Is musical ability genetic?

[forensickbeats]

If our genetics don't make a difference in musical ability, then explain child prodigies.  Or people who suffer a traumatic head injury and wake up savants.  It is all about the brain baby, and the make up of the brain is determined by our genetics.  Now having potential and skill are two different things, but skill cannot be achieved without the latter.

Yup, if you have an imaginary group of test subjects, subjected to identical training procedure, the group with higher cognitive abilities should be able to achieve better results ON AVERAGE, regarding music complexity. People who tend to be more emotional may create simple, but emotionally superior piece. 

***********************************


And when you add the fact that ideal environments don`t exist and that there is a mixture of genetics and experience, this debate, at least for me, is a waste of time. 


And yes, what about differences in music perception also...

***********************************

You cannot prove the brain depends on genetics. There can be no experiment that would show that. You can only choose to believe in Lego bricks.

Experiment:

 

[Ecopro]

My father used to whistle quite a lot, specially when he was drunk... which was all the time. So that explains my raw musical talent!   

When one sees the prevalence and talent of African-Americans in the music and dance industries, it can easily appear as though black people do have that natural musical gene. Since one of the study models of human origins explains that we all descend from Africa, then it is safe to say that we all have that "DNA" embedded in us. Who knows?...it could be genetic, learned over time, or whatever the case might be.  It is most certain though, that nowadays is very difficult to try to prove and debate that our "natural musical ability" runs through our veins from the moment we were conceived. Technology and all these music tools, that make it so easy for us to bang out a song in a few hours, are really making our "talent dna" that much more questionable. 

[Flandersh]

Technically speaking there's a counterargument to everything, what's your objective?

Absolutely. Other than Enlightenment, I haven't any specific objective.

[avasopht]

Technically speaking there's a counterargument to everything, what's your objective?

Absolutely. Other than Enlightenment, I haven't any specific objective.

That's great, ... given this is a subject of interest I could put more effort into more structure thought, ...

[Flandersh]

It is most certain though, that nowadays is very difficult to try to prove and debate that our "natural musical ability" runs through our veins from the moment we were conceived. Technology and all these music tools, that make it so easy for us to bang out a song in a few hours, are really making our "talent dna" that much more questionable. 

I think you are onto something. It is important to question the actual context around a particular event, and with the context taken into account what previously looked amazing may then look to be by standard. When Illich talked about learning webs in the 70's, he would have been amazed to experience for real the thing Reasontalk in fact is. And when we learn and listen to the old classical composers; Bach, Mozart, Beethoven etc. and think they must have been child prodigies we often forget that they was trained in a musical tradition built on a set rules (Mann, 1965) that made it as possible to compose complex pieces as it is for todays kids to produce a song in Magix.

Bibliography:
Mann, A. (1965). Study of Counterpoint: From Johann Joseph Fux's Gradus Ad Parnassum. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

[PSoames]

I suspect access to the tools is more important than any inherited ability.

[Olivier]

Many years before us people made music without tools. People can sing, and smash objects together. Complex rythms and melodies need no more tools than that.

[avasopht]

I read this entire thread, but the below passage on math makes me most curious about your method for quick addition. I wonder if it's something I could learn. I have a strong memory for numbers and can calculate in my head easily, but nowhere near as fast.
I was a very early reader, and also share the ability to recall things clear back to being in diapers (no I was out of them by my 20's ). The memory thing can creep people out I've found, heh.

Both me, my grandfather and so his children had exceptional natural mathematic ability. Like, I pretty much taught myself to add up in my head by the age of 4 (like 4 digits in under a second). My mum and all her siblings were taught to read at the age of 3 (or was it 2), and I mean actually read. I never learned to read that young because I was not taught, but I know my maths was highly influenced by the fact my mother taught me to count early combined with my easily obsession with trying to identify the rules/algorithms behind patterns as an infant. All of us including my grandmother today remember clearly right back to infancy, where people sat in school and many details often forgotten.

There was no method. Somehow it just clicked, though I do rely on checking when summing larger numbers as it's easier to check than it is to perform the actual arithmetic.

That being said, regular practice develops experience and intuition, which is really the key to it all.

