|
I abstain, therefore I'm smart (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| wizniz |
i abstain from abstaining.
here and only here.
now.
then? |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Itchy
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... |
|
|
| wizniz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I can't put my finger on it |
CUZ ITLL JUST MAKE THEM ITCH MORE LOL |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| what's a contrapositive? |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by wizniz
CUZ ITLL JUST MAKE THEM ITCH MORE LOL |
I feel like that's a hint... |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| 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. |
|
|
| wizniz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I feel like that's a hint... |
yea... time to get some cream. |
|
|
| Darkarbiter |
| 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 bull 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 bull. 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)? |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
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. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| Soooo listening to music may make people smarter, just not Fibonacci. Lulz. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| 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. |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
