Yes, the "fighting" is over, so from here on out any discussion should relate to the thread topic. There's no need to search back to quote any unrelated posts.

It was a pretty hilarious run. I just read through about 4 pages of non-sense.

Why would musical preference have any connection to intelligence? Everybody has to agree that's nonsene. Otherwise that shit would end up straight on my resume!

- 3 years gymnasium, natural science program
- 5 years university studies
- Likes Exodus, Iron Maiden and Opeth. Also some Dissection if that helps.

Written by Storchillarn on 28.03.2011 at 22:12

Why would musical preferance have any connection to intelligence? Everybody has to agree that's nonsene. Otherwise that shit would end up straight on my resume!

- 3 years gymnasium, natural science program
- 5 years university studies
- Likes Exodus, Iron Maiden and Opeth. Also some Dissection if that helps.

I was ready to employ you until I saw Opeth.....LOL!

Written by Storchillarn on 28.03.2011 at 22:12

Why would musical preference have any connection to intelligence?

Why wouldn't it? Our psyche is a product of complex environmental and biological causes intertwined in a holistic whole. I have no doubt that there are several connections between your music taste and social status (which is both a cause and an effect of your "intelligence"). The question is whether there are statistically signifigant differences between musical genres. There may very well be, in fact there probably are. I doubt metal stands out particularly, but as I've said earlier in the topic, that's a matter for empirical, statistical research. Anecdotes and armchair psychology isn't going to tell us anything useful.

Music taste, like intelligence, is social. Both have a biological base, no doubt, but I doubt it's anywhere near as signifigant. So it stands to reason that people in similar social situations with similar preferences and level of "intelligence" also gravitate towards similar music and the same scene, don't you think?

Intelligence can refer to many things. It is no longer just about academic success. Academics is just a stream of intelligence. I think it is more of a social status, and how were present ourselves.

Well, at the very least we're more intelligent when it comes to tastes in music

Written by Guest on 29.03.2011 at 06:34

Well, at the very least we're more intelligent when it comes to tastes in music

LIES! Jk jk jk!

Wish I could agree with the author of the post, but we do have some idiotic-metalheads spread widely everywhere. Here in my home town, I wouldn't say metalheads are intelligent. Although I will say that intelligent people can understand and enjoy metal music far much better than average people. But it all depends you know...
I mean intelligence itself is a very broad and wide understanding.
If it's only scratching the surface,
yes - pop is for morons, but also digestible for intelligent folks
no - metal is primarily for the intelligent or mature if I may say so

note: i made two spelling mistakes while making this post. Therefore I would count myself out of the intelligent party.
But I love metal \m/

Written by IronAngel on 28.03.2011 at 23:28

Written by Storchillarn on 28.03.2011 at 22:12

Why would musical preference have any connection to intelligence?

Why wouldn't it? Our psyche is a product of complex environmental and biological causes intertwined in a holistic whole. I have no doubt that there are several connections between your music taste and social status (which is both a cause and an effect of your "intelligence"). The question is whether there are statistically signifigant differences between musical genres. There may very well be, in fact there probably are. I doubt metal stands out particularly, but as I've said earlier in the topic, that's a matter for empirical, statistical research. Anecdotes and armchair psychology isn't going to tell us anything useful.

Music taste, like intelligence, is social. Both have a biological base, no doubt, but I doubt it's anywhere near as signifigant. So it stands to reason that people in similar social situations with similar preferences and level of "intelligence" also gravitate towards similar music and the same scene, don't you think?

I do think people of similar social status tend to follow similar trends and have similar strives. Intelligence and social situation or status is to my knowledge not related, though. When you write "intelligence" in quotation marks, I'm interested in know if you in fact mean intelligence as such and where the evidence for this conclusion comes from. I know there's been a general debate regarding social status and intelligence going on but as far as I'm concerned it's never been settled. Also, the focus of that debate is whether social status is inherited, thus not connected to intelligence, or if it is achieved, thus highly connected to intelligence. Then there is the notion of social intelligence which people seem to look past when discussing these things. Communication is also a big part of what makes us humans more intelligent than birds for example. How does that relate to musical preference?

One might argue that a person more developed in abstract thought and logic thinking would be more inclined to listen to metal because it is considered to be more technically challenging. In other words, the elite thinkers of society should be listening to mathcore or progressive metal.