I was a little OCD, I might add so I was always counting and arranging toys and loved playing with the cash register, trying to figure out how the adding worked so I think I built up a lot of experience.

Building experience is key.

[avasopht]

It's not do clear cut though. We know genetics affects brain development, neurotransmitters and brain structure.

We know a great deal of information is endorsed, we just don't know how or whether of affects mental ability.

We know for certain our abilities in comparison to other animals is down to our genes, what we don't know is whether there is genetic variance between humans.

[3rd Floor Sound]

Building experience is key.

I'm relatively sure that's the answer to this thread's entire bucket'o'questions. At least that's what has worked in my life.
--------------------------
A side-note on the side conversation on math patterns - I found one the other night while rolling cigs. It must be something that's already been discovered, but I haven't bothered checking.
I was stacking the cigarettes in a triangle and noticed the number of cigs on the bottom dictates the total number like this:
....o....
...oo...
..ooo..
.oooo.
ooooo odd numbered base: X * (X+1)/2, so 5*(5+1)/2, or 5*3=15 (think I'm writing these incorrectly)

.....o....
....oo...
...ooo..
..oooo..
.ooooo.
oooooo even numbered base: X * (X/2 + .5) or 6(6/2 +.5) or 6*3.5=21
Conclusion: Rolling cigarettes is boring.
I'm sure there must be a way to do that using the square of the base, but I just woke up so screw that.

[EnochLight]

And earlier, before Asperger syndrome was invented...

Curious choice of a word.  Would you consider Down Syndrome as being invented?  Albinism?

Just asking, as I always thought that conditions such as Asperger syndrome (as well as conditions such as Down syndrome and albinism) to be observed - and then labelled.  You guys seem much more academically qualified to discuss these matters, so I'd just thought I'd ask.

[Lunesis]

Well the thing about recently diagnosed diseases is that they may also have been recently created. We really don't know what all of these chemicals we enjoy using can do in the long term. We like to use medicine to treat things like AD/HD but maybe kids are just naturally rambunctious?

[avasopht]

Well the thing about recently diagnosed diseases is that they may also have been recently created. We really don't know what all of these chemicals we enjoy using can do in the long term. We like to use medicine to treat things like AD/HD but maybe kids are just naturally rambunctious?

They may also have existed in the past but had the person labelled as lazy, undisciplined or possessed by demons

ADHD isn't just kids being unruly. Big pharma companies are happy though for misdiagnosis as it earns them billions per year

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03100.html

I'm sure there must be a way to do that using the square of the base, but I just woke up so screw that. 

How about ((x ^ 2) + x) / 2.

[PSoames]

Many years before us people made music without tools. People can sing, and smash objects together. Complex rythms and melodies need no more tools than that.

Yes, but how do we learn what's acceptable as music. Instruments aren't the only tools. They can also be the reference material, the environment and the materials needed to learn what is considered music and what would otherwise be considered as screaming and smashing objects together.

The Great French flatulist, Josef Pujol may well have inherited his elastic anus from his parents, but he wasn't born playing La Marseillaise.

[3rd Floor Sound]

I'm sure there must be a way to do that using the square of the base, but I just woke up so screw that.

How about ((x ^ 2) + x) / 2.

That works - no idea how I'll ever use that but for some reason I like to know

[tt_lab]

Yes, but how do we learn what's acceptable as music.

 
In my opinion this is based on cultural background. Thus, what may seem noise for one culture might as well be heavenly music in other.

[Olivier]

Many years before us people made music without tools. People can sing, and smash objects together. Complex rythms and melodies need no more tools than that.

Yes, but how do we learn what's acceptable as music. Instruments aren't the only tools. They can also be the reference material, the environment and the materials needed to learn what is considered music and what would otherwise be considered as screaming and smashing objects together.

The Great French flatulist, Josef Pujol may well have inherited his elastic anus from his parents, but he wasn't born playing La Marseillaise.

I'm personally not very interested in what is considered music. But you have a point about the tools.

[PSoames]

...I'm personally not very interested in what is considered music...

I'm with you on that point.

[Flandersh]

And earlier, before Asperger syndrome was invented...

Curious choice of a word.  Would you consider Down Syndrome as being

invented?

 Albinism?

