Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Are professional pianists highly intelligent?

Aryts,

Please, I asked an honest question. If you want to use statistics to justify your position you have to be able to explain how the number were arrived at and all of their components. This is fundamental. And you need to answer the questions without becoming demeaning towards the questioner. If you cannot answer this question then it pretty much invalidates everything you have said so far.

The only problem here is that you don't actually know if the musicians you met had above average intellect. Us perceiving higher intellect doesn't work as data, we need numbers.


Once again, you have no evidence.


First off: even if the data could not be used to make the extrapolation, it doesn't matter, because still no one has any evidence that master pianists are highly intelligent. Anyways, you can make the jump because these IQs are averages (or means) with acute categorical sampling. If you couple this with the standard deviation, the data is very finely organized. This means that the intersection of the set of majors we are looking at with a set of master pianists is not the null set. However, understand that this is said with only some level of confidence as a reasonable claim. For example, I am not saying that this data works as hard numbers for master pianists, I'm saying that it may be used to extrapolate from.

But again, none of that even matters! Why? Because still no one has any evidence that master pianists are highly intelligent, and that is the only claim that needs to be supported.

So far, to the best of our knowledge with the evidence we have, there is no reason to believe that master pianists are "highly intelligent".

That would explain a lot, actually.

I have a friend who is developmentally disabled, both physically and mentally, but he is a fine professional musician.

Holy christ, you really don't have the capacity to carry on a constructive, evidence-based discussion do you? By the way, you never provided convincing evidence of your silly claims in that thread either. All you ever do is make a crazy claim, then whine like a baby when someone asks you to support it

I wasn't going to reply to this, but just to make sure nobody reading this thread is confused, this "hypothesis test" is utter BS. When comparing averages, one does not wave their hands and say "ooh look, the hypothesis I don't like isn't more than 2 standard deviations away; that must mean the one I like is true."

You formulate a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis such that they are mutually exclusive. Then using certain statistics from your data (sample mean, population mean, standard deviation for Z-tests; sample standard deviation for t-tests) you calculate a test statistic, look at the appropriate table (Z or t), and also decide on a significance level (below which one rejects the null hypothesis). Then the simplest thing to do is draw this data into a plot of your distribution. If the calculated test statistic falls below the significance level, then you may have grounds for rejecting it in favor of the alternative. Otherwise you do not have evidence to reject it. Period.

Also, one must consider what statistical assumptions are being made, e.g. if we are assuming that our random variables are independent, etc. Incorrect assumptions here will make any hypothesis test based on them invalid.

Not to mention the laundry list of logical fallacies being committed...he's consistently denying the antecedent, arguing from silence, fallacy of composition, false dilemma, fallacy of division, faulty generalizations, etc. Need I say more? This person cannot be taken seriously.

@Horowitzian
More claims and nonsense that are totally unsupported by any evidence. Nice job

I encourage you (and everyone) to understand hypothesis testing more thoroughly, even though it is not needed to understand the data (it just helps).

So it doesn't matter if your evidence is inadequate as long as we know that we haven't provided any evidence? You are the only one looking for hard evidence. Nobody else is looking for this. So your own evidence is no good and you want to require us to come up with evidence that satisfies you? You will be waiting for a very long time.



And there's no reason to believe they are not. It's just a discussion. You've added your input, including your link to an unremarkable 'study'. There's no need to champion that study as if it's definitive. It says very little and it has been given more attention than it deserves. Common sense says that a master pianist is quite likely "highly intelligent." Most people would feel this way. It would take significant proof on YOUR part to show that this is NOT true.

You have failed to provide adequate proof for many reasons. I assure you that the main reason for your failure is not that everyone else is too dumb to get basic statistics. You are not the only one capable of understanding this. Don't you think that would be quite odd? Or do you think you are really that smart that only you get it?

Even if you were that smart, what value is that knowledge in a real world environment where you are utterly incapable of explaining it to anyone. I don't know why I made this post because you will just cherry-pick the quotes that suit your goal of winning for winning's sake. Put down the stats book and grab yourself a drink.

Yet supported by one of those undergraduate statistics courses you were going on about earlier. I don't know where you studied this stuff (nor do I care), but it's obvious to me that you grossly misunderstood and twisted whatever you were taught. And if this is what you were taught, I seriously feel sorry for you.

As to the fallacies, all one needs to do is read through your posts starting with the first one.

Sorry, I don't think I follow.

As for the rest of your post, you're not understanding how a proposition works. Only if there is evidence to support the claim can the claim be considered to have any truth. So far, there is no evidence to support the claim, therefore the claim cannot be considered to have any truth. The answer to the OP question is: "From what we know so far, there is no reason to believe so."

@Horowitzian
If I "misunderstood" any of these stats concepts, I wouldn't have gotten the grades that I did...

Even if, for the sake of argument, I did not provide any evidence, there is still no evidence to support the original claim. Therefore the claim has no merit (yet).

Oho, now we're appealing to a college transcript that none of us have knowledge of. Nice try.


"If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop diggin'"

@Horowitzian
Yes...I am an engineering major and they hand out degrees to students who receive F marks on their upper division courses...lol? You still haven't produced any evidence

This is what I'm saying. Evidence is not going to be produced. I don't know why you keep asking for it.

That's fine All that means is that there is no merit to the claim! So long as that is understood, we're all on the same page...

Probably to bolster his inferiority complex since those darn physics and math students tend to have higher IQ scores than engineering students.

@Horowitzian
You seem upset. Sorry that your confirmation bias is getting in the way, but sniping like that is just hilarious when used as a defense mechanism

Upset? I'm laughing my arse off. You come into this thread, claim that the original premise of the thread is false, and provide some half-baked numbers to "support" yourself. Then to distract us from the fact that there is no substance to your arguments, you commit onus probandi. Despite numerous people asking you to provide some meaningful proof of your position, you continue to demand evidence from us. The burden of proof is clearly on you; trying to shift it onto us isn't fooling anyone.
.

@Horowitzian
I'm not shifting anything. The evidence is there. Just look at it Also, I've already said that even if I did not provide any evidence at all, the original claim has no merit because it is not supported by anything. I'm willing to sacrifice my evidence for the sake of argument, but even then, the original claim is still not supported.

LOL.