Written by Storchillarn on 29.03.2011 at 12:31

I do think people of similar social status tend to follow similar trends and have similar strives. Intelligence and social situation or status is to my knowledge not related, though. When you write "intelligence" in quotation marks, I'm interested in know if you in fact mean intelligence as such and where the evidence for this conclusion comes from. I know there's been a general debate regarding social status and intelligence going on but as far as I'm concerned it's never been settled. Also, the focus of that debate is whether social status is inherited, thus not connected to intelligence, or if it is achieved, thus highly connected to intelligence. Then there is the notion of social intelligence which people seem to look past when discussing these things. Communication is also a big part of what makes us humans more intelligent than birds for example. How does that relate to musical preference?

One might argue that a person more developed in abstract thought and logic thinking would be more inclined to listen to metal because it is considered to be more technically challenging. In other words, the elite thinkers of society should be listening to mathcore or progressive metal.

What is intelligence, though? Conformity to standards set by the social elite, the academics and others. "IQ is what IQ tests measure." That's a little simplified, but the circularity is there: school success and grades are based on the standards used in IQ tests (and other tests of intelligence), so the two legitimize eachother. It's OK to label some kids smart and others dumb, because there's science to back it up. That science is legitimate because it successfully predicts success in school.

I referred to Pierre Bourdieu earlier in this topic, and he's one scholar I still rely on. Families in high social stations typically appreciate cultural capital (education, artistic talent) and have the material and social capital (money, connections) to acquire it for their children. We get our experiences of and attitudes towards certain subjects (and education in general) early on in childhood, and they're further strengthened by experiences in school. This is probably the number one factor in determining future success and so-called intelligence. I think there's a common result of IQ tests that disagrees with me: "But IQ stays roughly the same throughout one's life." That doesn't necessarily suggest genetic predetermination but exactly the thing I'm talking about: attitudes and experiences from childhood don't change easily either, and every experience after that either strengthens or weakens those preconceptions. If you didn't change your mind and learn new ways of thinking by the time you were 20, what's the likelyhood you can do it successfully and with dramatic effect when you're 40? There is no doubt a basis in biology, and I'm not saying there aren't people who can't overcome their early education and family heritage (or people who fail to live up to them due to lacking ability), but overall and statistically speaking, I wager that social factors are way more important. As you said, there's no clear consensus about this and no good ways to study it, so there's no way to be sure. But it's true that children from better social conditions and families with background in higher education do better in school and other measurements on intelligence.

In this post, I connect intelligence closely with school success and social success. Intelligence isn't solely reduced to that, but it's the common understanding of the term. IQ, creativity, social intelligence and whatever are all included in this. "Gifted" might actually be a better word for it, because it reflects the symbolic masking of social differences: dispositions, attitudes and skills received through socialization and enculturation at home and in early education are transformed into natural differences in ability by public discourse and school grades. We're all gifted all right, but we got the gifts from our families and environment rather than nature of God.

It's also a matter of elitism, yes. Intelligent people, that is, successful people who set their identity apart from the "masses", are more likely to emphasize this distinction with cultured minority hobbies. You will have more academics than uneducated working-class truck drivers attending a classical concert, for example. I don't think this has anything to do with inherent ability to "understand" music, but it's a result of social conventions closely related to intelligence and success socially and in school. Technical and unusual music may attract intellectuals, not because it's inherently more challenging but because it's perceived to be. And finally, smart people tend to hang out with smart people, in my experience. Not the least because they work together (as teachers, researchers, journalists etc.) or go to University or even celebrated high schools together.

How this all relates to metal though, I have no idea. I doubt metal is quite the "cultured hobby" the intelligentsia wants to identify with, to the same extent that classical or jazz might be. Generations and cultures change, though, so it's a potential subject for research.

Written by IronAngel on 29.03.2011 at 15:35

What is intelligence, though? Conformity to standards set by the social elite, the academics and others. "IQ is what IQ tests measure." That's a little simplified, but the circularity is there: school success and grades are based on the standards used in IQ tests (and other tests of intelligence), so the two legitimize eachother. It's OK to label some kids smart and others dumb, because there's science to back it up. That science is legitimate because it successfully predicts success in school.

