Music Makes You Dumb

[murlough23]

At long last, a study that scientifically proves what I've been saying for years: Listening to Jars of Clay makes you smarter. Listening to Kutless makes you dumber.

http://musicthatmakesyoudumb.virgil.gr/

(OK, not really, but the results of this are admittedly amusing.)

NP: "For the Driver", Ron Sexsmith

[Vlad!]

My interpretation of this graph

[Aaron]

Pardon my french, but how the fuck does bullshit like Yellowcard and Something Corporate rank better than jazz.  10 big middle fingers to this idiot!

[Vlad!]

Dude, chill. If you keep getting angry every time someone's wrong on the Internet your blood pressure will rival the national debt.

[Aaron]

Dude, chill. If you keep getting angry every time someone's wrong on the Internet your blood pressure will rival the national debt.

WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???? 

[enemy anemone]

people who put genres as "favorite music" are dumb.

[bloop]

Yes.  For example, Beethoven is rather high while "classical" is notably lower than Maroon 5.   

[murlough23]

Pardon my french, but how the fuck does bullshit like Yellowcard and Something Corporate rank better than jazz.  10 big middle fingers to this idiot!

He didn't invent the data. He only graphed it. Admittedly there's a pretty wide margin for error here, but it was done more for amusement than anything else.

Personally, I'd be a bit offended if I listened to Gospel music. That ranked the absolute lowest as an overall genre, well beyond all of the CCM made by white people.

[enemy anemone]

I think it would be interesting to do a study that goes about it the other way around. take specific people, find out their SAT scores and favorite artists/bands (NOT genres), and graph that information. the whole facebook schools/favorite music/SAT scores of average students thing seems like a huge mess to me.

[murlough23]

the whole facebook schools/favorite music/SAT scores of average students thing seems like a huge mess to me.

Presumably this was the best way the guy could think of to get aggregate data without there being a privacy issue and without having to interview a bunch of people himself. A more serious, scientific study would like go the route you're suggesting.

In any event, I don't really think the music makes you more or less intelligent. I think in a lot of cases it reflects the intelligence of the person making various listening decisions. (In other words, I listen to Beethoven because I excelled at music theory in school and I have a natural inclination to dig classical music because my brain is just wired that way, rather than Beethoven being the thing that makes me smart.) There are obviously other factors in play there, though - like what you're exposed to by other people, the educational opportunities afforded to you as you were growing up, etc.

I wonder what the average IQ of a Weird Al fan is. Lots of 'em are geeks... but then lots of 'em are 12-year-olds.

NP: "Condescending", P.O.D.

[Vlad!]

I wonder what the average IQ of a Weird Al fan is. Lots of 'em are geeks... but then lots of 'em are 12-year-olds.

Being a kid doesn't necessarily imply either stupidity or a low IQ.

I think it would be interesting to do a study that goes about it the other way around. take specific people, find out their SAT scores and favorite artists/bands (NOT genres), and graph that information. the whole facebook schools/favorite music/SAT scores of average students thing seems like a huge mess to me.

I think the most interesting results from this "study" aren't the data themselves so much as the knee-jerk reactions of people who are exposed to the data (I include myself in this evaluation, given my post above).

When I look at Radiohead, for instance, I'm reminded of an acquaintance in college who was a huge Radiohead fan (he was also a Mac user and an "artist", pretty much completing the pretentious trifecta). He failed out of CS (and possibly the school, since I never heard from him again after he left the department), and I would be surprised if his SAT scores were above the average for Virginia Tech.

Also, there's the implicit assumption that one's performance on standardized tests has any bearing on intelligence. I am clearly biased on this issue because of my own lackluster performance on standardized tests, but yeah, I think we all agree (including, probably, the guy who created those charts) that the 'study' is deeply flawed.

[murlough23]

Being a kid doesn't necessarily imply either stupidity or a low IQ.

It does imply being less educated, though. Then again, 12-year-olds generally don't take SATs.

Being a geek also doesn't imply a high IQ. But you know, law of averages.

I think the most interesting results from this "study" aren't the data themselves so much as the knee-jerk reactions of people who are exposed to the data (I include myself in this evaluation, given my post above).

