|
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
69 members (Abdulrohmanoman, Charles Cohen, accordeur, BWV846, Animisha, benkeys, Anglagard44, 12 invisible),
2,309
guests, and
436
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601 |
....the null hypothesis is assumed to be true from the beginning because it states no change in the system....therefore the null hypothesis does not need to be "proved". It's how things are by default. Then you're doing nothing more than playing games with words. (And believe me, when I say it's just playing games with words, it's playing games with words.) Just to refresh memories, we're talking about: "Being a master pianist does not imply any kind of significant gain in a composite IQ score." It looks like you're saying that there isn't any significant gain (i.e. over the mean). The alternative is that you're saying nothing there. I don't think you'd prefer that. BTW, you haven't addressed the things I said in my detailed post, including especially about how "evidence" isn't proof, it's just a step toward it; and that the data you cited is only about college majors, not professional pianists. But I see that your style isn't to address things, it's just to assert one invalid thing after another.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 990
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 990 |
@JoelW Ummm, you really don't understand hypothesis testing. It works on the "failure to reject" mechanism. This is why the null hypothesis is axiomatically true. You do not have to "test both claims". Sorry, but your understanding of this is just not right. It looks like you're saying that there isn't any significant gain (i.e. over the mean).
Exactly. ...again failing to understand the sampling mechanism among other things. What I have presented is the only evidence in this entire argument. You have none. What makes this more hilarious, is that I do not "bear the burden" of proof because I am resting on the null hypothesis (which is true) that there exists no correlation. data you cited is only about college majors, not professional pianists.
...ugh...if you understood the stats concepts I mentioned earlier, you would realize that statement doesn't matter.
"A good intention but fixed and resolute - bent on high and holy ends, we shall find means to them on every side and at every moment; and even obstacles and opposition will but make us 'like the fabled specter-ships,' which sail the fastest in the very teeth of the wind." R. W. Emerson
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601 |
It looks like you're saying that there isn't any significant gain (i.e. over the mean).
Exactly. Thank you for clarifying. That means it's not the "null hypothesis." As Joel as been saying, it's a claim. Now that you've more than self-destructed .....good bye.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 990
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 990 |
@Mark_C Lol, it's still not a claim, and it's still a null hypothesis because it is the current state of things (no change in the system). I know some kids in these courses struggle, but you really must have had a hard time.
"A good intention but fixed and resolute - bent on high and holy ends, we shall find means to them on every side and at every moment; and even obstacles and opposition will but make us 'like the fabled specter-ships,' which sail the fastest in the very teeth of the wind." R. W. Emerson
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,651
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,651 |
Also, not once have I tried to explain musical ideas to anyone here. I wouldn't even dare to. You know why? Because I have little knowledge about things like that, and I can provide little to no value in a discussion about melodic lines, etc.
So, you're saying that you're not intelligent enough to discuss things musical. Since musicians, according to you, aren't very intelligent I have to wonder where this leaves you.
"And if we look at the works of J.S. Bach — a benevolent god to which all musicians should offer a prayer to defend themselves against mediocrity... -Debussy
"It's ok if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right."
♪ ≠$
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 990
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 990 |
@stores Lol, pretty obvious pseudo-logic there bud
"A good intention but fixed and resolute - bent on high and holy ends, we shall find means to them on every side and at every moment; and even obstacles and opposition will but make us 'like the fabled specter-ships,' which sail the fastest in the very teeth of the wind." R. W. Emerson
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,651
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,651 |
@stores Lol, pretty obvious pseudo-logic there bud Whatever. YOU are the one that said you're not intelligent enough to add anything to a musical discussion... twasn't I.
"And if we look at the works of J.S. Bach — a benevolent god to which all musicians should offer a prayer to defend themselves against mediocrity... -Debussy
"It's ok if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right."
♪ ≠$
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 990
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 990 |
@stores You're a strange fellow mate
"A good intention but fixed and resolute - bent on high and holy ends, we shall find means to them on every side and at every moment; and even obstacles and opposition will but make us 'like the fabled specter-ships,' which sail the fastest in the very teeth of the wind." R. W. Emerson
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 6,177
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 6,177 |
Arty's, the null hypothesis isn't some objective truth in the universe. It's simply an assumption for the sake of experiment, until evidence indicates otherwise. It is only useful during experimentation. How do you not get that? You asserted that there is no correlation between high intelligence and musical mastery. This is a claim.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 990
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 990 |
@JoelW That's just not correct. The null hypothesis is no change. No change means no correlation has been identified. No correlation is the current state of the system. You may have fallen victim to the infamous confusion people sometimes have between accepting the null hypothesis and failing to reject the null hypothesis.
"A good intention but fixed and resolute - bent on high and holy ends, we shall find means to them on every side and at every moment; and even obstacles and opposition will but make us 'like the fabled specter-ships,' which sail the fastest in the very teeth of the wind." R. W. Emerson
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 6,372
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 6,372 |
Let's put it simply:
Professional pianists are generally intelligent - it takes a level of intelligence to learn, perform and memorize all that music for starters, and music is an intellectual as well as artistic endeavour. I don't think that musicians are more intelligent than other people just because we are musicians - or that we have gone into music because we are more intelligent. I know many intelligent people - from the highly intellectual to those that have been endowed with huge amounts of common sense and I would say that there are some musicians that exhibit above average intelligence and some below.
