reasons pop music is popular
>pic related
how nice and relatable the world and its people have to be when you're in that dark blue area.
It's catchy to people
>>64368230
i wouldnt know
>>64368231
literally memetic virus
if you mean, like, top 40 stuff, i believe it has a lot to do with the established hierarchies of the music industry and the fact that everything that's marketed aggressively enough will sell.
>>64368195
OP please rec us blue people aoty so far
>>64368641
Matmos - Ultimate Care II (2016)
>>64368195
Important and underrated as a causal factor IQ is, this is not really true. My IQ is 90 and it doesn't affect my enjoyment of good music. I just don't remember it -- the melodies fly far above my head and I discover each of my favourite pieces anew, and I can never learn music theory. But I have successfully come to dislike most music.
>>64368195
holy fucking shit you are dumb. i only hope for you this is bait
>>64368776
holy shit you're comment is even dumber
>>64368195
>duuuuuuude this IQ test i look on a totally legitimate site says I have an IQ score higher than Einstein. Why is pop and rap garbage xD :D (I need to fulfill my ego with meaningless numbers that attach my self worth to an outdated test that somehow encompasses all the facets of knowledge)
>>64368699
lol, and you would be patrician high QI? Matmos and Tim Hecker and you feel special and diverse?
Do yourself a favour: abandon Scruffy and listen to some real under-the-radar good music.
>>64368800
>high IQ
lad you asked for blue AOTY tbf
>>64368795
>you're comment
This is bait.
>>64368798
cool projection faggot
>>64368798
IQ is in no way meaningless. It is the single most important predictor of success (in areas ranging from social success to health) in existence. You cannot find a better one that's not basically g (highly correlated with it) anyway.
>>64368795
yes it is but at least i know i'm dumb
>>64368832
Read better. High QI doesn't imply alphabetism I guess :^]
IQ does not correlate with taste but understanding what parts of a song make it interesting and how different types of music appeal to different people. You can really see it on this board. Majority people just greentext and fedora post to critique music or have a conversation but every now and then you run into someone who can actually make sense and hold a non-autistic conversation
>>64368849
>It is the single most important predictor of success (in areas ranging from social success to health) in existence.
>>64368853
sexist
Ok OP, now we get it! You do are special and lie in the tail of this distribution...sadly, it's the left one :'(
OP we want your aotysf
What. If pop music wasn't popular it wouldn't be pop music.
I don't understand this thread.
>>64368903
Your ignorance is expected.
IQ -- your reply would be -- fails to ensure 100% success in, for a common example, 'street smarts'. It fails to ensure -- you would smugly bring up -- that someone successfully handles a mugger, or manages to find proper treatment for a sudden illness. The 'IQ is not everything' fallacy. Obviously. And this is obviously irrelevant. Blaming a protective factor for failing to ensure 100% success and happiness in every field imaginable absolutely every time is as childish as only in bashing of IQ is tolerated and approved. But it is only IQ that elevates the chance of success in each of millions of such predicaments, ranging from a car crash to a con to a divorce to a forest fire to a dancing competition to... Of course it doesn't ensure; that's a plebeian term betraying binary thinking. But there is nowhere near a factor so ubiquitous, so penetrating every area of life. So to comfort themselves in face of this and deny the role of IQ nonetheless, people have invented free will and the tautological fallacy of effort: 'you can still achieve a good, safe life, you just need to try hard enough'.
But enough lecture -- they are thoroughly pointless.
>>64368195
How's life on the left side going, op?
>>64369070
If this isn't bait you should consider drowning yourself
>>64369070
legitimately keked
>>64368900
you sure?
let's say i have an IQ of 160, and i believe my taste in music only comes down to my subjective values.
How will my IQ not influence what i believe is subjectively right or wrong, boring or interesting? and are you sure IQ dosen't have a say on how much you consciously pay attention to certain things?
>>64369070
best meme of 2017 so far
>>64369153
You are right. It absolutely does affect taste, because artistic appreciation is largely detection of familiar patterns (genres, progressions) being creatively adapted/fused, and memory and detection of patterns is literally IQ. It's just like with literature. Low IQ people don't read because the descriptions, either representing real life or technical, don't evoke accurate associations and digressions, 'this phrase follows from that one', 'this phrase reminds me of that one I found somewhere else'.
>>64369019
tippingintensifies.gif
>>64369226
There is just no way perception of the truth should affect my willingness to say it.
>>64369019
>Blaming a protective factor for failing to ensure 100% success and happiness in every field imaginable absolutely every time is as childish
Are you even arguing with me or are you contempt with using a strawman?
>tfw smarter than ~98% of the population
>>64368195
>>64369273
But still posting on 4chan?
>>64369070
>listen to extreme metal
>120
It's right
>>64369243
What the hell does that even mean?
>>64369273
you wish lmao you're on 4chan
>>64369270
Those newfag mistakes... I forget them every time I leave 4chan for a time...
No, anon, this is not a strawman. Complaints of strawmanning are pointless on an imageboard and betray a fundamental misunderstanding of how they are supposed to work, and you still think you are a person with an identity instead of Anonymous.
>>64369418
(Namely, the very idea of Anonymous is to obsolete the idea of proving a single person right and wrong, and instead reduce discussion to provision of facts and sources. Every single piece of information should be considered and verified separately. So if a post making a claim A is replied to with a claim C refuting a claim B, author A complaining that he didn't say B makes no sense, because he's egoistically, irrelevantly bringing his identity to the table, derailing the discussion in a 'tripfag-in-disguise' manner so to say.)
>>64369418
>>64369510
In other words, some people are only Anonymous in name, but still talk as if propagation of what exactly they said and where were the most important thing in the thread.