Sure. We could all think of examples where the data doesn't seem to correlate with reality. That's to be expected given what I'm assuming is a fairly small sample size, plus the assumption that the top 10 artists popular on Facebook at any given school are truly a good representation of the musical tastes of the student body overall. (What if Mozart was just bubbling under at #11?)

When I look at Radiohead, for instance, I'm reminded of an acquaintance in college who was a huge Radiohead fan (he was also a Mac user and an "artist", pretty much completing the pretentious trifecta). He failed out of CS (and possibly the school, since I never heard from him again after he left the department), and I would be surprised if his SAT scores were above the average for Virginia Tech.

Plus there's the classic archetype of the tortured, starving musician who dropped out of college to pursue a career with the band everyone told him would go nowhere and which is now famous.

Also, there's the implicit assumption that one's performance on standardized tests has any bearing on intelligence. I am clearly biased on this issue because of my own lackluster performance on standardized tests, but yeah, I think we all agree (including, probably, the guy who created those charts) that the 'study' is deeply flawed.

I'm one of those kids who "tested well", but when it came to things like essays and group projects and well, overall common sense, my skills were found to be lacking. So I can see how this cuts both ways.

NP: "Since I Met You", dc Talk

[bloop]

I remember the first roommates I had in college both had higher SAT scores than me and had what I thought pretty well-developed musical taste, but both failed out of college because they couldn't be bothered to attend class from time to time.

[murlough23]

I remember the first roommates I had in college both had higher SAT scores than me and had what I thought pretty well-developed musical taste, but both failed out of college because they couldn't be bothered to attend class from time to time.

I'll admit to skipping class a few times because I had just bought an album and wanted to finish listening to it the first time through before I went off to do anything else. The problem with really good music is that you can get really obsessive about it.

NP: "Come Rest", Considering Lily

[Vlad!]

Plus there's the classic archetype of the tortured, starving musician who dropped out of college to pursue a career with the band everyone told him would go nowhere and which is now famous.

He wasn't even a musician-artist; he was an old-fashioned pen-and-paper artist. He wanted to go into CS to get into computer modeling or whatever, and to his credit the CS curriculum is pretty brutal for someone who just wants to draw stuff on the screen. I suspect he was also a recreational drug user, though, and I doubt that helped his cause.

I remember the first roommates I had in college both had higher SAT scores than me and had what I thought pretty well-developed musical taste, but both failed out of college because they couldn't be bothered to attend class from time to time.

Meanwhile, my first roommate had what I considered terrible music taste (he blasted Eminem and 50 Cent at high volume all the time, and all the crappy pop-rock songs I know I owe to him), but he graduated with an electrical engineering degree, and his SAT score was about on par with mine.

[murlough23]

He wasn't even a musician-artist; he was an old-fashioned pen-and-paper artist. He wanted to go into CS to get into computer modeling or whatever, and to his credit the CS curriculum is pretty brutal for someone who just wants to draw stuff on the screen. I suspect he was also a recreational drug user, though, and I doubt that helped his cause.

I was referring to some of the artists that these so-called "smart people" listen to. Some of them are the college dropouts. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

Meanwhile, my first roommate had what I considered terrible music taste (he blasted Eminem and 50 Cent at high volume all the time, and all the crappy pop-rock songs I know I owe to him), but he graduated with an electrical engineering degree, and his SAT score was about on par with mine.

While Eminem is abhorrent in terms of the meanings of many of his songs, it does take some intelligence to string the words together the way he does, and many people who are really into hip-hop do seem to revere certain artists for this sort of talent. (Then again, sometimes they revere artists for giving them a song to bump and grind up against strange females with in da club. Depends on the person.)

[murlough23]

By the way, as an attempt to intelligently respond to the question about Yellowcard and their ilk ranking above jazz, I think the fact that Norah Jones is popular and Norah Jones is considered "jazz" for genre sorting purposes might help to explain that. Not to knock Norah - I like her sometimes. But she's listened to by a much wider range of people than the likely brainier types who would really get something out of an accomplished instrumental jazz performance. Two very different apples. Norah Jones should really be considered a jazz and folk-influenced pop artist, but that ain't how Facebook categorizes things.

