Not all scientific studies are trustworthy

[radi6404]

Isn´t it hilarous how scientific studies are being publicated on newspapers or shown on tv and declared for absolute truth? For me it is very funny because many scientific studies aren´t based on detailed and insightful studies, but on very basic studies with random people. In my opinion such studies don´t proove anything. For example there was a hype that Classical music improves intelligence. It was assumed that based on the complex structure and unpredictable melodies the brain would become more intelligent and logica. In my opinion that theory thattheory really sounds interesting, yet it was disprooven and now Classical music apparently doesn´t make intelligent. And the evidence that Classical doesn´t improve intelligence comes from tests where people listened to Classical for 15 minutes and answered random questions or drew something after it. For me it is rediculous how those scientists can find out in 15 minutes whether Classical music improves intelligence or doesn´t. It is really rediculous because in order for the brain to adapt to the music it will take several hours and not just 15 minutes. If those sicentists had played Classical music for 2 hours to the people and tried the same with other types of music, they would have seen that Classical improves intelligence to some extent, I am sure about it. At least the results would have been better than with other types of music because classical is much more complex than most types of music and raises the concentration of the brain. The sudden change in volume, the complex melody patterns, the unpredictable sound, all of that gives the brain something to focus on. The complex structure of the music can later be applied to the thinking process of the brain and the brain will be able to deal better with complex logical or even mathematical tasks. When I listen to classical, I think my intelligence improves a bit, at least I get very focused and the complex structure of the music makes my mind very clear. Therefore not all scientific studies are trustworthy and and it is good to question scientific studies which aren´t based on extensive research.

[Padmapani]

agreed. there is a lot of bullshit "science" out there. especially in the field of psychology (and economics if you count that as science). it goes from the long disproven but still often cited "classical music makes you more intelligent" to some obviously extremely lousy alarmist second hand smoking studies to the government funded mdma-puts-holes-in-your-brain crap to the wholly faked south korean cloning studies.

some are easy to discern if you know just a little bit about statistics (i once read a second hand smoking study that said "we lowered the significance level to P<0.3 because we couldn't find a correlation otherwise, lol), some are obviously lacking only if you have related education/worked in that field and some are extremely convincing until you try to replicate the experiment (like the cloning stuff).

but then again there are even more studies that sound like bullshit when you read about it in the media, but turn out to be good work when you read the original papers

[radi6404]

It is not disprooven that Classical makes you intelligent. I told you that scientists tried to disproove it by making people listen to classical for 15 minutes and then testing them with mathematical or logical question. And as I explained to you they can´t test if a brain will improve it´s intelligence or not only by making people listen to classical for 15 minutes. That is just by far not enough time to test that. In my opinon it can´t be generalized if classical improves intelligence or not anyway because it might be different for each person. In my opinion classical can improve intelligence because it enhances concentration a lot. Unlike other music classical is easy to focus on and has a very complex structure. Besides that the frequency range of classical is by far smaller than the frequency range of modern music which consists of bass, mids and heights. The most instruments in classical music play in the middle range frequencies and are easy to focus on. That is the reason why classical or classic can´t be compared to other kinds of music, especially music with simple and predictable structure.

[technosomy]

most science is fraud as far as i am concerned, built on fabricated lies for thousands of years, to keep most people in this 5 sense reality!

[Panoptes]

never heard about scientists claiming classical music makes you smarter. sounds a little silly.

[trancenonZENsedance]

Isn´t it hilarous how scientific studies are being publicated on newspapers or shown on tv and declared for absolute truth? For me it is very funny because many scientific studies aren´t based on detailed and insightful studies, but on very basic studies with random people. In my opinion such studies don´t proove anything. For example there was a hype that Classical music improves intelligence. It was assumed that based on the complex structure and unpredictable melodies the brain would become more intelligent and logica. In my opinion that theory thattheory really sounds interesting, yet it was disprooven and now Classical music apparently doesn´t make intelligent. And the evidence that Classical doesn´t improve intelligence comes from tests where people listened to Classical for 15 minutes and answered random questions or drew something after it. For me it is rediculous how those scientists can find out in 15 minutes whether Classical music improves intelligence or doesn´t. It is really rediculous because in order for the brain to adapt to the music it will take several hours and not just 15 minutes. If those sicentists had played Classical music for 2 hours to the people and tried the same with other types of music, they would have seen that Classical improves intelligence to some extent, I am sure about it. At least the results would have been better than with other types of music because classical is much more complex than most types of music and raises the concentration of the brain. The sudden change in volume, the complex melody patterns, the unpredictable sound, all of that gives the brain something to focus on. The complex structure of the music can later be applied to the thinking process of the brain and the brain will be able to deal better with complex logical or even mathematical tasks. When I listen to classical, I think my intelligence improves a bit, at least I get very focused and the complex structure of the music makes my mind very clear. Therefore not all scientific studies are trustworthy and and it is good to question scientific studies which aren´t based on extensive research.