>>64369292
lmao
>>64369292
>jazz below pop
Science confirms what I knew for years.
>>64368699
>anon asked for AOTY
>still put (2016) next to the album
Are you sure you're in that section?
>>64369671
>SAT results
>science
>>64369704
Not very scientific of you to arbitrarily reject sources.
>>64369731
Burden of proof isn't on me though
>>64369292
>gospel that low
kek
>>64369771
It is. You made the initial claim.
>>64369771
So what do you even complain of, purported unreliability of the findings or unavailability of its source?
>>64369418
>>64369510
>>64369555
What's the point?
>>64369815
Burden of proof is on the person who thinks SAT is scientific, no?
CBA anyway. I don't think the list was meant to be taken seriously from the beginning anyway.
>>64369863
>Burden of proof is on the person who thinks SAT is scientific, no?
Not really. Did you really think he literally meant "SAT is science!" or that SAT scores is a way to measure intelligence (aka "scientific")
>>64369510
But this is a music board. We are discussing art, which is inherently dependent on the subjective experience and interpretations of the listener. The context of the statement (identity, background, experience) is valuable to understand the quality of the post.
>>64370022
>Le music is pure subjectivity meme
nice try, guy
>>64368195
There is actually no scientific support for this. Plenty of people with 140 iq listen to Katy Perry.
No, the music you like has to do with
-political beliefs
-thirst for novel experiences
-interpersonal morals
-philosophical attitudes
-wisdom
-intelligence
None of these categories are sliding scales. They are all their own 3d model, if you will.
>>64370084
How is it not?
>>64369933
>Did you really think he literally meant "SAT is science!" or that SAT scores is a way to measure intelligence (aka "scientific")
That person here. Yes, I did. SAT is a measurement, a relationship between a phenomenon and a numeric value, a f(x). Measurements of intelligence are such measurements as well. Reliability and validity are continuous qualities; their measurements in turn in no way affect the scientific nature of the above two. It's a very, very glaring mistake to arbitrarily cut off certain findings because of arbitrary pseudostandards of r. and v. There is no place for arbitrariness in thinking.
>>64368849
>It is the single most important predictor of success (in areas ranging from social success to health) in existence.
hahahaha u absolute fucking spaz i dont want to believe this is bait cause its hilarious
sad shit
>>64370133
>That person here. Yes, I did
Why do still think you are a person with an identity instead of Anonymous? Namely, the very idea of Anonymous is to obsolete the idea of proving a single person right and wrong, and instead reduce discussion to provision of facts and sources. Every single piece of information should be considered and verified separately. So if a post making a claim A is replied to with a claim C refuting a claim B, author A complaining that he didn't say B makes no sense, because he's egoistically, irrelevantly bringing his identity to the table, derailing the discussion in a 'tripfag-in-disguise' manner so to say
>>64370022
Way to miss the point.
I was obviously not questioning the fact that there's a point in providing personal details, such as the poster's background. That's obviously useful. Was I was saying is that it's pointless to squabble over who said what. For instance, for one poster to cry indignantly that 'he' was by mistake attributed with 'someone else's' point in a thread and expect a correction, as though those things mattered in the long term and not just truth and verifiability of all claims, whether they are general rules or personal data.
>>64370201
...What I described in that post and in >>64370232 does not require me not to use personal pronouns, you idiot.
I know this is bait, but this is cringeworthy bait. I'm out.
>>64370103
>Plenty of people with 140 iq listen to Katy Perry.
Plenty of people use anecdotal evidence.
>>64369019
IQ is meant to measure your ability to use logic. But it doesn't encompass other aspects of intelligence.
You're a proof of that, because, while trying to sound smart you spout some Elliot Rodger-ish narcisism and you make it evident that you relly on outdated deterministic points of view like it's a universal law. You come off as some autistic egomaniac and people don't listen to that shit.
>But enough lecture -- they are thoroughly pointless.
Same to you pal, case in point: you can't accept other points of view. Get off your little, hermetic universe.
>>64370282
Okay, master debator. But it still stands, IQ is one of many factors that influence music tastes.
I just took a poop, would you like to smell it?
>>64370258
>does not require me not to use personal pronouns
So absolute anonymity should only be used... when it suits you best?
>I'm out.
Good riddance .
I recommend you work on skills to recognize visual social cues.
>>64370160
When you wish your child to be healthy and happy and smart, you are in reality wishing them a high IQ. It has just come to be that upon hearing this, you recoil at the letters 'IQ', and are politically compelled to say 'that's bullshit, you can be healthy and happy and smart without IQ', whether attributing that meaningless claim to free will ('my child can just work hard!'), or irrelevant exceptions ('I know a stupid person who...'). But reality remains as it is and causality still flows from IQ.
>>64370122
Consider the following scenario
>guy brings you a replica of beethoven's 9th that he "wrote"
>Hey dude check out this revolutionary piece of modern classical music. Aren't I a genius?
>No, you're a retard, that music was written in 1824 by Beethoven. This is an objective fact.
>Whatever dude music is all subjective you're a pleb
Consider the next scenario
>Dude brings you a replica of beethoven's 9th spliced together half way with a replica of beethoven's 5th.
>Hey guy, check out this revolutionary piece of modern classical music. Aren't I a genius?
>No, you're a retard, that's clearly beethoven's 5th spliced together with beethoven's 9th, both of those pieces were created in the early 19th century and your input is meaningless
>whatever dude, music is just subjective
Consider the third scenario
>Buddy brings you the spliced replica of the 9th and the 5th, except this time the entire piece is played with xylophones.
>check out this legend-- No, you're a retard, etc.
>>64370329
>IQ is meant to measure your ability to use logic.