I'm not sure what you're going on about here. Smart and dumb doesn't necessarily mean you're more or less intelligent. I think what you're referring to is how knowledgeable, not intelligent, someone is. Intelligence makes a difference when one obtains knowledge but doesn't mean you're smart, in that sense, in itself. IQ is a way of measuring intelligence because people who score high in one test also score high in another. School is there for the knowledge-part of things - where intelligence is utilized.

Written by IronAngel on 29.03.2011 at 15:35

I referred to Pierre Bourdieu earlier in this topic, and he's one scholar I still rely on. Families in high social stations typically appreciate cultural capital (education, artistic talent) and have the material and social capital (money, connections) to acquire it for their children. We get our experiences of and attitudes towards certain subjects (and education in general) early on in childhood, and they're further strengthened by experiences in school. This is probably the number one factor in determining future success and so-called intelligence. I think there's a common result of IQ tests that disagrees with me: "But IQ stays roughly the same throughout one's life." That doesn't necessarily suggest genetic predetermination but exactly the thing I'm talking about: attitudes and experiences from childhood don't change easily either, and every experience after that either strengthens or weakens those preconceptions. If you didn't change your mind and learn new ways of thinking by the time you were 20, what's the likelyhood you can do it successfully and with dramatic effect when you're 40? There is no doubt a basis in biology, and I'm not saying there aren't people who can't overcome their early education and family heritage (or people who fail to live up to them due to lacking ability), but overall and statistically speaking, I wager that social factors are way more important. As you said, there's no clear consensus about this and no good ways to study it, so there's no way to be sure. But it's true that children from better social conditions and families with background in higher education do better in school and other measurements on intelligence.

Future success and intelligence doesn't have to be related, though. That's where we disagree. It's new to me that people from better social conditions and so on do better in measurements of intelligence. School, maybe, but since knowledge itself isn't an evidence of intelligence that's not really relevant. Also, that's clearly an effect of the social status itself.

Written by IronAngel on 29.03.2011 at 15:35

In this post, I connect intelligence closely with school success and social success. Intelligence isn't solely reduced to that, but it's the common understanding of the term. IQ, creativity, social intelligence and whatever are all included in this. "Gifted" might actually be a better word for it, because it reflects the symbolic masking of social differences: dispositions, attitudes and skills received through socialization and enculturation at home and in early education are transformed into natural differences in ability by public discourse and school grades. We're all gifted all right, but we got the gifts from our families and environment rather than nature of God.

So you make up your own definition of the word and name it the common understanding? Intelligence is more specific than that. In fact, it can even be traced to a specific part of our brain.

Written by IronAngel on 29.03.2011 at 15:35

It's also a matter of elitism, yes. Intelligent people, that is, successful people who set their identity apart from the "masses", are more likely to emphasize this distinction with cultured minority hobbies. You will have more academics than uneducated working-class truck drivers attending a classical concert, for example. I don't think this has anything to do with inherent ability to "understand" music, but it's a result of social conventions closely related to intelligence and success socially and in school. Technical and unusual music may attract intellectuals, not because it's inherently more challenging but because it's perceived to be. And finally, smart people tend to hang out with smart people, in my experience. Not the least because they work together (as teachers, researchers, journalists etc.) or go to University or even celebrated high schools together.

How this all relates to metal though, I have no idea. I doubt metal is quite the "cultured hobby" the intelligentsia wants to identify with, to the same extent that classical or jazz might be. Generations and cultures change, though, so it's a potential subject for research.

The thing about truck drivers not attending classical concerts is a cultural thing as I see it. I'm interested in hearing your take on the metal artists themselves because if your thesis is correct they should probably be quite intelligent. Actually, many of them seem to be but just as many don't so I'm sticking to my own opinion until further research is done. Perhaps not on metal specifically but if the part of your brain responsible for musical preference is connected to the one responsible for your intelligence.

You seem to make a clear distinction between knowledge and intelligence, but it seems absurd to claim they're not connected. Nobody is born smart, you're raised to be smart. (I'm not sure what you mean when you say smart people aren't necessarily intelligent - the words are totally synonymous.)

You're probably talking about some quantifiable intelligence located in specific parts of the brain that neuropsychology studies. But why should that narrow definition be accepted? When we (normal people using normal language) discuss whether someone's smart or not, we consider a whole array of aspects from education to creativity to learning capacity. The relationship between IQ tests and school (or other forums of specific problem solving) is circular, because somebody arbitrarily decides what kind of problems should be put in the test and what kind of answers are acceptable signs of intelligence. It doesn't matter that different tests give similar results: of course they do, because they use the same standards. Standards carefully selected to strengthen the social status of the intellectual elite.

