How to get really good at Music/Art

[oddstep]

locking racism and genetics together is always a disaster - however an individual's dna has got to have an influence on dexterity, speed of thought and predisposition to learning certain things about the world. otherwise there's no scientific way of explaining evolution and individual difference. the problem is that really huge ill defined ideas like intelligence get linked to a really weakly defined idea of what a gene is - largely because of excitable journalism. A laboratory breeds mice, and tests them for success in navigating a randomly variable maze. They notice that the mice that most rapidly solve the puzzle have a statistically higher than average chance of having version 1 (of 5 versions) of a four hundred and thirty long molecule chain in chromosome 18. The laboratory needs funding, everyone is interested in intelligence, they've found the intelligence gene. Somewhere along the line the statistical nature of the results gets forgotten about.

[Machinesworking]

locking racism and genetics together is always a disaster - however an individual's dna has got to have an influence on dexterity, speed of thought and predisposition to learning certain things about the world. otherwise there's no scientific way of explaining evolution and individual difference.

Uh? yes there is, evolution is a broad subject, but individual differences and the survival of the fittest etc. doesn't always come down to an exceptional "stock" of a given animal, in fact that's relatively rare, genetic mutation doesn't all of a sudden create a faster stronger smarter species, it tends to have a huge amount of mistakes before the successful model is introduced, and with modern society all that is completely utterly in the shitter. We're capable of surviving and reproducing without being the most genetically 'fit'. Consider a couple known facts about human beings, we're all related to a certain strain of Africans, and their genes are the most 'complete', meaning they have all the known traits locked in already. tens of thousands of years of evolution and we're not any further along really than our starting point. When you think about something like evolution you;re talking about hundreds of thousands of years for truly significant changes to take effect. We're all the common model, and the variations are ridiculously slight, but we tend to want to make them HUGE, probably partially to explain to ourselves the financial and cultural inequality and I think largely to justify it. The thing is you really can't start talking about the intellectual or creative superiority of certain people without it becoming dangerous, and with what we know about evolution why are we even bothering? It's pretty obvious that we're not going to find out how to test people for genetic predispositions towards intellectual aptitude or creativity at birth so why are we bothering? Why do we concentrate on this when we know very flatly that we have no real evidence of it?

the problem is that really huge ill defined ideas like intelligence get linked to a really weakly defined idea of what a gene is - largely because of excitable journalism. A laboratory breeds mice, and tests them for success in navigating a randomly variable maze. They notice that the mice that most rapidly solve the puzzle have a statistically higher than average chance of having version 1 (of 5 versions) of a four hundred and thirty long molecule chain in chromosome 18. The laboratory needs funding, everyone is interested in intelligence, they've found the intelligence gene. Somewhere along the line the statistical nature of the results gets forgotten about.

The inadequacies of the funding based model for research is another subject, but IMO scientists at some point just like most people care about their job more than whether they're actually making any real progress.

Consider also, and I really wish people would: what exactly are we going to do with the knowledge that a certain ethnic tribe is genetically superior if it was found out to be the case? What kind of society are you willing to live in? I'm not particularly fond of the dystopian Brave New World model personally, but it's an obvious conclusion to rationalizing and explaining intelligence with genetics.

[regretfullySaid]

Without it being blown out of proportion with general genetics like race, what about hereditary dispositions from immediate family, like inheriting alcoholism/hair color/eyesight, etc - more immediate traits...
I think nurture is the main factor here, but at least when I said genetics I meant more about immediate heredity, not the whole bit.