It's true that musicians are more likely to grasp foreign languages and have good arithmetic, and do intricate precise work under pressure, and meet hideous deadlines and perform some superhuman technical feats, but then I know quite a few people who are not musicians who have this level of intellect.
Sometimes it's a bit like this : learn Rach three in six weeks - no problem. Manage the household bills and grocery shopping - not a chance
YAMAHA Artist
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 990
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 990 |
@JoelW Were you born in 1995? No wonder you don't understand these things...you haven't taken the courses that teach them properly yet..
"A good intention but fixed and resolute - bent on high and holy ends, we shall find means to them on every side and at every moment; and even obstacles and opposition will but make us 'like the fabled specter-ships,' which sail the fastest in the very teeth of the wind." R. W. Emerson
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601 |
BTW, maybe not a bad idea to remind ourselves that this is the guy who thought the article about supposedly giving people perfect pitch with a neurological/psychiatric medication was real good. (Joel, you're doing good.)
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 6,177
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 6,177 |
Okay, I understand why saying "accepting the null hypothesis" is incorrect now. I'd like to flip this whole thing on its head and say that the null hypothesis is this:
Being a master pianist does imply a significant gain in a composite IQ score.
I make this assumption because I've never met a masterful musician that didn't exhibit an above-average intellect. The most pragmatic option is to assume that most masterful musicians have higher-level intellects. Until I meet a significant percentage of truly masterful musicians whose minds don't shine, my null hypothesis remains true. No?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 109
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 109 |
@JoelW That's just not correct. The null hypothesis is no change. No change means no correlation has been identified. No correlation is the current state of the system. You may have fallen victim to the infamous confusion people sometimes have between accepting the null hypothesis and failing to reject the null hypothesis. I'd like to shift this argument to a more philosophical ground. Basically you claim that we are extremely dogmatic(saying that there's a link between intelligence and musicianship) and that your dogma that IQ IS intelligence we should accept a priori. Hegel can be useful here namely that the universality/essence of 'intelligence' is never revealed and that there only partial semblances of it - IQ, driving a car, climbing a mountain, writing poetry, doing calculations). In it's core any human activity can be directly linked to intelligence - it being defined here by the activity of solving the problem of mapping written(musical) structure to cognition and so on. You prioritize one semblance over the others and claim it IS the universal. Hegel's deeper point is that you have to search for universality in negation namely - The thing that is NOT intelligence would define intelligence as such. In this line of thought the null hypothesis you parade around is inherently not neutral. It already presupposes some structure of reality.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,565
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,565 |
The entire premise of this "discussion" is rubbish. Are we really trying to say that an arts and/or music major and any other major can have their IQ scores compared in order to determine the link between high level pianists and IQ? How many of the any other majors are highly skilled pianists? Does that not cause a problem here? The premise is flawed and it makes the undeniable evidence irrelevant. I would make the claim that the difference between your average self-described professional pianist and a highly skilled amateur is not significant enough to conclude anything about IQ. But if you really wanted to discuss only the most skilled and successful professional pianists, it would be foolish to claim anything other than they must be highly intelligent. If they were at the top of the food chain of plumbers they would also be highly intelligent in my book. This doesn't even begin to get into the problematic definition of intelligence.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 215
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 215 |
Atrys,
I have been impressed with your dogged explanation of your position. And I am ready to fully accept your position, however, there is just one point which I need to have clarified, if you will please help me understand.
The cited study included a group of arts students, those who wanted to be "master musicians", yet you are extrapolating this to a group which is not a group of arts students. How do you make that jump?
How do get from the results of the larger set defining what the results of a very small sub-set will be? If the larger set included anybody who might want to be a master musician, regardless of the potential to be, how is that this study measures the results and defines the parameters of the very small sub-set which actually accomplishes this goal? Explain this and I will buy your arguments.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 502
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 502 |
It seems pragmatically obvious to me that the more "things" you can do well and understand the greater your intellignence.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956 |
Atrys,
I have been impressed with your dogged explanation of your position. And I am ready to fully accept your position, however, there is just one point which I need to have clarified, if you will please help me understand.
The cited study included a group of arts students, those who wanted to be "master musicians", yet you are extrapolating this to a group which is not a group of arts students. How do you make that jump?
How do get from the results of the larger set defining what the results of a very small sub-set will be? If the larger set included anybody who might want to be a master musician, regardless of the potential to be, how is that this study measures the results and defines the parameters of the very small sub-set which actually accomplishes this goal? Explain this and I will buy your arguments. I'd like him to stop evading the question and explain this as well !!
|
|
|
|
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:34 PM
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:23 PM
|
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,405
Posts3,349,434
Members111,637
|
Most Online15,252 Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|