IQ is not 'meant' to measure anything, you idiot. It is a measurement with vast external validity, and it is that very external validity that pinpointed it -- g -- in the sense of constructing tests. IQ tests have not been created to measure some 'narrow' kind of particular ability, the way you fancy. Instead, they have been perfected to capture the factor that has concurrently been found to predict the most far-reaching real life outcomes.
>But it doesn't encompass other aspects of intelligence.
You're not even aware you're making no sense. Read about ability intercorrelation.
>>64370475
>Consider the following scenario
>>guy brings you a replica of beethoven's 9th that he "wrote"
>>Hey dude check out this revolutionary piece of modern classical music. Aren't I a genius?
>>No, you're a retard, that music was written in 1824 by Beethoven. This is an objective fact.
>>Whatever dude music is all subjective you're a pleb
This is misdirection. If it's good or not is subjective, which is what we are talking about.
>Consider the next scenario
See above.
>Consider the third scenario
See above.
Try again?
>>64370523
I just gave you an indication of a way that music has objective qualities to it crucial to its enjoyment, and you want me to try again?
IQ has nothing to do with taste in music though
>>64370555
>crucial to its enjoyment
Incorrect,. You can enjoy the piece regardless of who wrote it, Beethoven or your friend.
>>64370475
That's some next level bait or you're just unable to make decent analogies. Maybe that's because your stance about music being objective is actually dumb.
>>64370555
Except your argument isn't related to enjoyment. You could enjoy your friend's replica of 9th as much as Beethoven's original.
>>64370560
It has something to do with taste, but it's one of multiple factors.
>>64370560
The smartest dudes i know listen to greatest hits stuff mostly or don't like music
>>64370662
It doesn't have much to do with intelligence either. I have an IQ in the 120s yet here I am posting on 4chan.
>>64370662
this desu, i'm a fucking dumb ass and I spend all day posting on /mu/ about music I like
>>64370516
G-factor? Jesus. You smell like /sci/ all the way here.
In short, psychometrics haven't reached the point where they can measure something as vast as human intelligence. It requires an approach which goes far more than simple "yes" or "noes".
As i've said, you seem to root into that positivistic attitude.
You're free to believe in what you want and expect the best of it, all I'm pointing out is that you seem narrow minded on these things. You dig far too much into thing which can be proved with simple facts and common sense, such as "why some people with high cognitive habilities (according to your tests) such as Bobby Fischer would spout some nonsensical shit and often lose their ability to act on this realm."
There.
Don't saw my balls off with that fedora in case you get angry at my pseudo-intellectual ramblings with no tautological values. Tips to you.
>>64370589
>>64370604
You wouldn't be admiring the friend's piece, but rather the way that the friend's piece related to the original piece.
If I sat down and put in the vinyl copy of "greg's neoclassical masterpiece", i'd be enjoying Beethoven's 9th, not "Greg's Neo-classical masterpiece", because the 9th came first, and the musical substance is entirely "The 9th".
The substance of "Greg's neoclassical masterpiece" doesn't actually exist, aside from being a "channel" for "Beethoven's 9th"
So in that way I can say that i'm not enjoying "greg's neoclassical masterpiece" in any way.
>>64370878
>You wouldn't be admiring the friend's piece, but rather the way that the friend's piece related to the original piece.
Then you aren't discussing the music, are you? You are in actuality discussing your friend's shenanigans.
>>64370878
The artist of the piece is completely irrelevant to my enjoyment. In the end I'm enjoying "the piece".
>>64370878
>I sat down and put in the vinyl copy of "greg's neoclassical masterpiece", i'd be enjoying Beethoven's 9th, not "Greg's Neo-classical masterpiece", because the 9th came first, and the musical substance is entirely "The 9th".
>The substance of "Greg's neoclassical masterpiece" doesn't actually exist, aside from being a "channel" for "Beethoven's 9th"
It does because you just said you are listening to it on vinyl. Hence you are listening to your freind performing Beethoven's 9th, an original performance.
Are you enjoying it? Whatever your answer is, it's subjective.
>>64370516
Didn't Einstein have an iq so low that they thought he was literally retarded?
Welp, I guess he was never successful due to his low iq.
>>64371235
He was never tested.
Any reference to Einstein's IQ at all is disinformation
>>64371266
I mean, I think he had a pretty damn high one considering his discoveries.
>>64371329
>"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination."
-Albert Einstein.
>>64370710
Please go back to >>64368195
And stop trying to force this meme
>>64371266
nah he just did really badly in school and generally would never speak, the teachers thought he was really stupid because of how little he spoke to people, in reality he was probably what we would now call autistic (in a non 4chan meme way)
>>64371362
dont see how that's related to our discussion but i agree with him i guess
>>64371379
Posted this in the wrong thread, sorry.
>>64371399
>dont see how that's related to our discussion
See >>64368195
>>64368195
YES, because the average guy knows sunn o))), merzbow, sachiko M, the dicklick brigade, burzum, ebilugugugal, lightning bolt and decided that instead of listening to any of those bands he would listen to britney spears, linking park, black sabbath, the beatles.....
>>64370866
>In short, psychometrics haven't reached the point where they can measure something as vast as human intelligence. It requires an approach which goes far more than simple "yes" or "noes".
This is meaningless noise that basically hopes to spook people by planting a vague impression that 'intelligence can't be tested'. Psychometry is a perfectly empirical, objective science.
>"why some people with high cognitive habilities (according to your tests) such as Bobby Fischer would spout some nonsensical shit and often lose their ability to act on this realm"
I pity people who of all audiences choose one that would be swayed by anecdotal evidences.
>>64371329
He was 150 or so.
>>64371362
That's the kind of bullshit that redefines intelligence from objective g to unfalsifiable 'imagination', so that everyone can safely claim to have some sort of imagination and thus intelligence. Trash.
