Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Academic Research

You obviously have no teaching experience. Try teaching for 30 years, then come and tell me you think the research is correct.

Research, in my experience, is often flawed. You can't account for every variable.

Obviously? Does 5 years of teaching side-drum count?

Yes you are correct, research is often flawed, that is why studies are replicated, improved upon, and sceptically reviewed by the scientific community at large. And you typically can account for every variable, that is what is so great about experiments. They, assuming you have not missed any confounding variables and have randomised properly, isolate causal factors. Obviously, if you are just doing correlational research or observational studies, then yes, every variable cannot be accounted for. But that is rarely the kind of research seen in cognitive psychology and learning theory. Experiments are the name of the game.

You are dismissing this science, but how much do you really know about it? Perhaps it could help you become a better teacher (I am not suggesting you are a bad one - so please don't construe it that way). Why would you reject something that could be of legitimate value to you?

P.S. If you are unfamiliar with side-drum drumming then click here .

Sexual attraction is a cognitive thought. If we all had the same processes, then we would wouldn't have such widespread differences.

And scientists have not yet found anything remotely plausible as a theory to why homosexuality exists. The experts in the field will say there is a definite cultural aspect compounded by your physical make up and the resulting preferences.

Scientists cannot explain why the Bonobo Monkeys to the degree of the majority regularly engage in what one would consider homosexual acts. The prison phenomenon also clearly shows that sexuality is not just a genetic issue. It is tied to social norms and taboos. History also proves this.

the problem with trying to discover what makes you gay is that scientists and philosophers can't really agree on what it is to be homosexual. Much could just be considered a social construct so to find a purely genetic reason will not explain alot of behavior.

The only consensus in the scientific community is that nobody is really straight and nobody is really gay. Maybe go research the Kinsey scale.

But back to your false preposition, there is absolutely no consensus in the scientific field. There are only weak theories that all counter dict each other. Zilch. Nada.

Apology accepted. I also would stop telling people to go read the science. Post the articles you were talking about or stop assuming what I know.

Twin studies pretty much debunk your theory of that we all have the same cognitive functioning. The DSM IV provides a long list of individual types that do not conform to your theory. About 50 years of behavior psychology and the science behind it also undermines your theory.

ANd i have never heard that called side drumming. Pipe drumming, drumline , never side drumming. I used to do it so the name seems rather odd to me. Unless they changed it about 6 years ago. And the guy in that video is in desperate need of lessons.

We don't have widespread differences. The problem is that people exaggerate the differences, because they are fascinating and unusual. Normal stuff is boring. Generally, for something to be considered an exception statistically, it has to exceed 2 standard deviations.



This is just simply incorrect, there is a ton of evidence to suggest a genetic basis. I will grant you that there are still a lot of questions to be answered, and a genetic explaination does not seem to explain all cases of homosexuality, but these cases lie on the statistical outer edge of the homosexual population.
Here is a good recent review of the literature:

Jannini E. A., Blanchard R., Camperio-Ciani A., et al. (2010) Male Homosexuality: Nature or Culture? Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7(10), 3245-3253. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02024.x

Or if you would prefer to watch a video on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saO_RFWWVVA



Your confounding sexual preference with desire for sexual stimulation.



I think it is pretty straight forward what constitutes homosexual behaviour.



How do you draw that conclusion from the Kinsey scale? What evidence do you have to back this assertion that this is the consensus?



What proposition was false? And if I have contradicted myself, please point it out.



What did I apologize for exactly? And I think you will find that I have posted an article.



The DSM provides only behavioural criteria for diagnosing mental disorders. It is not evidence for anything. What twin studies debunk my theory? And how does Behaviourism undermine my theory? A foundational premise of behavioural/associative theories is that, across species, the same core principles of learning underlie all learned behaviour.



Irrelevant, but okay.

Conclusion to the article you provided. Now not only was this not a study therefore not science but it completely negatives your idea that there is a consensus. So here it is from the abstract.


