Is outstanding musical talent related to intelligence?

[fmr]

In my experience, family background and economic background play a major role in everything, including success in academic careers and achievements. That's something I would like to be taken into account when I see these studies and "correlations". But generally, those aspects are neglected.

[Tricky-Loops]

In my experience, family background and economic background play a major role in everything, including success in academic careers and achievements. That's something I would like to be taken into account when I see these studies and "correlations". But generally, those aspects are neglected.

That's exactly what I said a few pages before. There are many intelligent people in poor families who have neither the support nor the money for an academic education... (even in Germany)

[aciddose]

Yes, whatever.

Why are you people so stuck in the concrete?

Intelligence is directly correlated to academic achievement, period.

There is no argument to be seen against this fact.

Now as for how or why they are correlated that is a vast field of study involving countless researchers who have more than covered not only every possible variation you can come up with, but have gone far beyond even your greatest imagination into the realm of what you have never even briefly considered.

Why could we not have left it at the simple abstract facts without mumbles of all sorts of distracting, useless information? When I originally mentioned this correlation it was as an off hand remark giving example of something known to be correlated with IQ, whereas musical talent is an example of something uncorrelated.

The reason we deal in the abstract is to avoid stumbling into this garbage heap of pointless trivialities completely unrelated to the topic at hand. If people want to go on and on with this subject why can't they start a thread in off-topic, "IQ" or something?

[jancivil]

In what way does religion correlates with IQ? Which religion?

I also that correlation with fertility a very imaginative approach, considering how the economical factor influence decisively that subject (and I don't think economy has any correlation with IQ). This IQ thing is highly overrated, IMO.

If you honestly want answers to your questions, do some research. Muttering on a music forum about how "this IQ thing is highly overrated" only reveals all sorts of things about yourself.

For example, if you put in the minimum amount of effort you could have found this within a couple seconds and read it, keeping your mouth shut rather than posting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosit ... telligence

This, along with your 'what kind of question is this/do some research' does the opposite of showing yourself to the group as expert. Now you've found you had to become belligerent behind a disagreement and create a story about the person.
You were able to find a wiki article confirmed your bias? REALLY? And the person that did not find it necessary to confirm your bias for you in this paltry way is the one being stupid, isn't it.

IQ tests have to vary widely. I have looked into it, a little. I think a good one does a balance between capacity to work with mathematical and spacial abstraction and capacity for working via one's language to reason a thing through. I think a good one will have the outcome of, a person doing extremely well will have performed both these, right/left brain sort of areas if you will, well. I think there is a good chance that someone can get a sort of above average result having one or the other area overshadow their deficiency.

Logically there are flaws in what you're doing here. Reducing what was said to "this IQ thing is highly overrated" is a straw man you're beating up on. You have studies, so you say, and for you they overwhelm everything. However you aren't discussing them. People are less inclined to research your argument for you than you would like, evidently. As far as I can tell, you have correlation between 'High IQ' - UNDEFINED - and 'likelihood of suitability for higher education'. Hardly surprising as a generality, and AFAIK it isn't really more than that. But people are trying to have a conversation that does more than this superficial stuff. I suspect that in these correlations, some things were left out, such as have been brought up.

The original question was someone wanted to work through something, for whatever reason, and 'let's discuss this, group'. You came from your typical top down, "Look, people: I KNOW BEST" posture to say 'research it'. What you seem to indicate by that is 'look at wiki articles that suit me'.

[jancivil]

Ok, so I looked at this article:

<Commenting on some of the above studies in The Daily Telegraph, Lynn said "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."[12] A study published in Social Psychology Quarterly in March 2010[13] also stated that "atheism ...correlate with higher intelligence".[14]>

This is really shit, though. Let me take your tack above: do you really lack the capacity to detect the numerous problems here? several Gallup polls as if a proof; "have shown" even. One study stated a correlation!

Embarrassing.

[aciddose]

Uh, the thread isn't "trivial discussion about every possible aspect of IQ and its relation to everything other than music".

[aciddose]

This is really shit, though. Let me take your tack above: do you really lack the capacity to detect the numerous problems here? Embarrassing.