[acidpenguin]

Nothing crass about it, the idea that you could isolate a gene for intelligence or creativity, that it's a genetic thing, that's pretty much the sum of Eugenics, it's essentially what Eugenics is about. Fascism simply took it to it's unfortunate logical extreme. So far there hasn't been any way to isolate genes for creativity or intelligence, there's little proof on a genetic level of any of that. There is however massive amounts of evidence that nurture (environment, parents peers, healthy diet etc.) plays a major role. Too many times does a family of 160+ IQ types adopt a kid and have that random gene pool kid graduate college at 15 etc. The vast amount of evidence points towards nurture for people born healthy to succeed in life, and we all know about the very recent consequences of Eugenics in practice, 6 million dead jews, 24 million dead russians, 7 million others and 10 million Chinese plus more all in pursuit of the ideal human through blood etc.
I think personally it's all leading nowhere, that the element that makes genius and creativity isn't locked into the genes, and let's face it, that thinking is backed up with evidence, so far they can say without a doubt that nurture makes for success intellectually, creatively etc. So far genetics has come up empty for those esoteric type things, and I often wonder why anyone would want to go down that path mentally anyway? Even mixed in with nurture it's a loaded gun. History proves that.

It's distinctly crass to suggest somebody holds fascist views on eugenics simply because they stated an interest in genetic studies. Also how many times do I have to point out that I believe that genetics in combination with nurture determine how a person turns out before you notice? There is increasing evidence that genetics plays an extremely important part in who we are on every level. We are physical beings and human physicality is influenced massively by our genes, that includes our brains which in turn hugely influences who we are, unless of course you are suggesting some form of duality where 'the self' is some mystical magical entity distinct from our physical aspect. Genetic studies are in their infancy, it's inane to say 'nothing has been proved so nothing will be proved'.

If you want to be an intellectual Luddite go ahead, it's your mind but please stop trying to portray anybody that believes genetics is important as some kind of monster who would condone the massacres carried out by the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.. it's plain fucking offensive, get off your high moral horse a minute.

Do you really think that any indication has ever been given by any society, that mankind is capable of holding out a certain group of people as less than them and being fair about it? I argue about this passionately because I do believe firmly that one of the root evils in this world today is actually an older evil disguised, that it's OK to judge people based on your perceived criteria, to put them on a ladder of importance. There's IMO no way to do that, then say "hey, we're all equal".

A few years back I did a fair bit of work with kids who have physical and learning disabilities, now are you seriously suggesting to me that a guy in his mid twenties with Cerebral Palsy and the mental age of a four year old has been dealt an equal hand in life to you or me? Is he equal physically to Usain Bolt, or intellectually to Stephen Hawking? Of course not and it's stupid to claim otherwise. What matters is that he is given the same rights under law, the same protections and treated with the same dignity and compassion as anybody else. That was my point, don't try to bend it into some veiled desire to euthanise ethnic groups or those who don't have 'smart genes'.

Yes, in the past humans have treated the disadvantaged, or those perceived to be inferior (often on entirely spurious and/or sinister grounds) utterly shittily. Hopefully we can progress as a species.. there are a lot of good people fighting for human rights and trying to ensure we don't enter some Huxleyan dystopia, burying your head in the sand and flapping your hands shouting 'omg the gene nazis are coming' doesn't help anybody.

Admittedly it could all go horribly wrong and Monsanto could take over the world and breed armies of genetically perfect super beings while murdering the rest of us in our sleep. But pretending the issues aren't there, or hoping they will go away if you ignore them (or hoping the science will go away) is utterly naive and one of the things that would play right into the hands of those who want might want to exploit such discoveries for nefarious purposes.

[3dot...]

so science isn't gonna go away huh???
that damn science...always trying to explain everything ! blah !

soul = mind
mind != brain

not all are born the same...
that's pretty obvious to everybody in the room...

genetics have a big part...
but not in the racial term... they carry information through the ages...
tendencies are second nature.. and can also be acquired..
funny thing about humans is... they can work against their own nature if they WANT!

[3dot...]

you said it...
science/the human race is a long way from even comprehending...themselves..

meaning you can only theorize.. and/or believe in concepts..

so high horses for everyone!

[Tone Deft]

without science there will be no Live 9 release.
without Live 9 we can't make music.
if we can't make music we can't get good at it.
please science, give us Live 9 so we can get really good at Music/Art.

[acidpenguin]

soul = mind
mind != brain

That's dualism which really doesn't have any evidence to support it and leads on to religion, not gonna go there.

funny thing about humans is... they can work against their own nature if they WANT!

That's an area of some debate .

[simmerdown]

...glad see its all settled now...whew

[Machinesworking]

It's distinctly crass to suggest somebody holds fascist views on eugenics simply because they stated an interest in genetic studies.