Just asking, as I always thought that conditions such as Asperger syndrome (as well as conditions such as Down syndrome and albinism) to be

observed

- and then labelled.  You guys seem much more academically qualified to discuss these matters, so I'd just thought I'd ask.

Actually it was one of the words I used very consciously, but in any case you ask a very interesting question which can only be answered when seeing the word invention in different ways.

1. A classification in itself is a work of invention as it is a collection of ideas structured in a given way based upon science and philosophy. The field of science dedicated to this is called nosology, and ask questions about the given ideas to the structure of the ideas. At this level all labels are invented and has changed quite a bit over the years, and may be different in different countries. Like when Asperger syndrome become an existing disorder in DSM-IV, and was removed as an existing disorder in DSM-5.

2. The diseases or disorders which the invented labels point to may, and ought to, be discovered and not invented. With medical conditions which can be observed and measured this is not a problem; like a broken leg or a mutation. But when the condition is difficult to observe and measure, and/or is dependent on professional judgement and/or is even cultural dependent, it is not so clear that it is always discovered and invented. An example of this is the case where homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder in DSM-II. Its effect was that the question "What is a mental disorder?" become an important problem in nosology (Bolton, 2013), and it is still a question without any consensus. As Asperger syndrome, unlike in example Down syndrome, is classified as a mental disorder in ICD-10 it imply that the already mentioned problems affect the classification of it. It is not possible, by this foundation, to answer the question if Asperger syndrome is invented or not.

3. The reason I use the word invented is not so by the study of its nosology alone. It is by the additional study of Lorna Wing's article of Asperger syndrome where she take the observations done by Hans Asperger and make changes which is not about his observations, but about 'practical' solutions and Wing's observations. In this way Asperger syndrome become an invention; a mashup of Asperger and Wing. When it comes to Down syndrome I have not studied it and has to rely on the classification which point rather clearly to it not being an invention in the way mentioned in point 2 as it is not a mental disorder.

Bibliography:
Bolton, D. (2013). What is Mental Illness? In K.W.M. Fulford et al. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Psychiatry. (434-450). UK: Oxford University Press.

[forensickbeats]

All the meds are for the profit, corporations doesn't give a damn about people!

Hmm, I don`t know what`s the problem that many people have with the word "PROFIT"... Shouldn`t those creating meds be paid, should they work for free?

Corporations are made of shareholders (people)... Do they care about "People"... Well, WHICH people? I surely don`t wish bad to anybody, but I don`t really care much about people that I don`t know. Some may not even care for themselves, so why should I care for them? 

If people choose to invest their money in medicine development, I see them as more caring, than those who invest in J Biebler / Nikki Minaj muzeek or alcoholl developments.



Good Read - How Many Friends Does One Person Need, Robin Dunbar

[avasopht]

Hmm, I don`t know what`s the problem that many people have with the word "PROFIT"... Shouldn`t those creating meds be paid, should they work for free?

The problem isn't profit itself but some of the lengths we've seen when people destructively pursue profit at the expense of others.

[3rd Floor Sound]

Hmm, I don`t know what`s the problem that many people have with the word "PROFIT"... Shouldn`t those creating meds be paid, should they work for free?

The problem isn't profit itself but some of the lengths we've seen when people destructively pursue profit at the expense of others.

Yep, but for some reason the finger invariably gets pointed at corporations regardless of the actual culprit, when in order for a business to succeed in the long term they have to at least superficially care about their customers.
It could be specifically VP of X-job at Y corporation who's the asshole, but the entire company gets the blame. Then sometimes a regulation will force a company to act a certain way, but that cause is never referenced as the actual source of the issue.
In any group of 100 people you'll find 2 Gandhi's, a Mao, 50 sheep, 25 goats, and 22 people looking at the rest of them and thinking "I need a beer."

[avasopht]

Curious choice of a word.  Would you consider Down Syndrome as being invented?  Albinism?

Just asking, as I always thought that conditions such as Asperger syndrome (as well as conditions such as Down syndrome and albinism) to be observed - and then labelled.  You guys seem much more academically qualified to discuss these matters, so I'd just thought I'd ask.

Actually it was one of the words I used very consciously, but in any case you ask a very interesting question which can only be answered when seeing the word invention in different ways.