Hah. I predicted you would quote exactly this part of the article. Congratulations.

[Tricky-Loops]

Uh, the thread isn't "trivial discussion about every possible aspect of IQ and its relation to everything other than music".

It was YOU who mentioned connections between IQ and religions, education and fertility...

As far as I know, religion & fertility have nothing to do with music...

[fmr]

Now as for how or why they are correlated that is a vast field of study involving countless researchers who have more than covered not only every possible variation you can come up with, but have gone far beyond even your greatest imagination into the realm of what you have never even briefly considered.

This is by far the most arrogant assertion I read in this thread. And based on what? Did you read ALL the studies there are, to be able to state this so vehemently?
"countless researchers ... have more than covered ... every possible variation we can come up...".
Poor scientists. There's nothing left to study anymore. Humanity reached the supreme degree of perfection.
OR, everybody here, with your honourable exception, are a bunch of ignorants.

[jancivil]

You predicted I would find that very problem? Alrighty then. EDIT: so you posted that seeing that very problem and while you totally expected - PREDICTED, no less - that I would notice it you were prepared to do what? Make fun of me for being critically adept for noticing it? In lieu of being prepared for the argument. COOL STORY BRO.

Is that problem overwhelmed by some other things in it somehow? I think it is illustrative of a couple of things about this, one is that the person or persons making this article will do anything to make that point. Via a wiki article, we get a strong opinion.

Now, I happen to more or less come from that very POV, but I would not do this shit.

If the Wechsler is the metric of IQ test, however, that is better than simply saying 'IQ test', which my experience of was very early in life. I was never told mine and I don't believe that's because it was very low, btw.

[aciddose]

The idea you can look at thousands of researchers in a field you are not a member of and claim you feel there is even a remote possibility that you have an idea they are incapable of having themselves is clueless.

If you are a member of that field, then you may have considered a lot. I doubt it though as if you were you would likely be capable of understanding concrete vs. abstract.

[jancivil]

Uh, the thread isn't "trivial discussion about every possible aspect of IQ and its relation to everything other than music".

It was YOU who mentioned connections between IQ and religions, education and fertility...

As far as I know, religion & fertility have nothing to do with music...

Yes, 'aciddose' do have a bash at yourself there, you are the one that brought in 'trivia'. It happens that people were not overwhelmed by you saying 'there are studies' so you go to do this. You're about to tie yourself up in knots, typically.

[aciddose]

You predicted I would find that very problem?

No, I predicted that you would pick this out due to your inability to think in the abstract.

That you identify it as a "problem" is immediately telling.

[Flandersh]

And there is even studies that show a positive correlation between religiosity and academic achievement. If high IQ is positively correlated with academic achievement but negatively correlated with religion, how does one explain these research findings? To me I have to take into account more factors to understand why.

Those are examples of what is concrete.

For these particular examples though the answer seems obvious to me: allowing oneself to operate based upon faith vs. rational thought and questioning authority.

Rote memorization is likely to benefit from the first.

Here is another Einstein quote: "Information is not knowledge. The only source of knowledge is experience."

So those able to most successfully collect information may have higher religiosity, while those who are capable of understanding in depth the subjects studied may have higher IQ. They may be opposed, however it is still entirely possible for a person to have both significant levels of religiosity and IQ in a balance.

That is all concrete however and much more difficult to test than the abstract. I have read about studies providing evidence for this however and it seems to be known intuitively.

The Aristotelian thought that experience is the source of knowledge with respect to the Platonic thought that knowledge is information is one thing. The real question belongs to what experience is. As I have mentioned I base my view upon Henri Bergson in which experience is what is before intelligence. So to understand something in the depth for me is to avoid the distortions of rationalization upon experience; to reveal the pure experience.

Of this reason I do not interpret it in the same way as you do, if I have understood you correctly, and I come to different conclusions than you. This does not say anything about the truth, it only says something about the possibilities and the difficulties in reaching truth. But of all, it says much about science and research, and the work of it. Research studies always involve human influence, making it important to always review the research

[aciddose]

You're about to tie yourself up in knots, typically.

What might appear a knot to one confined to certain dimensions.