>>64369070
Accurate
>>64369070
>>64369121
someone's mad
>>64371676
>the dicklick brigade
Why did you put that band between all of those? lol
>>64371680
>He was 150 or so.
See >>64371266
That's the kind of bullshit that redefines imagination and creativity into quantifiable "intelligence" so that the pretentious can feel some sort of security in not falling off the pedestal they so carefully created
>>64371680
>Any reference to Einstein's IQ at all is disinformation
>>64371749
'Creativity' and 'imagination' are vague, worthless terms. Note: your use of them does in no way evade or circumvent the 'narrow-minded' empirical framework of scientific discussion. As soon as you identify creativity and imagination in someone and relate it intuitively to genes or environment, you are being scientific, strictly speaking. When you speak of Einstein as a 'deep thinker', you're already doing science by virtue of identifying a measurable trait, such as of 'deepness of thinking'. Except it's a pretty sloppy, careless science.
tl;dr it's not possible to escape science and establish some sort of 'more-open minded mode of discourse' by returning to vague terms; you're, we all are, inherently locked in scientific discourse, and your choice of terms only determines how good -- or how ambiguous -- you are being. So you could just as well get good already.
>>64371772
That's nice and romantic to believe -- 'you can't possibly fathom our most profound brains!' -- but false. It's pretty easy to rank scientists. Some physicists and mathematicians will be 140, the supertop ones will be 170. You'll similarly have novelists of 150 next to 130s, and so on.
>>64371849
>'Creativity' and 'imagination' are vague, worthless terms
Without creativity and imagination, intelligence is useless.
>tl;dr it's not possible to escape science
See >>64370022
>>64371892
Give a citation for Einstein's IQ
>>64369070
D J E N T
J
E
N
T
>>64371892
You literally just said
that you can't judge his iq and any reference to it is disinformation, and now you are actually trying to go damage control.
I literally never use that term (yes, I mean literally)
But this response is genuine damage control.
>>64371916
>Without creativity and imagination, intelligence is useless.
This is garbage. There is no meaningful way in which you can imagine a universe in which intelligence 'is' and creativity/imagination 'isn't'. This claim has no objective sense.
What you're trying to do is connote the age-old cliche that 'an intelligent person who doesn't put their intelligence to use blah blah'. Which is trash as well, because this is an arbitrary scenario in which intelligence fails to co-occur with your notions of creativity and imagination, which evidence shows just does not happen.
tl;dr irredeemably bad bait.
>>64371979
>You literally just said that you can't judge his iq and any reference to it is disinformation
I didn't, that was some other poster. This thread is too retarded for me to follow every post.
>>64371993
>This claim has no objective sense.
A tool is only useful if it's put to use.
>which evidence shows just does not happen.
Show 30 citations proving otherwise.
Also still waiting on your citation regarding Einstein's IQ. You didn't post it. I wonder why?
>>64368849
I see what's happened here. You've made people disagree with the importance of IQ because you (a raging retard) worded it like a smug cunt.
who actually takes a fucking iq test
>>64369070
>IDM not at IQ 145
ya blew it
>>64372013
>I can't follow every post
I thought your iq was pretty high though, through your use of words and pseudo-intellectual speeches, your iq must be in the top 2%
Either that, or you're really good at getting (you)'s
>>64372034
>A tool is only useful if it's put to use.
Ah, so you're too underage to comprehend what I said about you mindlessly parroting tautologies from humanities departments saying that if something that has been found thousands of times since the '50s to coincide with positive life outcomes fails to coincide with those positive life outcomes, then it is useless. Okay.
>>64372034
>citations
>>64372034
>citation
People who are too limited to realize the inherent necessity of extrapolation are as bad as 'don't generalize' retards.
>>64372098
No, it's 90.
>I share a board with these faggots.
>>64372107
>Ah, so you're too underage
Nice ad hominem. Please use your intelligence and construct a valid argument please
>positive life outcomes
Like what?
>extrapolation
Which requires... imagination and creativity.
>>64372107
Correlation =/= causation
Like how race =/= the cause of you stealing someone's bike
as someone in the orange area on the right, i can safely tell you people like it because it sounds pleasant (:
so do i (:
>>64369121
Reggae fan detected
>>64372135
>construct a valid argument
Again?
>Like what?
Have [1], which is like 2% of all relationships found, and fuck off.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_epidemiology
>>64372139
>Correlation =/= causation
Twins reared apart studies.
>>64372122
>iq is 90
>Is in the mid range of the population
>average iq
If you're so average why are you tying so hard to prove your elitism?
You seem like your trying to sound like you have an iq higher than you actually are.
Though, people that have it worse than others usually try to prove themselves better.
>>64368798
>i have a double digit IQ so I must compare OP to lewrong generation kids
>>64370475
Dude I don't think you understand what subjective means
>>64372204
>why are you tying so hard to prove your elitism?
>>64372204
>You seem like your trying to sound like you have an iq higher than you actually are.
I have come to terms with the fact that I can't be held responsible for your perceptions.
>>64372122
You must listen to pop music then
>>64372204
Inb4 he asks for citations
>>64372241
No actually, I happen to actively seek better music, but, the realities of IQ and taste being inescapable, vocal pop has always resonated with me and I only remember it.
>>64372196
>Again?
Well you would have to have done it the first time around.
>Have [1], which is like 2% of all relationships found, and fuck off.
Ooops you didn't answer the question. List some of the positive outcomes you are alluding to.
Since you don't understand what I mean, here's an example: you already said successful novelists (people whose job it is to be creative and have an imagination) have a high IQ.
>>64371016
To avoid complications like this, say that its the same orchestra that would be preforming the 9th as would be preforming "greg's neo-classical masterpiece"
>>64370913
My friend's shenanigans remain inseparable from the piece of music, in the same way that Beethoven is inseparable from the original piece of music.
