Wasn't there something about Mozart helping kids in school?

Like when you play Mozart, it makes kids smarter more than any other composer. I heard that somewhere. I just want to know if you heard that somewhere as it sounds interesting. :thumbsup:

Mozart effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:hmmm:

What a bunch of nonsense. If there's any truth behind this it's mostly going to have to be boiled down to which sound frequencies in either sequence or alone have which physical and psychological impact in the brain, etc. Right now it's pretty esoteric and pseudo-scientific.

Doesn't work

If this were atleast somewhat true, there would have to be someone intuitively musical backing up the theory, not some bogus scientist.

SSC: You seem to enjoy talking about nonsense :)

Nonsense in disguise seems to be the main topic here, it seems.

What's your basis on saying that the "mozart effect" is nonsense? Other people have conducted loads of studies to prove this right or wrong, spending a lot of money and time, but you just seem to have some kind of knowledge that they don't have, and you can easily say that this is nonsense without having to prove it :)

Apparently my parents played me Vivaldi. Maybe that's why I like baroque music. . . . or why all 300 of my violin sonatas sound identical

Out of boredom, I talked to friend about this who is doing her Post Doc at Northwestern. She said that for the most part people do not perform better or become smarter by doing this. It's most likely the mood the music creates and if you created a peaceful room with ambient music, you'll probably achieve the same effect.

Plus I don't think anyone has watched children who has done this become better than the norm.

I think the more underlying factor is that parents who are interested in their child doing well (parents who would do this for their children = ? percent, i'm sure it's high enough) probably encourage their child in other ways and if music does have an effect, it probably isn't as dramatic as the other things the parent might be doing.

SSC: You seem to enjoy talking about nonsense :)

What's your basis on saying that the "mozart effect" is nonsense? Other people have conducted loads of studies to prove this right or wrong, spending a lot of money and time, but you just seem to have some kind of knowledge that they don't have, and you can easily say that this is nonsense without having to prove it :)

Yes, I do enjoy talking about nonsense indeed. Therefore, it's safe to say I can spot nonsense when I see it.

The reason I disqualify this is basically that there's no real evidence of it being true or false, and all studies are contradictory. There's no actual science going on, it's just tests to see if this even works at all or there is any phenomena at all to be observed. If it's argued that the phenomenon isn't even there, then questioning the validity of said phenomenon is unnecessary.

There's also something to be said about research time and money going into bullshit, it happens all the time. But in either case, I fail to see from what I know about this topic anything conclusive about either the phenomenon existing as such and therefore the merit it has as a proper scientific theory or actual evidence of there being something going on that can't be explained through other much simpler means.

One thing is to have a theory based on observation of a concrete phenomenon which can be repeated under control conditions and observed (Scientific method) as to pry out the variables which would otherwise attribute the phenomenon to other factors rather than what the original theory points to. Another is have a theory because Mozart's music is popular and people like it.

I'm leaning towards the second here. Even the topic itself which the theory is aimed at, such as intelligence and other such branches of physiological development are so complicated and full of influencing factors that to account for them all would alone be the subject of a huge study, which is still ongoing as far as I know and nowhere near conclusive. The human brain is already influenced by thousands of things, from hormones to cultural symbolic interaction, adding something as trivial as "Mozart's music" on top of this is ridiculous at best and a waste of time at worst.

If this study was indeed serious, it should be a study on soundwaves' (or even vibrations without being audible) effect on an individual's growth in specific areas of development, both intellectual and emotional. This is already a big topic of debate, as it's so incredibly difficult to study and much less to prove or analyze under controlled conditions. The fundamental problem of something like this is that you can't abstract the aspects being studied from the individual, and much less from the other possible factors which many influence an outcome. This creates a quasi-pointless probability margin that what you're studying is really the cause of what you're observing.

Perhaps you haven't had the opportunity to analyze essays on the subject, but from what I've seen, this is very borderline pseudoscience. Though, of course, I'm always open if this has any real scientific merit, and I think the topic is interesting, but it's just too much into psychology and sociology to be something strictly related to physics that can be demonstrated in a controlled environment.