 

"Classical music makes you smarter" <- This sounds like a familiar statement in the context of the classical music played to babies in their mothers' wombs or infants/young children. Apparently the study takes this statement, removes the context (long-term effects), doesn't clarify the "new" context (short-term effects) and then "disproves" it. This is like just a stupid play on words and disgusting.

 

[...] the long disproven but still often cited "classical music makes you more intelligent" [...]

 

Is it actually possible to disprove the classical-music-thing? I think one can make 100 studies and not find any indications that there's whatever correlation. But this wouldn't mean it could be called disproven to the point where there's no doubt that there is definitely no correlation at all, anyway.

 

In my opinion classical can improve intelligence because it enhances concentration a lot. Unlike other music classical is easy to focus on and has a very complex structure. Besides that the frequency range of classical is by far smaller than the frequency range of modern music which consists of bass, mids and heights. The most instruments in classical music play in the middle range frequencies and are easy to focus on. That is the reason why classical or classic can´t be compared to other kinds of music, especially music with simple and predictable structure.

 

If nothing else, listening to classical music should make one more intelligent in the sense of enhancing ones ability to "compose classical music" or "recognize classical music". And I mean this in the way that one listens to the results of a creative and intellectual process, which brings one closer to that process itself compared to "not-listening". It should make one a better artist oneself, not only musically. If we assume that one is more likely to think certain thoughts in certain emotional states and music can create the various emotional states, then also brain areas which a certain person usually doesn't use as much might get activated, which could improve intelligence, too. Of course these are all very subtle changes, which may only increase over time (yet still stay very subtle) and probably cannot be found out about with those really crude experiments.

 

most science is fraud as far as i am concerned, built on fabricated lies for thousands of years, to keep most people in this 5 sense reality!

 

Much of science probably happens only to get the funds for it - for the scientist(s) to be able to make a living. And, of course, one has to assume that the "scientific community" has its own set of taboos.

 

never heard about scientists claiming classical music makes you smarter. sounds a little silly.

 

Why does it sound silly to you?

[radi6404]

most science is fraud as far as i am concerned, built on fabricated lies for thousands of years, to keep most people in this 5 sense reality!

I fully agree. Only after you read how they perform the experiments withot concideration of so many factors that can influence an experiment, you know that you can´t give much to a scientific theory anyway. Also anyone who reads scientific theories and facts should consider that sciense is delibaretly made to sound as normal as possible because most people thinkt aht anything that can´t be explained rationaly is not pöossible and the scientists are dumb and strange.

[Panoptes]

well recognition and understanding aren't one and the same. Also just listening to the music doesn't necessarily help you understand the creative process. Its takes a more rounded understanding to even begin picking it apart. In that case one can also argue that listening to goa/psy makes you smarter because of its complexity or what not. I dont know. Even if it has an impact its minute imo.

[trancenonZENsedance]

well recognition and understanding aren't one and the same.

 

They aren't necessarily synonymous.

 

Also just listening to the music doesn't necessarily help you understand the creative process.

 

It's not about rationally understanding the creative process. It's more about an intuitive understanding - intuition is the requirement to create (have an idea), contrary to rationality, which we use to analyze (check if the idea is good).

 

In that case one can also argue that listening to goa/psy makes you smarter because of its complexity or what not. I dont know. Even if it has an impact its minute imo.

 

Yes one can. Even though goa/psy is more disharmonious than classical music, not as harmonically consistent/harder to grasp, so to say. A minute impact is still an impact, it's just harder to prove than a more substantial impact.

[Veracohr]

I see mention of 'studies' a lot in news articles, and more often than not it seems to be a case of "this is our position on this issue, let's find a way to support it with numbers". Media and politics love to have 'evidence' of whatever they're talking about, because having some sort of number to quote makes it sound more true. My opinion is that it's the money behind these 'studies', not the people performing them, that is the problem.

 

Also, misrepresentation of data is a big problem. If you run a study that compares quantifiable intelligence metrics (ie. IQ points) with music listening habits, and find that those with above-average IQ also listened to more classical music than those with below-average IQ, it's easy to claim a cause-effect relationship if your audience doesn't know any better. In reality, all you've done is compile statistics, not discover a cause-effect relationship. Enough people don't have scientifically-leaning minds, or the habit of thinking analytically, that it's easy to get away with making a false claim using real data.