Conclusions.  The JSM's readers should recognize that there are several biological factors in MH. However, these findings do not seem to be able to explain all cases of homosexuality. Some others may be due to particular environmental factors. The issue is complicated and multifactorial, suggesting that further research should be undertaken to produce the final answer to the question raised in this Controversy section. Jannini EA, Blanchard R, Camperio-Ciani A, and Bancroft J. Male homosexuality: Nature or culture? J Sex Med 2010;7:3245–3253.


I will assume your dealings with other matters are just as sloppy and leave it there. You argue a concept , cognitive process, without using the actual accepted definition of your concept. I can't debate a issue when you are conflating the meaning of the terms being used. I am quite interested in anything related to the functioning of the brain but you lack a fundamental understanding of basic physiology and psychology.

ShiroKuro:

I have an excellent teacher that I see for one hour each week. I assiduously comply with her instructions. The problem I have is taking her verbal commands and translating them to a physical execution at the piano. My quest in this thread was to discover the cognitive basis for playing the piano so that I can translate my teacher's instruction effectively.

As to you question about what I actually practice for HS or HT, it turns out to be straightforward. My teacher gave me some exercises to work on. After reading up on how the brain works, I am convinced that what she has me doing will work because they have a basis in cognitive science findings. Plus, now that I know the route to training my brain to direct my hands, I can extrapolate the exercises that my teacher gave me.

To All:

Thank you for your participatation. I found a direction to pursue answers to my questions. Polyphasicpianist was quite helpful.

If your teacher is only giving you verbal instructions about physical gestures, it's no wonder you have difficulty translating the information. Physical gestures require physical instruction (demonstration and hands-on assistance).

What I was thinking.

What I know about music, learning begins by doing, and what we feel in our bodies and sense in our ears teach us. Concepts arise out of that. That's how children learn - they do stuff. We adults are able to conceptualize. I think that some teachers explain and describe because of our intellectual maturity, and just because it is natural to do with a fellow adult. I don't think that works well.

I think that a student's responsibility lies in letting the teacher knows he doesn't understand / can't get at what he's been instructed to do. It is the teacher's responsibility to convey what he wants to teach differently - not for the student to tie himself into a pretzel trying to figure it out.

I'd also add that a simple, well designed instruction, has to be followed just as simply. The results from doing will be what they are. If we analyze and intellectualize it then we lose that clarity and won't get those results. But there has to be something for us to follow, otherwise how can we?

Yes, of course, she demonstrates the movements she describes.

First of all you have failed to critically read the abstract (which it seems is all you read).

The very first statement of the conclusion says: "The JSM's readers should recognise that there are several biological factors in MH." Take special note of the word "biological."

Second, The very next sentence says "However, the current findings do not explain all evidence." In other words, the current body of biological evidence does not explain all cases of homosexuality. This does not mean that further biological explanations are not possible and you cannot conclude on the basis of it that a socially learned theory is correct. All it means is there are questions that are unaccounted for. You are commiting the fallacy of appealing to ignorance, i.e. on the basis of no current biological evidence for certain cases of HM, you are concluding that HM must be learned. Logic simply does not work that way.

Third, you should have read the article and not just the abstract. If you did this you would have noticed (at least) two things. The first of which is the fact that there is an overwhelming body of evidence supporting the biological viewpoint. Granted this does not explain every possible aspect of HM, but the wealth of evidence is undeniable, as the Controversy editior points out in the review's first paragraph: "we can immediately answer the first question in the title: yes definitively, homosexuality is natural."
The second thing you would have noticed is that, contrary to the biological stance, there is no evidence to support the nurture hypothesis. This is acknowledged by the controversy editor on page 3247. Furthermore, attempts at trying to find evidence have been largely failures. If HM is learned, as you seem to suggest, then it should be possible to unlearn it. Which no, scientifically rigourous, study has succeeded in showing.