NP: "Streams of Woe at Acheron", Falling Up

[enemy anemone]

see, I don't think facebook is categorizing these artists/bands at all. it's that the users are entering "jazz", "rock", etc... under "favorite music". this is pretty much meaningless. like saying your favorite books are mystery or your favorite movies are comedy. people who really like and/or are intelligent about movies, books, and music would be more specific.

[enemy anemone]

although I suppose they could be running the top artists through a genre-lumping thing and spitting out results from that. I didn't think of that till now. :-s I've just seen too many profile-things of people who say they love all music or their favorite music is (some genre) or whatever and I'm like, "you're dumb".

[murlough23]

although I suppose they could be running the top artists through a genre-lumping thing and spitting out results from that. I didn't think of that till now. :-s I've just seen too many profile-things of people who say they love all music or their favorite music is (some genre) or whatever and I'm like, "you're dumb".

No, I think your first inclination is the right one. This makes sense. People could be putting "jazz" who don't even know what "jazz" is. I cited Norah Jones as a reason why jazz might have taken a hit, but by herself, she came out above average. So did Frank Sinatra (the only other "jazz" artist on the list).

[enemy anemone]

yeah, I poked around the site some more and clicked on the list of schools where "gospel" was listed as a favorite, and it appeared on each school's list along with artist and band names. the chart does take genres (as determined by last.fm) into consideration, but those are represented by the colors of the blobs. if a genre name, like "jazz" or "pop", appears *in* the blobs, it was user-entered (and dumb).

[murlough23]

So a lot of those "Gospel" fans could have just meant Christian music in general. Which, sadly, kinda makes sense.

[NewDimension]

At long last, a study that scientifically proves what I've been saying for years: Listening to Jars of Clay makes you smarter. Listening to Kutless makes you dumber.

http://musicthatmakesyoudumb.virgil.gr/

(OK, not really, but the results of this are admittedly amusing.)

  Hilarious. And yes, I have to question the "scientific" validity of the study (and not for reasons which are biased, but for reasons which are already cited in this thread). One thing that I found interesting about the study is the fact that aside from Beethoven there was no music at all that ranked up with the really high scores.

[Vlad!]

One thing that I found interesting about the study is the fact that aside from Beethoven there was no music at all that ranked up with the really high scores.

I think this result conclusively proves that Facebook makes you dumb.

[spacebrat311]

Well, that has to do with the nature of the statistic. As far as I can tell, the graph represents standard deviation for each artist. Obviously, significantly high scores are rare in general, so it would seem unlikely to find MOST people who listen to any type of music scoring that highly, simply by virtue of the fact that very few people score that highly.

[murlough23]

I think this result conclusively proves that Facebook makes you dumb.

No, it means that dumb people have a propensity to use Facebook. 

[Vlad!]

Well, that has to do with the nature of the statistic. As far as I can tell, the graph represents standard deviation for each artist. Obviously, significantly high scores are rare in general, so it would seem unlikely to find MOST people who listen to any type of music scoring that highly, simply by virtue of the fact that very few people score that highly.

Actually, I think it's because the average scores for colleges are represented on the chart. The upper bound is, what, 1450 or so? That's not particularly high for an individual score, but it is quite high for a collegiate average.

I think the size of the bubble represents the "standard error", by the way, not the standard deviation (though my stats class is a distant enough memory that I'm a little foggy on what the difference is).

The FAQ is actually pretty interesting; for one, it revealed that there's also a books that make you dumb done in the same fashion (which has some incredibly interesting results but which should probably be discussed on the literature board). Of his four favorite bands he mentions (Daft Punk, Tool, Radiohead, Metallica) I like three of them, and he is very transparent about where he gets his data and how he arrives at his numbers, so I guess I'm willing to acknowledge that he's an acceptable character.

There is clearly a degree of correlation between the selectivity of the university and the musical preference of the student. What isn't clear--as the site itself is quick to point out--is the question of causation. Is certain music more attractive to smart people than other music? Does certain music make you smarter (or dumber)? Does the high-achieving sector of the population fit into a demographic that is more likely to listen to certain types of music and thus the results are indicative of cultural conditioning? Or is it even possible that the university culture itself tends to mold students to like certain bands and thus university music preferences become self-perpetuating? I don't know.