Even if we defined intelligence in a very narrow sense, it would include things like abstract thought, problem solving, and learning capability. All of which are learned rather than inherent.; people with no practice can't be very good at them. And learning happens in a social context, of course. So there's just no escaping the social determination of intelligence. You wouldn't suggest a child grown up in the jungle or someone who's been isolated and tube-fed his entire life in a near-vegatative state will do as well in an IQ test as an upper-class engineer's son who's practiced mathematics and spatial puzzles from childhood, would you? Let's assume identical genes.

Anyway, if success in school is not the clearest sign of intelligence, I don't know what is. The standards for success in our school systems pretty much define the meaning of intelligence in our culture.

Yes, they're connected but that doesn't make them equal. If they we're the same we wouldn't have this debate going. The term smart is a bit vague because you could mean intelligent but you could just as well mean knowledgeable. Then again, the term intelligence is vague but not due to linguistic but physical aspects. You normal people are right to consider learning capacity as part of intelligence. I still don't get why you keep involving education as part of it since education CLEARLY depends on a whole lot of things unrelated to intelligence. I'm not saying that success in school doesn't mean you're intelligent, I'm just saying you don't have to be unintelligent to fail or do badly.

This is where I think we agree: an intelligent person would easier get knowledgeable (and would thus in general be considered smart) and therefore do better in school.

This is where we don't (staying OT): there's a connection between intelligence and musical preference.

There's no evidence supporting that claim and I'm tired of discussing the definition of intelligence.

But my thesis follows from what we agree on: intelligent people will likely do better in school, which is likely to lead to a better social status (or if not "better", a specific one common to many intelligent people anyway), which is likely to connect them together under some subculture or hobby, which leads us to the connection to music.

The connection isn't logical, inevitable or inherent. It's not universal either, but obviously dependant on local culture: if the students in a certain geek group dig metal or whatever else, new members to that group are more likely to adopt such preferences. If it's traditionaö among University professors to go to classical concerts, it's not unreasonable to assume new members of the class will conform to the tradition. Statistically speaking, I find it hard to believe there wouldn't be any correlation between social standing, intelligence and hobbies (such as music preference). I don't know what that correlation would look like, but considering everything we know about the interaction of social and cognitive factors it seems foolhardy to dismiss the possibility. The results I might expect from a survey look something like "fans of classical music have an average of 5% higher IQ than fans of schlager." Anything stronger seems unplausible.

In truth, I'm not strongly convinced one way or another. I'm just defending a possibility that the mainstream of this topic seems to dismiss outright with poor argumentation. You need just as much evidence to deny a correlation as you do to establish one, so we're all just speculating. I'm proposing one possible and understandable mechanism which may be at work here.

Ok, so what you're saying is that whatever social group you're initially from, if you are intelligent you do good in school and end up in a "better" social status somehow tied to some musical preference which you then adapt regardless of the cultural and social group you might have belonged to previously? So, to be clear: higher intelligence leads to a better social status which in turn determines your musical preference.

So the connection is not between intelligence and musical preference but cultural belonging, in which social status plays a big part. I don't disagree with that but I don't think you're determined to alter your previous musical preference that easily. I don't deny we're speculating either.

The answers is NO.

People who listen to metal but aren't involved in the metal lifestyle might be smarter than the people who are active in both, but that's about it.

Metal is about passion, aggression, hatred and loneliness which aren't traits that link to higher intelligence.

This shit is stupid, pointless, and a waste of time.

Actually most intelligent people have a world of passion for their field of study.

Somebody who's truly intelligent probably wouldn't care to conform to the intelligent image. Just sayin.

You all seem to have many assumptions about intelligent people, I will be the first to admit I haven't met them all.

Written by Introspekrieg on 02.04.2011 at 07:48

You all seem to have many assumptions about intelligent people, I will be the first to admit I haven't met them all.

Well said, I've never been one to pigeonhole. And good luck in defining the 'average' person.

Defining the average person is about the easiest task there is. Make a survey about all factors you want to measure, and then calcualte the, well, average. It's simple math learned in grade school. It's another thing completely whether there's any single individual that meets all the criteria of the average person, but that's not the point.