Surely, one can argue that the fields of Sociology and Psychology are also based on findings that use the same process of analysis and filtering as any other science such as physics or mathematics. However, when it comes to something like Psychology, it's wise to know that the field itself is relatively new, and there's many things that are simply not known. There are huge information holes in topics such as the development of culture established morals, genetics' role in an individual psychological makeup, and such. There are many theories, surely, but they remain unproven theories as the conditions to scientifically prove them are simply impossible or extremely difficult to generate.

And even then, normally you always end up with more questions than answers. But that's another thing!

Anyways, yes. NONSENSE~

PS:

To be even clearer. Imagine trying to analyze the influence of ALL soundwaves on a child's brain through his/her growth. You'd need countless children, in countless different environments, through countless years, and analyzing everything from the sound of speech itself to the garbage truck outside to birds singing. It's really impossible and impractical. On top of this adding Mozart? Come on... There are thousands of millions of other things which could be influencing ANY "finds" you may have concerning Mozart's music's effect on a child's growth, brain, etc. So I call pseudoscience on this. It may be interesting, but just that, interesting.

In this instance, I have to agree with SSC- There are too many outside factors in a child's life (including anyone with natural smarts) to be able to conduct any kind of conclusive test on the subject. You can't predict how smart someone is going to be, then play music to see if they can get any smarter. And let Wikipedia tell the rest-

Mozart effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It says clearly that the "effect" that the test had only lasted for fifteen minutes. Can you say circumstantial reasoning?

I do agree that music could help things like creativity and things, but a direct link to knowledge is near out of the question.

From a recent email

listening to dillinger escape plan makes you smart, forget about mozart..

GLASS EFFECT: The child tends to repeat himself over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

I represent that in my music! I represent that in my music! I represent that in my music! I represent that in my music! I represent that in my music! I represent that in my music! I represent that in my music! I represent that in my music! I represent that in my music! I represent that in my music! :P

What's your basis on saying that the "mozart effect" is nonsense? Other people have conducted loads of studies to prove this right or wrong, spending a lot of money and time, but you just seem to have some kind of knowledge that they don't have, and you can easily say that this is nonsense without having to prove it :)

Burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heavy stuff, but kind of important.

The so called "Mozart Effect" has been proven false, the initial test that gave way to the theory itself was conducted by about 6 college students as part of a science course. The test was to conduct standard tests in a laboratory while listening to music, and then without listening to music. About 4 out of the 6 students according to the results were affected, but only in attention to detail etc...

So really, to say the same would happen to a baby makes no sense, these were college students not babies.

Funny how people like to take things out of proportion

(And by the way, there's already like 2 or 3 other threads on this topic)

From a recent email – so it must be true!!!

LISZT EFFECT: Child speaks rapidly and extravagantly, but never really says anything important.

BRUCKNER EFFECT: Child speaks very slowly and repeats himself frequently. Gains reputation for profundity.

MAHLER EFFECT: Child continually screams - at great length and volume - that he's dying.

I agree with the lisztian one..mahler was not a death nut and the brucknerian one I also would have to agree with...

Interesting things that you mention, EldKatt, however, I fail to see how they are relevant to what I asked SSC :)

I just asked him to provide some arguments for his statement, I never said that his statement is "untrue"/"false" because he hasn't proved it.

Intelligibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not too heavy stuff, but may be worth reading.. :P

Oh, and Criticism of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia might also prove a worthy reading. What's more, I am almost sure that you haven't read the articles that you just linked me to, and if you know anything about these things you probably know it from a book or a lecture/course/study, so this makes the articles even more invalid :)

Interesting things that you mention, EldKatt, however, I fail to see how they are relevant to what I asked SSC :)

I just asked him to provide some arguments for his statement, I never said that his statement is "untrue"/"false" because he hasn't proved it.

Well, you asked him to prove that a statement (the Mozart effect) is false. Previously in the thread I haven't really seen any serious claim that it's true, meaning that he should have no obligation to disprove it. If evidence in favor of the Mozart effect had been cited earlier, it would be reasonable to demand evidence for the "nonsense" claim, but this had not happened.

Intelligibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not too heavy stuff, but may be worth reading.. :P

I'm reading between your lines here, but if anything I said was not intelligible (that's what you're implying, right?), I would appreciate if you tell me what it was so that I can explain it more intelligibly.

Oh, and Criticism of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia might also prove a worthy reading. What's more, I am almost sure that you haven't read the articles that you just linked me to, and if you know anything about these things you probably know it from a book or a lecture/course/study, so this makes the articles even more invalid :)

I am surprised that you possess knowledge about my reading habits. I have indeed not read the article on scientific method in its entirety, but my intended message was more along the lines of "you might want to learn about the scientific method" rather than "read this particular article". I am also quite aware of the inner workings and weaknesses of Wikipedia, but the talk page and revision history of the article in question gives me no reason to assume it's too inaccurate for forum-linking purposes.

Out of curiosity, why is it relevant where I learned about anything? On a different topic, in my opinion everyone should have some understanding of the scientific method and of some common logical fallacies, whether they even know what a "lecture" is or not. I myself have never studied science formally, except for a bunch of mathematics (which is only borderline "science" anyway) in high school because it amused me. What I do know I know mainly from inquiries purely out of personal interest, in my spare time, and material available on the internet is not a small part of that. Hence I don't see how such things are invalid in this context.

I had no intention to bulk up the forum with this little discussion, but when someone addresses me directly I like to reply. Continuation through PM if you like, and we'll keep this thread to the Mozart effect.

On another topic: (a bit OT, but not too much)

Surely, one can argue that the fields of Sociology and Psychology are also based on findings that use the same process of analysis and filtering as any other science such as physics or mathematics. However, when it comes to something like Psychology, it's wise to know that the field itself is relatively new, and there's many things that are simply not known. There are huge information holes in topics such as the development of culture established morals, genetics' role in an individual psychological makeup, and such. There are many theories, surely, but they remain unproven theories as the conditions to scientifically prove them are simply impossible or extremely difficult to generate.

So what you're saying is that psychological theories are untestable and therefore unscientific, and consequently that psychology is not a science? I strongly disagree. Heard it before, never heard anything but flimsy arguments.

So what you're saying is that psychological theories are untestable and therefore unscientific, and consequently that psychology is not a science? I strongly disagree. Heard it before, never heard anything but flimsy arguments.

I also never said psychology is not a science, and in fact I said quite the opposite. "Surely, one can argue that the fields of Sociology and Psychology are also based on findings that use the same process of analysis and filtering as any other science such as physics or mathematics."

I said that there are many things within such fields as sociology and psychology that are extremely hard to properly study. Therefore, it's hard to have evidence that stands up to something like the scientific method applied to other sciences (physics, etc) in fields such as Psychology where a lot of theory applies. How can you be certain of a psychological phenomenon when you can't isolate it and repeat it in controlled conditions? You can't, you have to base it on statistics, calculations and predictions. Those in such fields (such as astronomy) count as a form of evidence when these things are backed by previous observations, etc etc.

But, a theory that is untestable at all can be also unscientific. It can also be founded on speculation, contradicting evidence, etc. If a theory is to be scientific, it has to provide at least a logical bridge between the phenomenon and the alleged cause through either: A: Past observations B: Repeated testing of the phenomenon if it can be reproduced.

Don't put words in ma' mouth.

Then I'm not sure at all what you're actually saying. Your elaboration doesn't really change the impression I'm getting, but perhaps we should let it drop if you don't want me to put words in your mouth by trying to understand you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

PS:

If you don't understand what I'm saying, you should've just said so rather than assume stuff. Moreover, what is there to not understand? I thought I was pretty clear, but I guess it wasn't enough.

PS:

If you don't understand what I'm saying, you should've just said so rather than assume stuff.

If I were assuming anything, I wouldn't have put a question mark at the end. So your defensiveness in this case I think is quite misguided. Anyway, I don't want to give the impression that I'm walking out in a huff here: I simply lack the time to keep up a discussion, so I figure I'll just as well stay out of it.