Although the music itself technically "existed" before Beethoven first "wrote" it, it is only thanks to his writing that we have access to this music.
But the truth of the matter lies further in the fact that before Beethoven came a myriad of other dudes who had their hand in influencing his music, choice of instruments, etc. So I can say that the 9th isn't entirely his own either.
Between you and every listen of Beethoven's 9th, stands Beethoven's act of writing it, as well as all the guys before him who wrote music that. The degree of Beethoven's own input can be perceived to a moderate degree. I think this exists as an objective metric of music. cont next.
"People who boast about their IQ are losers."
- Literally the smartest person on the planet
>>64372300
Catharine Cox? Terman? The totality of reading about universities, majors, and their respective IQs?
cont from. >>64372348
>How?
The degree of this "objective artistic influence" can ONLY be perceived and understood through the music itself. So the artist and the music becomes unified, and you get an objective metric
>Why? Isn't that just pure autism?
An autistic measurement of creative force like that is more easily reflected in whether a piece of music is "stale" or not to the listener.
Of course i'm not going to deny that the enjoyment of music has its subjective factors.
>but don't you subjectively choose whether or not to use the metric
It's impossible to ignore this metric fully, because it exists as a virtue of you comparing it to other pieces. Everytime you put on a new piece of music, you're judging whether you "like it" based on other pieces of music. Novelty is a factor to everyone who listens to music, and the less creatively inspired it is, the less novel.
>Holy shit, Tl;DR:
You can measure novelty through artistic influence to create an objective metric
>>64368917
So what if its sexy?
>>64372350
He's not wrong as far as a judgement can be right or wrong, but he's sending a bad, backfiring, meaningless message that 'hard work > IQ'.
>>64372286
But, how is that possible?
If you have an iq lower than a certain percent, you can't enjoy specific genres of music?
You should only listen to pop, nothing else broseph.
>>64372405
Not clever.
>>64369019
>people invented free will as comfort
So free will doesn't exist?
>>64369672
He's on the left one
>>64372465
It doesn't. It's basically been invented so that people can reject responsibility for improving the world by blaming its shorcomings on itself, 'you just didn't apply your free will lazy faggot', rather than acknowledging the determinism and getting to hard work at the real causes of problems, i.e. environmental and genetic.
>>64372348
>My friend's shenanigans remain inseparable from the piece of music, in the same way that Beethoven is inseparable from the original piece of music.
Not really, because Beethoven is the artist. Greg is not. Hence you are either discussing the music ("I like this music because____") or your friend ("Hey Greg you didn't write that!"). One is discussing music, the other is discussing your friend. Which is it? This is a red herring
>I think this exists as an objective metric of music. cont next.
But you just said:
>But the truth of the matter lies further in the fact that before Beethoven came a myriad of other dudes who had their hand in influencing his music, choice of instruments, etc. So I can say that the 9th isn't entirely his own either.
Which is subjective.
>>64372377
>you get an objective metric
Which is what, precisely?
>>64372364
>Catharine Cox? Terman?
Asking for accomplishments, not names. Try again.
>The totality of reading about universities, majors, and their respective IQs?
What about the totality of unsuccessful people with high IQs?
>>64368195
>reasons 4chan is popular
>>64369019
"You can still achieve a good life, you just need to try hard enougb"
Basically, I'd you have a high iq, you could literally do nothing and achieve a great life.
Those with a lower iq are forced to have only a life that fits with their iq level.
If everything is already planned out then what's the point of even trying?
If I'm going to have the same life no matter what then why should I put any effort Into anything?
>>64372562
>What about the totality of unsuccessful people with high IQs?
'Exceptions therefore ur wrong!?????????'
>>64372559
Not relevant.
>>64372596
>'Exceptions therefore ur wrong!?????????'
>yet I can make correlations all day long!!!!
>>64372578
>If everything is already planned out then what's the point of even trying?
>If I'm going to have the same life no matter what then why should I put any effort Into anything?
Such remarks deserve a reply because they're at least usually earnest.
The answer is, there is no justification to not having the proper perspective. Rejection of free will *is* the proper thought framework, whereby every action and thought of yours should be related to past nature and nurture, ranging from your upbringing to history of your species and geogeny, instead of thought-terminatingly assumed to have originated 'just because I chose to do it'. If it makes you sad and passive (which phase by the way always passes), then be it. You shouldn't fall back to the anti-intellectual delusion of self-determination, 'I (as opposed to n. and n.) mold my own future', just because it makes you sad.
Again, thankfully, this is not really a real problem because most people who rejected f.w. do in life just fine. Evidence so far shows it just doesn't tend to come with lasting depression.
>>64372520
Queation, do you believe that everything in life is planned out?
That nothing can be changed about the outcomes in your life, no matter how hard you try?
You cannot have a determined outcome with free will, that is true.
If everything was planned, then there is no chance of freedom of choice.
However, the freedom to choose also gives you a purpose, there is a reason to do something.
If you have no choice, then there is no purpose in choice, there is no reason to do anything because the reason for you is already planned out for you.
>>64372720
>Again, thankfully, this is not really a real problem because most people who rejected f.w. do in life just fine. Evidence so far shows it just doesn't tend to come with lasting depression.
http://suicideproject.org/2010/08/proof-that-the-more-intelligent-you-are-the-more-likely-you-are-to-commit-suicide/
>>64372720
>the rejection if free will *is* the proper thought framework
That's a wildly absolute statement regarding belief systems.
You say it like it is the only true way to think.
I feel that belief systems work for different people, and that no one is the true and correct way to think.