1. A classification in itself is a work of invention as it is a collection of ideas structured in a given way based upon science and philosophy. The field of science dedicated to this is called

nosology

, and ask questions about the given ideas to the structure of the ideas. At this level all labels are invented and has changed quite a bit over the years, and may be different in different countries. Like when Asperger syndrome become an existing disorder in DSM-IV, and was removed as an existing disorder in DSM-5.

2. The diseases or disorders which the invented labels point to may, and ought to, be discovered and not invented. With medical conditions which can be observed and measured this is not a problem; like a broken leg or a mutation. But when the condition is difficult to observe and measure, and/or is dependent on professional judgement and/or is even cultural dependent, it is not so clear that it is always discovered and invented. An example of this is the case where homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder in DSM-II. Its effect was that the question "What is a mental disorder?" become an important problem in nosology (Bolton, 2013), and it is still a question without any consensus. As Asperger syndrome, unlike in example Down syndrome, is classified as a mental disorder in ICD-10 it imply that the already mentioned problems affect the classification of it. It is not possible, by this foundation, to answer the question if Asperger syndrome is invented or not.

3. The reason I use the word invented is not so by the study of its nosology alone. It is by the additional study of Lorna Wing's article of Asperger syndrome where she take the observations done by Hans Asperger and make changes which is not about his observations, but about 'practical' solutions and Wing's observations. In this way Asperger syndrome become an invention; a mashup of Asperger and Wing. When it comes to Down syndrome I have not studied it and has to rely on the classification which point rather clearly to it not being an invention in the way mentioned in point 2 as it is not a mental disorder.

Bibliography:
Bolton, D. (2013). What is Mental Illness? In K.W.M. Fulford et al. (Ed.),

The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Psychiatry

. (434-450). UK: Oxford University Press.

Working towards an exact definition is not always necessary to understand it. For decades we've spoken of games and video games without a workable formal definition that stands the test of scrutiny. It was only when Jesse Schelle took the liberty of trying to define what a game is that we were able to have a clear definition, yet we've been able to successfully know what a video game is.

With regards to Asperger's syndrome, we know what it is and we know the condition imposes a reduction of ability to naturally express emotions as well as an inability to naturally process human communication in ways that allow for "normal" communication. We know that people with Asperger's syndrome have difficulties even communicating with themselves, particularly when it comes to issues of romance.

I understand your area is with something like Ontology, but rather than spend efforts attempting to invalidate, how about a more constructive angle because all you've presented is the fact that we're talking about an area that is uncertain, but you've not provided any constructive information towards solving that problem, which is what I was alluding to when I mentioned a genetic database.

Perhaps in the next 50 years we'll have some papers and books written that identify the heart of what Asperger's syndrome pertains to, enabling us to fully identify discretely exactly what is going on at the cognitive level with a fool proof test to deterministically classify of an individual within the spectrum.

The past should give us good reason to apply caution though, but should not cripple us from thinking about what we know is likely to be a mental disorder, stroke, extreme end of a spectrum.

The actual topic at hand is, is there a genetic factor to intelligence? Given neuroplasticity I believe, though may be wrong, that everyone barring people with severe neurological dysfunctions is capable of learning just as much as any other and that knowing how their genetics has influenced their neurological development one could possibly create an optimal training program tailored specifically for that person to learn as efficiently as they possibly can.

Genius, I believe, is just the result of the optimal path. I could be wrong and perhaps they have a different measure of some specific component that others don't, but all roads seem to lead to the influence of nurture. I only bring up the genetic database though as a way to simply test for a genetic influence, and even then it may show specific genes are associated with higher intelligence but may in fact just affect some propensity to exhibit a particular type of behaviour which is easily compensated.

The way I see the brain is as an easily and highly programmable signal processing machine that learns predictably providing you build upon beliefs and internal models effectively. Brains do oscillate at different speeds, and some cognitive tasks operate better at different frequencies, so there are various dynamic factors at play here.

[avasopht]

Yep, but for some reason the finger invariably gets pointed at corporations regardless of the actual culprit, when in order for a business to succeed in the long term they have to at least superficially care about their customers.

Actually they only need to care about the customer's need and desire to purchase