Not what I said. I said Eugenics is the "science" of trying to determine a genetic component to intelligence, and we all know where that went last time mankind went there, sterilizations, and genocide. So yes I am saying you're proposing a viewpoint that the fascists held, that simply cannot be denied.
Whether you believe that mankind is now magically capable of not acting badly on statistics that suggest for instance that -northern Japanese people and Ashkenazi Jews have a higher percentage of genius and middle Africans, and Scotts have lower than average numbers, therefore it's genetic- well that's besides the point, it's a "feeling" with no historical references to back it up. Whether you're of jewish or any other ethnic group that has suffered because of Eugenics based racial profiling is also irrelevant, there are and always has been people of every ethnic group that espouse Eugenics of one form or another. Seriously, I've met plenty of jewish people who thought jews were smarter by ethnicity. That statistics comparable in pseudo science to the Bell Curve proved it, It's depressing really.

Also how many times do I have to point out that I believe that genetics in combination with nurture determine how a person turns out before you notice?

I've never argued against nurture, I'm arguing against your suggestion that genius is "partially" a genetic component, and for that matter do I really have to say that it's in reference to healthy genetically normal average people? Come on?

There is increasing evidence that genetics plays an extremely important part in who we are on every level. We are physical beings and human physicality is influenced massively by our genes, that includes our brains which in turn hugely influences who we are, unless of course you are suggesting some form of duality where 'the self' is some mystical magical entity distinct from our physical aspect. Genetic studies are in their infancy, it's inane to say 'nothing has been proved so nothing will be proved'.

There is great amounts of evidence that genetics plays a role in susceptibility to disease, muscle development, all kinds of things like that, but there has never been any real evidence that any strain of mankind is particularly gifted. In fact that's one thing that Eugenics more or less set out to prove, then pretty much disproved. There is more genetic variation and difference within a race or ethnicity than the differences between races and ethnicities. Now why do you suppose that is? It would on an evolutionary level make more sense if there was major differences, but reality is we're all a lot closer related than we used to think. DNA testing has traced us all back to a part of northern Africa, and the people there have all known variations of DNA, it's all in there, pale, blond hair, short, redhead etc. all of it. So we haven't actually changed much in a really really long time. In fact with modern society we aren't really forcing the hand of chance at all anymore. No "lesser" strain gets eliminated, and really we don't have anything wot worry about we're doing great survival wise.

If you want to be an intellectual Luddite go ahead, it's your mind but please stop trying to portray anybody that believes genetics is important as some kind of monster who would condone the massacres carried out by the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.. it's plain fucking offensive, get off your high moral horse a minute.

Your talking about and espousing science that hasn't proven anything that its tried to yet, but it has been used by racists and monsters.
Again, there is mountains of evidence that nurture is vastly important to the development of intellectual and creative people, and literally nothing of substance to prove a genetic component in regular healthy babies. Here's the clincher though, there is absolutely no way to separate nature from nurture to get any meaningful results favoring nature, but it's obvious that nurture plays a role. I do not think it's even close to being a luddite to point out the simple fact that these studies have very little real ground to stand on. They can't even do basic studies on a test group, because nurture can be very different in the same family unit and forcing a baby from a healthy high functioning family into a horrible life to prove this is beyond sick.

What matters is that he is given the same rights under law, the same protections and treated with the same dignity and compassion as anybody else. That was my point, don't try to bend it into some veiled desire to euthanise ethnic groups or those who don't have 'smart genes'.

I worked with the developmentally disabled as well, and you should know that they simply do not have the same rights as you or me. I'm very happy there's no euthanasia lobby for sure, but they aren't allowed the kind of freedom we have. Maybe the mildly mentally handicapped, but the more handicapped the more caged. You know that. Yes it's more or less the right thing to do, but to a large degree I think the severely handicapped are housed and taken care of because we don't want to end up monsters, again.