I feel you are jot trying to explain your belief system to others that have a different one than yours, but rather, trying to prove to us that your belief system is the only correct one.
>>64372562
>Not really, because Beethoven is the artist. Greg is not
I'm going to move away from the greg analogy and focus on the real point(the analogy btw relies on the idea that Greg is an artist as well)
The objective metric being influences.
Assuming I had a deep knowledge of classical music, I could break down Beethoven's 9th and say,
"These elements in particular are found in these other musicians and therefore Beethoven isn't original here.
"these elements however, aren't expressed in this way at all before beethoven, and are of primarily beethovian design."
I could break that down into a percentage across the piece, and have an objective metric of influence
>>64372726
In short, your error is, there is no objective thing such as 'reason to'. There is just cause and consequence, amidst which our current bodies and brains are caught. When reason tells me that a notion of 'reason to' I might have had, such as some imagined, preconceived 'reason to live', is not an objective part of reality (such as objective, empirical facts telling that my brain produces thoughts because neurotransmitters are being released and because we have evolved to react in certain way etc. etc. etc...)... when reason tells me that I should do away with a sense of purpose because it's superfluous and describes nothing, then I just do just that. You must keep your worldview parsimonious. In my case, this knowledge hasn't made me kill myself yet. I just don't pretend that it was 'my choice' not to kill myself rather than a result of my certain genes.
Sorry for rambling.
>>64371680
Dude, there are videos of Fischer with his delirious attitude, it's no anecdotal evidence, it's just there.
Don't deny things you don't know about.
That incluides IQ tests, you're acting like religious fanatic to a flawed Pavlovian-Freudian test that's outdated and unreliable. Proof is there:
Feynman's humanitarian/social incapabilities.
Grothendieck being the oppossite of this nature.
Einstein's incapability to forsee the use of his research on something he didn't want to.
I'm tired of discussing something so obvious as this, I think you're doing this as some kind of joke, otherwise you're one.
Worst of it is, people are falling for it, but it wouldn't expect something else from this board.
>>64372802
>no one is the true and correct way to think.
Very convenient.
>>64372776
That's because intelligent people have better access to methods.
>>64372869
>Dude, there are videos of Fischer with his delirious attitude, it's no anecdotal evidence, it's just there.
'My anecdotal evidence is not anecdotal evidence because it exists!'
I'm concerned, mate.
>>64372837
>I'm going to move away from the greg analogy
Are you admitting that was a poor example to begin with?
>"These elements in particular are found in these other musicians and therefore Beethoven isn't original here.
Except how is he using these elements? Are they being used in a new way, or at the very least, a way that is unique to him? Even more crucial: define "original"?
>"these elements however, aren't expressed in this way at all before beethoven, and are of primarily beethovian design."
This is subjective.
>I could break that down into a percentage across the piece, and have an objective metric of influence
Since the above two criteria you mentioned are based on subjective opinion, then you couldn't.
>>64372907
>That's because intelligent people have better access to methods.
Jumping off a bridge or slitting your wrists is accessible to everyone.
>>64372843
It's cool, we have all been basically trying to prove our world views to eachother.
I don't think there is anything wrong with giving away with reason, for some people it is more comfortable to think that there should be a reason or purpose to things, and for others, it's more comfortable to think that fate has everything planned for themselves.
Peoples personal views on life are a touchy subject, because we are quick to defend them, even if the discussion is not trying to attack someone else's views, but to discuss their own.
However, some will try to prove their world view as true in those discussion, which can quickly escalate to everyone trying to prove their own views as superior or true.
>>64372837
>The objective metric being influences.
And this metric doesn't determine how enjoyable a piece is, which was how the original argument began
Influence is an objective metric in music, but it won't affect your enjoyment of said music.
>>64372907
You're failing so hard at this.
>>64368195
Children like it, the most pure of thought. It is the root of humanity. Music that tries too hard usually descends into shite. There is plenty of pop that is awesome but for every 1 good pop song there are 10 others created by some talentless shit who just wants to be popular.
>>64372843
>when reason tells me that I should do away with a sense of purpose because it's superfluous and describes nothing, then I just do just that
http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/07/07/high-iq-not-as-good-for-you-as-1/
>Both IQ and self-discipline are correlated with GPA, but self-discipline is a much more important contributor: those with low self-discipline have substantially lower grades than those with low IQs, and high-discipline students have much better grades than high-IQ students. Even after adjusting for the student’s grades during the first marking period of the year, students with higher self-discipline still had higher grades at the end of the year. The same could not be said for IQ. Further, the study found no correlation between IQ and self-discipline—these two traits varied independently.
>>64373113
Please don't tell me this is a real study. Please tell me this is a joke.
They have related x to x. OBVIOUSLY 'self-discipline' is going to correlate with academic success because they have DEFINED 'self-discipline' as academic success. 'if you work hard then you will have worked hard lol'.
They have wasted a ton of time and paper on finding that 1 = 1.
But, of course, such politically motivated 'studies' serve their purpose -- they have 'proven' that 'there is a better predictor of success than IQ', which is what people want to hear.
>>64372955
refer to my post here >>64372377
>>64372930
>Are you admitting that was a poor example to begin with?
Partially, I think it needs a lot of clarification.
>Except how is he using these elements? Are they being used in a new way, or at the very least, a way that is unique to him? Even more crucial: define "original"?
>Used in a new way
This is what I mean by original. It's evident when something has and hasn't been done before.
>beethoven, and are of primarily beethovian design."
>This is subjective.
How is that subjective? All you need is an understanding of the time of a piece's composition in comparison to existing pieces. Maybe this isn't possible with some pieces, sure but for the ones that fit into the framework?
>>64373199
>It's evident when something has and hasn't been done before.
