DUMB ARE YOU?
FIND YOUR CLASSMATES!
WIN A FREE XBOX
BE PROUD, JOIN THE MARINES!
SELL YOUR HOUSE
BUY A HOUSE
GOLD!

FUCK THIS! I DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN AMERICA ANYMORE!

___________________
"I think the scientific and the artistic spirit have something in common. The scientist wants not only to learn the facts, but to understand how they cohere, fit together and make a whole. He even uses criteria such as beauty and symmetry to help decide which theory he wants.

The scientist cannot capture the whole cosmos in thought. In his mind he makes a kind of microcosm, which we see as an analogue of the cosmos. In this way we try to get a feeling for the whole. The artist, I suppose, gets a feeling for the whole some other way.”

David Bohm in “Art, Dialogue and the Implicate Order”, published in On Creativity RC (Routledge Classics)

Last edited by winston on Mar-06-2009 at 15:02