Yes, in the past humans have treated the disadvantaged, or those perceived to be inferior (often on entirely spurious and/or sinister grounds) utterly shittily. Hopefully we can progress as a species.. there are a lot of good people fighting for human rights and trying to ensure we don't enter some Huxleyan dystopia, burying your head in the sand and flapping your hands shouting 'omg the gene nazis are coming' doesn't help anybody.

Again, having a problem with pseudo science like trying to separate nature from nurture isn't burying your head in the sand, ignoring history in favor of your own wishes and desires for a utopian future is.

Admittedly it could all go horribly wrong and Monsanto could take over the world and breed armies of genetically perfect super beings while murdering the rest of us in our sleep. But pretending the issues aren't there, or hoping they will go away if you ignore them (or hoping the science will go away) is utterly naive and one of the things that would play right into the hands of those who want might want to exploit such discoveries for nefarious purposes.

I've never argued against studies, I've argued against the relevance of such studies and the obvious emotional attachment mankind has to the idea of the genetic component of genius.

Consider this as well, modern ideas on how the brain works have passed on by the old stoner common conception that we only use 90% of the brain. It's been a while since I read up on the studies, but basically they now think that the brain sort of dynamically stores information at all kinds of backup locations. It explains why a person whose motor cortex area of the brain can be destroyed, then a couple years later after rigorously retraining they can walk again. It also helps to explain how a person can retrain their brain to do amazing things and how for instance Einstein could almost fail math early in life. IMO it also points out that we're capable of a lot more. Maybe not as much as the hippies bonging out and thinking about that 90% thought, but enough to also make the nature/nurture debate veer again towards nurture.

The question I have for you and all those who give nature a role in genius etc. is why you think it's an important area to study? or even has relevance. Knowing what we do about nurture and the absolute inability for science to separate out that component, even slightly, why are we still attached to the idea that we can isolate the smart gene?

[Tone Deft]

I guess it's not over...

[3dot...]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 125720.htm

[regretfullySaid]

http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA1 ... ene999.php

[3dot...]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... vyKM6uz_2g

http://books.google.co.il/books?id=yA8T ... &q&f=false

[pencilrocket]

I would say that there is nothing that can be equal. You may find two individuals who actually put in 10k hours practice time, but there are so many other determining factors that control how much mastery over your chosen instrument your obtain, greatness or legendary status aside. Playing an instrument is a massive multitasking operation which challenges motor skills, listening skills, counting skills and comprehension skills. The abilities or inabilities of the body and mind through developmental stages shows up very easily how disadvantaged some people are over others. Yes, through massive effort you can make some gains over your personal limitations, but it is all within the context of your personal make up. The way you are 'wired' has built in limits. Some people are 'wired' in a way that they can very easily access, control and nurture their development, not only in music but in many areas of their lives. Others simply cannot.

gjm,
The way you describe music is like it's a chess match, there is no such thing as luck in Chess, only mistakes. You lose by making the wrong moves. Music is not that clinical.
Music is an art form, art while having some rules doesn't have to follow them, this applies to the people who like art as well. We don't have to like the most famous artist, or the most technically skilled, and "the most creative" is to a large degree subjective. What you emphasize is this technical side, then seemingly mesh it into the creative side with indications that you think the creative process is a genetic component.

Yes people can be gaged to a degree on muscle dexterity even after hours of practice. No, you can't and shouldn't make any judgement on that persons ability creatively because of their muscle dexterity. Outstanding technical skill is great for a classical violinist, and in the modern age, not necessary, in fact it's never been necessary for the creative side. We've always had pen and paper, and now we have these computer things. Personally I'm always writing things that are on the edge of what I can actually play as a mediocre keyboard player, and I have no problem with that, it's as it should be. We live in a time when if you had it in you to create music and ended up in a chair as a quadriplegic you could still write.

Just saying, again, technical skill does not equal creativity, it helps of course, but it's not an indicator. Plenty of great classical musicians who cannot write, not even simple compositions. Plenty of musicians with limited physical dexterity on their instruments who manage to be creative.

True. But in classical snobbery world, as you described, you are not allowed to make mistake. All needed are skill and perfection in real time playing. If you don't have them, you are judged the man who has no ability in 'music' (not player), even if this judging method is NOT scientific.