[spacebrat311]

Probably a bit of all of the above IMO.

[murlough23]

The FAQ is actually pretty interesting; for one, it revealed that there's also a books that make you dumb done in the same fashion (which has some incredibly interesting results but which should probably be discussed on the literature board). Of his four favorite bands he mentions (Daft Punk, Tool, Radiohead, Metallica) I like three of them, and he is very transparent about where he gets his data and how he arrives at his numbers, so I guess I'm willing to acknowledge that he's an acceptable character.

Agreed. This wasn't done with any sort of agenda, as far as I know, beyond just general curiosity and humor.

Or is it even possible that the university culture itself tends to mold students to like certain bands and thus university music preferences become self-perpetuating?

That's probably it. Listening to X doesn't make you smart, but there are a lot of smart people who happen to like X and share it with their nerdy friends. It's kind of like how being a Madonna fan doesn't make you gay.

[Vlad!]

It's kind of like how being a Madonna fan doesn't make you gay.

Wait, it doesn't? When did that change?

[bloop]

Intelligence and aptitude are two different things.  I don't think that the SAT really measures either accurately.

[murlough23]

Wait, it doesn't? When did that change?

It's OK, Vlad!, you can admit it now.

[spacebrat311]

Off topic: I was recently told that wearing scarves make you gay. By a gay guy. While I was wearing a scarf.

Awkward.

[murlough23]

Off topic: I was recently told that wearing scarves make you gay. By a gay guy. While I was wearing a scarf.

Sheesh. And they wonder why they get stereotyped.

You should have said, "Silly, I'm a metrosexual."

[spacebrat311]

Maybe the next graph should be Things That Make You Gay.

[murlough23]

Maybe the next graph should be Things That Make You Gay.

It could potentially be done, if Facebook allows people to list their sexual orientation. The problem is that people tend to not see sexual orientation as a spectrum like they do with intelligence. So you're just gonna have straight/bi/gay, for the most part. Makes for less of an interesting graph, because a person can have an SAT score than is 73% of the possible points, but a person can't really be 73% gay as far as I know. (And I'm not sure if being bi makes you "50% gay".)

I suppose you could still average it out - percentage of Madonna fans vs. AC/DC fans who are gay and so forth. (I'm really curious to see where a lot of CCM would fall on that scale. Now there's a tag no one wants - "the gayest Christian band in the business". Though, to be fair, have you really paid attention to some of the lyrics that all these metro worship bands are writing?)

NP: "Sooner or Later", House of Heroes

[enemy anemone]

Off topic: I was recently told that wearing scarves make you gay. By a gay guy. While I was wearing a scarf.

it looks like you're wearing a scarf in your avatar. I think it looks Bob Dylan-ish. which is cool. (unless you don't think so. in which case, ignore me.)

[spacebrat311]

Thanks. That would be a high compliment to me.

Same scarf, coincidentally.

[murlough23]

Thanks. That would be a high compliment to me.

Same scarf, coincidentally.

Oh, that's you in the picture? At first glance, I thought it was Bradley Cooper or something.

[Vlad!]

Intelligence and aptitude are two different things.  I don't think that the SAT really measures either accurately.

I think there needs to be more accountability for standardized tests. I propose the following metric: take the mean score (i.e. average of the results of all the times the student took the test) and correlate it with a) academic performance (as measured by GPA), b) performance on professional tests (MCAT, LSAT, bar exam, FE exam, etc.), c) scores on AP tests (if any), and d) whether the student gets a job in his or her field and what quartile the salary range falls into compared to the average for that field.

I'm certainly not saying that any of these metrics are definitive, but they're all things that colleges care about. Thus, if there is only weak correlation between SAT/ACT score and any of those metrics, it would suggest that these scores are not indicative of whether the student will be successful or not.

What would be very interesting is the correlation between test score and dropout rate. What I would like to see is whether high school GPA or standardized test score is a more likely indicator of whether a student will drop out of college or not.

[Sorry if this is off-topic; I didn't realize while I was typing this that the subject had switched to haberdashery]