How do you know if it has been done before? Is it possible to know all of recorded music of mankind? Or is that simply a belief that has been sculpted by our perceptions?
>>64369070
meme
>>64373193
>"confirmation bias what's that?????????????"
>>64373193
>>64373113
BESIDES that tautology, such 'self-discipline' could in no way effect the protective effect of IQ in innumerable situations where required is *involuntary* memorization and recall, i.e. accurately remembering something that you didn't make a conscious decision in the past. There is a shitton of such situations (think remembering that you saw a pamphlet saying something... or a familiar face... or a job opportunity...), the importance of which that quack 'study' does a good job at obscuring.
>>64373390
>such 'self-discipline' could in no way effect the protective effect of IQ
See >>64372776
>>64373351
What's your RBG (Random Buzzword Generation) algorithm?
>>64368230
yeah too bad you and op are on the far left
>>64373390
So those with the same iq as you all have the same quality of life?
>>64373417
Okay, but suicide is just one manner of death. If you read >>64372196, you would see that IQ can increase lifespan for more than a fucking decade, such is its cumulative effect of keeping you from bad diet habits, avoiding traffic accidents, knowing better than to go to bad neighbourhoods, avoiding animal bites etc. etc. etc.
>>64373484
Not clever.
>>64373237
Beethoven didn't have access to all of recorded music of mankind, either. Maybe it's harder to do this for some artists than others. Maybe it's possible to be wrong about one particular instance here or there. Margins of error exist, my dude.
That doesn't prevent me from saying, with the good amount of knowledge, that Beethoven's 9th is was more of a creative endeavor than someone who rewrote the 9th but changed a few notes
>>64373485
([1]: 'The researchers found that statistically controlling for economic class and a measure of “deprivation” reflecting unemployment, overcrowding, and other adverse living conditions accounted for only about 30% of the IQ-mortality correlation.')
[1] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/research-confirms-a-link-between-intelligence-and-life-expectancy/
>>64373432
You mean like
>tautology
>*involuntary* memorization and recall
>correlate
>politically motivated 'studies'
>academic success
>extrapolation
>objective sense
>arbitrary scenario
>irredeemably
>empirical framework
>>64373485
>you would see that IQ can increase lifespan for more than a fucking decade
Or rather, the people with high IQs have access to better healthcare because of being born in a higher caste or at least a situation of privilege. .
>>64369070
>tfw iq of 140 here and i am mostly listening to top40 radio pop and sometimes play bog standard 12 bar blues jams on my guitar
iq is bullshit
>>64373589
See >>64373544.
You environmentalists should really catch up to the fact that all studies control for social status by now.
>>64373502
>avoiding the question
265 IQ here
Just came here to say anime is the best artform out there
I have internet access and spend my time searching for obscure bands that no one else likes so I'm either a retard or a genius.
>>64373531
>Maybe it's harder to do this for some artists than others. Maybe it's possible to be wrong about one particular instance here or there. Margins of error exist, my dude.
Then it's not objective.
Try again.
>that Beethoven's 9th is was more of a creative endeavor than someone who rewrote the 9th but changed a few notes
Why?
>>64373611
Please don't tell me this is a real study. Please tell me this is a joke.
They have related x to x. OBVIOUSLY IQ is going to correlate with life expectancy because they have DEFINED 'self-discipline' as life expectancy. 'if you you are more intiligent you will live longer lol'.
They have wasted a ton of time and paper on finding that 1 = 1.
But, of course, such politically motivated 'studies' serve their purpose -- they have 'proven' that 'people with a higher IQ live longer', which is what people want to hear.
>when I'm in the gray area in the far right
>when I just want to relate to people and have fun like a normie
>when I realize that I can't
>when I don't even feel all that smart
>when most times I'd rather just be in the dark blue
>>64373922
>in the top 14%
>tfw
>>64373597
>tfw iq of 420 and I only listen to kidz bop
You have no idea what your talking about
>>64373672
>Then it's not objective.
Insofar as "objective" means "the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings", having a measured similarity, even with margins of error, is certainly objective.
>that Beethoven's 9th is was more of a creative endeavor than someone who rewrote the 9th but changed a few notes
>Why?
I can definitively say that "modification of a few notes of beethoven's 9th" isn't as original as "Beethoven's 9th" because this "modified piece" is almost entirely identical to the "9th".... whereas the "9th" does not share that amount of identical-ness with any other piece of music.
>>64373922
>>when most times I'd rather just be in the dark blue
You would not. You would kill yourself within the first week. To you, IQ is just solving puzzles and doing mental arithmetic. You have no idea what you're talking about.
>>64373990
>having a measured similarity, even with margins of error, is certainly objective.
Not really because perception of being "original" is up to the observer. You might think X artist is orignal but I might not. It's subjective.
>I can definitively say that "modification of a few notes of beethoven's 9th" isn't as original as "Beethoven's 9th" because this "modified piece" is almost entirely identical to the "9th".... whereas the "9th" does not share that amount of identical-ness with any other piece of music.
You didn't answer my question, you only described the modification of notes. I am asking you why it's a more creative endeavor. Try again.
i don't think there is a causal relationship between IQ and prefered musical genre.
but there might be one for personality traits, such as openness to new experiences from the big five, and listening to "experimental" music.
also enjoyment of music is purely subjective. see qualia
>>64369070
hahaha
>>64368641
what do the greys listen to
>>64369070
fucking kek
>>64368798
dumb weeaboo
>>64374080
I also described its identical-ness to other pieces of music, observed through the modification of notes.
You can think whatever you want, but that wouldn't change the degree of which the "modified 9th" is identical to the "9th".
>>64374440
You didn't answer my question, you only described the modification of notes. I am asking you why it's a more creative endeavor. Try again.