I could go on about the maternal immune hypothesis, the fraternal birth order effect, sexually antagonistic selection, brain structure homologies between homosexual men and heterosexual women, or even maternal genomic imprinting, but I won't because I am certain you are familiar with all of that.

Honestly though, I can't figure out why you are so vitriolic towards me. I have had a look back at my previous posts and I think, perhaps, it has something to do with my mistake in saying "homosexuality is exclusively a genetic phenomenon." The internet tends to bring out the most hyperbolic in people, and what I should have said is that homosexuality is predominately a biological phenomenon. So if this margin of error is what you have been so heartless in trying to point out then I concede the argument in your favour. However, your position (and you can correct me if I am wrong) seems to be one which holds either a complete rejection to the biological point of view or one which places a much larger emphasis on learning than the standard corpus of nature theories permit, both of which, in light of the evidence, are completely untenable positions to hold.

no , it says it doesn't explain evidence. You sure seem to know how to complicate what is rather simple. Current findings do not explain evidence means there is no substantial conclusion ergo no consensus. It really is not that hard and hardly worth the novel you just wrote .

I did read the article. It does not provide any hint of the consensus you seem to think exists.

I have not posited any theory. You also misquote me stating I said homosexuality is learned and that i claim it isn't natural. Rather frustrating to have a discussion when you don't seem to listen. I only replied to your haste reply to which you found what I said shocking because the scientific community has spoken. They haven't. They are not even close. There is no real consensus and that is all i've stated. This is what your article also states in a round about way,

So just stop. You are quite annoying and I wonder perhaps you can put a mute on that particular cognitive process ? Either do a phd in the field you seem to read so much yet retain so little or perhaps refrain from playing scientist as you have some difficulty in being objective basing arguments on articles that are not studies and so on.

So what precisely is your argument? That I am wrong and the preponderance of evidence doesn't support biology as the main controlling factor in homosexuality? And that there is currently a stalemate between scientists in the so-called nature and nurture view? Is that what you are suggesting?




Maybe these will humble you.

Bailey, J. M. & Pillard, R.C. (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation.

Bailey, J. M., Pillard, R. C., Neale, M. C., & Agyei, Y. (1993). Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women.

Whitam, F. L., Diamond, M., & Martin, J. (1993). Homosexual orientation in twins: A report on 61 pairs and three triplet sets.

Bailey, J. M., Dunne, M. P., & Martin, N. G. (2000). Genetic and Environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample.

Pool, R. (1993). Evidence for homosexuality gene.

Bocklandt, S., Horvath, S., Vilain, E., & Hamer, D. H. (2006). Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men.

Mustanski, B. S., Dupree, M. G., Nievergelt, C. M., Bocklandt, S., Schork, N. J., & Hamer, D. H. (2005). A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation.

Blanchard, R. (2004). Quantitative and theoretical analyses of the relation between older brothers and homosexuality in men.

Blanchard, R., Cantor, J. M., Bogaert, A. F., Breedlove, S. M., & Ellis, L. (2006). Interaction of fraternal birth order and handedness in the development of male homosexuality.

Read them, and then talk to me.


P.S. The only firm conclusion the article comes to is that the given body of evidence supporting a biological explanation does not account for every type of homosexuality. The stuff it doesn't explain are rare cases of homosexuality like reaction formations against social taboos. But these cases are at the outer extremities of the standard homosexual population and are not representative of the vast majority of its population. I will re-quote the most important sentence by the Controversy editior: "we can immediately answer the first question in the title: yes definitively, homosexuality is natural."

I often practice eyes closed, does help a lot with proprioception, keyboard geography, etc.

That would be a very interesting experiment, to record oneself deaf and blind! I think I'm gonna try it also At my level, I'm sure a piece of music will be a near disaster burt I think I can pull this off musically with scales and arps. I'll let you know the results.

John