People seem to criticise scientific generalisations because "they don't always fully apply." Well duh, they're statistic generalisations. Just because you (think you) happen to fall in a marginal category doesn't mean the average probability is incorrect. Void_Eater, you talk as if you had free will and complete (self-)awareness in a system such as our society which is fundamentally based on norm and role expectations, peer pressure and hidden mechanisms of control. Do you think you freely, without outside influence choose what you read, who you hang out with and where you shop? The thing is, whether you deny conformity or not, you're still subject to the mechanisms that govern society and part of the people about whom statistical generalisations are made. They will apply to you with a certain probability (if they're valid), whether you like it or not. On a related note, the alleged non-conformity of many (pseudo-)intellectual youths is one of the most blatant forms of conformity visible in society.

LOL to the topic.... me also follow in the classical music forum and this is also the question, is classical music lover more intelligent than average person?
btw, i think the answer is ..... no.

Anyone that trash talks rap without knowing what they're talking about should watch this:


Just saying.

Especially the last part where he's just talking. If you have no connection to rap at all (you don't listen to it and you're not involved with it in any way) you shouldn't be talking about it, because 9 times out of 10 you're going to be wrong.

Seeing some metalheads talk about rap music is like seeing really stupid radical christians talk about heavy metal. It's embarrassing.

I used to listen to a lot of mainstream rap and hip-hop when I was younger, before discovering metal and even a little bit after discovering metal. I still have respect for the genre and its artists, as well as fans of the music (especially for fans of the more underground stuff, as I feel more connected with them than I do with fans of "mainstream" metal).

It's really unfortunate how many fans of metal and rap simply cannot get along. I have several black friends, most of whom listen to the watered down hip hop I liked a few years ago, but there are a few who dig for their music and listen to some pretty heavy rap. Why do we all get along? Because we're all tolerant of each other's differences. It's really not that hard a concept to grasp.

Regarding the topic...it's been pointed out several times that this entire thread is just a waste of space.

Quote:
It's as if we're the only people with a mind capable of analysing a subject quickly and intelligently are capable of understanding the beauty of metal.

- egotistical notion

Written by Troy Killjoy on 08.04.2011 at 03:36

I used to listen to a lot of mainstream rap and hip-hop when I was younger, before discovering metal and even a little bit after discovering metal. I still have respect for the genre and its artists, as well as fans of the music (especially for fans of the more underground stuff, as I feel more connected with them than I do with fans of "mainstream" metal).

It's really unfortunate how many fans of metal and rap simply cannot get along. I have several black friends, most of whom listen to the watered down hip hop I liked a few years ago, but there are a few who dig for their music and listen to some pretty heavy rap. Why do we all get along? Because we're all tolerant of each other's differences. It's really not that hard a concept to grasp.

Regarding the topic...it's been pointed out several times that this entire thread is just a waste of space.

Quote:
It's as if we're the only people with a mind capable of analysing a subject quickly and intelligently are capable of understanding the beauty of metal.

- egotistical notion

Sorry to go off topic, but I've been looking for some good old school hip-hop artists latley. Would you care to give me a rec, seeing as you appear to know about it? The only one who I'm aware of and like is Paris. It's not like this thread is going anywhere anyways.

Written by Guest on 08.04.2011 at 04:22

Sorry to go off topic, but I've been looking for some good old school hip-hop artists latley. Would you care to give me a rec, seeing as you appear to know about it? The only one who I'm aware of and like is Paris. It's not like this thread is going anywhere anyways.

It's been a long time since I had to recommend anything, and a lot of the stuff I listened to was readily found on the radio.

This guy I know named Anthony really likes these two West Coast albums from '95 - Conversation by Twinz and True Game by Mad CJ Mac. If you wanted a more in-depth list you'd have to wait for me to ask him for more artists - those are pretty much the only two albums I remember him talking about, and I remember him saying they were old school ("when-hip-hop-was-good" kind-of-guy).

Alright, will check those out. Thanks.

Written by Guest on 08.04.2011 at 04:34

Alright, will check those out. Thanks.

Check out Dead Prez. Although there is a hip hop/rap topic in general music if we want to talk about hip hop/rap.

Here are some hip hop artists that I like...

Atmosphere, Eyedea, Aesop Rock, Lyrics Born, Ugly Duckling, People under the stairs, Del Tha Funky Homosapien, Pigeon John, Immortal Technique.