>>64368195
>Draws arbitrary lines on a normal distribution
>>64374524
It is more creative to create a piece of music less identical to other pieces of music
>>64374592
That is your opinion-- which is subjective.
Thanks for playing.
>>64368195
plenty of incredible pop music has been successful before. current pop music is bad, but there are some incredible songs that have hit top 10 in the past so that doesn't explain anything because IQ scores trend up over time
>>64374615
Is the phenomenon of a piece of music sounding like other pieces of music my opinion too?
>>64374738
>Is the phenomenon of a piece of music sounding like other pieces of music my opinion too?
Well since you ignore variance in production and timbre, I would say yes, it's an arbitrary thing you invented just to pretend music is objective.
Otherwise we would not have hundreds of thousands of different versions/performances of Beethoven's 9th, would we? It's about the performance, not the composition -- the same notes, played differently, to different effects.
>>64368195
>>64369273
>tfw smartest person alive
>>64375119
Not for long.
post iq anon
>>64369671
That's because people who say they listen to "jazz" without specifying any artist are pseudo-intellectual cunts who listen to whatever shit albums Starbucks is currently selling.
Meanwhile patricians who listen to Mats Gustafsson and Paal Nilssen-Love rest peacefully in the 1550-1600 range (or the 2350-2400 range today).
>>64371892
>You'll similarly have novelists of 150 next to 130s, and so on.
What formula are you using here?
>>64374800
All I was saying was that music does have, at the very least that one single objective metric, not that the entirety of it's quality depends on the objective metric.
The variations aren't relevant to the argument.
There's going to be a huge gap between a variation of the 9th with itself and any other piece of music.
Also, those variations are temporally bound. We can look at which variations came before which, and examine them appropriately
>>64375243
which website?
i cant believe i get to be in a 4chan music thread with so many smart people
>>64375384
>All I was saying was that music does have, at the very least that one single objective metric
Unfortunately that only applies if you think music is just the some of a bunch of notes.
It isn't by the way
>not that the entirety of it's quality depends on the objective metric.
But that's what we are talking about. Did you forget?
>The variations aren't relevant to the argument.
Are the variation relevant to the music? it is.
>We can look at which variations came before which, and examine them appropriately
And again, YOU will be assigning subjective value to the variations. The variations themselves hold no real value. But to say they are more or less "creative", that is subjective opinion you've installed into the concept of a variance of notes.
What if I were to believe that it is "creative" to use no variance at all, in a John Cage-ian defiance of long held tradition? Hence the very concept of what is or is not creative is subjective.
>>64374332
<55 = Grimes
>145 = the charles in charge theme song
>>64369070
let me fix that for you
>>64368230
Don't underestimate the diversity of opinion and behavior of the majority.
>>64375493
I never once made the claim that the entirety of a piece's worth comes from a single metric, dude. My claim was merely from the onset "music isn't pure subjectivity, here's why."
That's the thing though. You can only do those "Cage-ian" acts once. Then they become stale, uninteresting, and they lose their novelty. The novelty of a musical piece is what shapes the core of what's defined to be creative, and that's something you can't just choose to redefine.
>>64375963
still terrible but much more accurate
>>64375963
>metal on the right half of the graph
>>64375963
Not bad
>>64369070
>literally just ranked by less obscure -> more obscure
you guys are funny /mu/ you really are
>>64368195
>muh IQ
Back to /pol/!
>>64370475
Plagiarism is a completely different issue than how much an individual enjoys music.
>>64369019
You poor, poor, child...You really can't write at all, can you? Wall of text guarantees no one will read your ill-advised "contrarian" screed. Learn to use paragraphs ffs
>>64376443
I was suggesting that the novelty of a piece(something which can be measured) affects how much you enjoy the piece.
>>64368195
pretty much the dumbest people i know are always the ones claiming all pop music is shit. nice meme though
>>64368195
>>64368230
IQ doesn't count if you're autistic
>>64376471
Do you think six lines are a long paragraph?
>>64376595
>enjoy
Still a subjective term.
>>64376045
>I never once made the claim that the entirety of a piece's worth comes from a single metric, dude
These are your implications since you refuse to acknowledge it.
>That's the thing though. You can only do those "Cage-ian" acts once
Not really. They would be different pieces
Also
>art is a novelty
Yikes. Well that explains why you think what you think.
>>64371676
Literally every artist you named is popular music.
>>64375963
>>64369070
why is anime/vidya ost so high? the people I know listen to that shit are fuckin tards
>>64377810
>the joke
>your head
Just end it now mr autist
>>64377680
How so?
>tfw grey yet still a basement dwelling college drop out
>>64368763
look everyone a retard !
>>64374332
Highly "experimental" music. This means that the low grey makes something awful, and the high grey perceives it as high art.
>>64368253
>I wouldn't know
where is townes van zandt on the music-iq correlation scale
![us-cinema-the-song[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/RD7pp7s.jpg "us-cinema-the-song[1].jpg")
>mfw finding out that miley cyrus's brother was the ugy from the SHAKE SHAKE SHAKE IT song that was hella popular
>mfw his band was actually incredibly popular
>mfw his popularity probably is the reason that miley cyrus even exists in her current form
>mfw he got a dui/vehicular manslaughte charge and got erased from existence by his record label and the public
fug man, radio music is hard
>>64381956
>>mfw his popularity probably is the reason that miley cyrus even exists in her current form
What do you mean by this?
>>64369292
Fixed
>>64375963
Let me fix that for you.
>>64369292
Can someone make a version for waifus?
>>64373456
>Implying left and right aren't objective terms
>>64370604
alright if i make a classic italian beef sandwich based on beethoven's sandwich
is my sandwich a shameless copy or my cover based on my culinary skills
>>64368798
>facets
You must be a very smart dude!
