Is musical ability genetic?

[forensickbeats]

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

So does everyone else. The people commonly referred as "laborers" (as if only physical labor matters) sell their labor to the "employers". By the same logic, they only care about the paycheck.

People should be motivated to think critically so that they don`t fall prey to the artificial desires propaganda of ill intentioned sellers.

I had a perfect example in mind, but unfortunately I forgot it, I`ll post it as soon I DISCOVER what it was...

:t1465:

[Ostermilk]

I wonder now if my intuition about this thread way back in post 7 was based on some kind of premonition or whether it was merely to do with previous learned experience.

[Flandersh]

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.

It is in need of an exact definition for numerous reasons, were the past has teached us some of them. From the fact that Asperger syndrome has over 20 subcategories which differ from each other, and the fact that there is other disorders with nearly the same signs, to the fact that what is expected in one culture may be a disorder in another.

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.

I find it very unlikely as Asperger syndrome is made with a system which is not compatible with the emerging science as such. It is for a systemic reason that NIMH "boycott" DSM and support only research projects which is based upon a system that make it possible with genetic discoveries. It is further a possibility that Asperger syndrome will be history in a few years too, if Europe do as America and remove Asperger syndrome as a possible disorder.

So I find it likely that the future, at least in science, would bring something like the RDoC:
"NIMH has launched the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project to transform diagnosis by incorporating genetics, imaging, cognitive science, and other levels of information to lay the foundation for a new classification system. [..] it is critical to realize that we cannot succeed if we use DSM categories as the “gold standard.” The diagnostic system has to be based on the emerging research data, not on the current symptom-based categories" (Insel, 2013).

Bibliography:
Insel, T. (2013, April 29). Director's Blog: Transforming Diagnosis. [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/ ... osis.shtml

[avasopht]

That's no reason to ignore the observation of Aspergers. The classification makes significant ramifications that regardless of what future research philosophy you adopt, call by different names or whatever inarguably exist.

However flaky the model is, it's alluding to something we can understand with a strong enough concept to acknowledge. There ARE people who display no ability to display emotion, struggle to fathom generally understood contextual cues and process information differently. Looking for a gene based classification might be the best direction to go in (which is the first comment I made that started this whole sub topic in the first place), but our concept of it is strong enough to acknowledge.

Perhaps the genetic find could reach a new conclusion but I expect it to correspond with what is currently observed, just more atomic in construction.

[Gaja]

Plot twist: the OP meant is musical ability generic?

[Flandersh]

That's no reason to ignore the observation of Aspergers. The classification makes significant ramifications that regardless of what future research philosophy you adopt, call by different names or whatever inarguably exist.

Well, it looks like the earlier labels in the history of psychiatry have not made such a significant ramification, so what would warrant that Aspergers do after it eventually has ceased to exist I do not know.

However flaky the model is, it's alluding to something we can understand with a strong enough concept to acknowledge.

All models has somewhat to be 'user-friendly' because of the professionals not being scientists, so it has been made in such a way that it could be understand with a strong enough concept as to warrant reliability. This has, thought, been at the cost of validity, and both new versions of DSM and ICD and new classifications like RDoC has striven/strive to make the validity better so it can be used for scientific research.

There ARE people who display no ability to display emotion, struggle to fathom generally understood contextual cues and process information differently.

And they would in most cases be classified with a personality disorder or schizotypal disorder rather than with Asperger syndrome, since the classification of Asperger syndrome does not say anything about an absence of the ability to display emotions.

[avasopht]

Difficulty expressing emotions then, come on man, if you can research all those sources you could have just as early known what I was referencing.

The early days of psychiatry was much less informed, was pre behaviourism, come on, you know this. And not every condition is the same in how it can be misinterpreted.

So are you attempting to suggest that what Aspergers syndrome refers to is entirely imaginary and they have no underlying difficulties, even though they clearly do and clearly are different. This is getting ridiculous.

[Flandersh]

The early days of psychiatry was much less informed, was pre behaviourism, come on, you know this.

No, because the impression I have got from reading historical sources on it is opposite.

And not every condition is the same in how it can be misinterpreted.

Mental disorders has a common possibility to be misinterpreted.

So are you attempting to suggest that what Aspergers syndrome refers to is entirely imaginary and they have no underlying difficulties, even though they clearly do and clearly are different.

I have not come to a conclusion on that. I am concerned with the nosology for the purpose of understanding the difference between different types of classifications  (medical, pedagogical, religious, cultural etc.) and their effects on the human, society and the relationship between human and society.

[avasopht]

The early days of psychiatry was much less informed, was pre behaviourism, come on, you know this.

No, because the impression I have got from reading historical sources on it is opposite.

How could people with less information than we have available today not be less informed?

And not every condition is the same in how it can be misinterpreted.

Mental disorders has a common possibility to be misinterpreted.

My point was not whether they could be misinterpreted, but that it's not the same in how it can be misinterpreted.

Failing to see why you are picking at details that have nothing to do with the actual point. The main point is that there is some condition referred to as Aspergers that references a significant difference in people typically classified with that particular problem (adjust the text in your head accordingly, you know what I mean). People within the category where it is "high functioning" tend to have above average intelligence, and the condition itself has strong evidence of being genetically determined (there are other studies).

We know that genes do affect intelligence, otherwise all animals would display equivalent intelligence. What we don't know is how intelligence and intellectual potential varies between humans, if at all.

Gauss, Archimedes and Newton all had photographic memories (and based on studies, Aspergers). Gauss has displayed the highest level of mental ability in all human history, making more contributions to mathematics in his lifetime than the combined efforts of the next best 3 (or so, including Einstein and Newton).

This exceptionally gifted autistic pianist uses his mind so differently to other people that he can do what would otherwise be deemed impossible for a human to achieve. That level of genius is typically only seen in people with high functioning autism/aspergers.

[avasopht]

Plot twist: the OP meant is musical ability generic?

It's really the same topic. The question of musical ability being genetic is inextricably linked to the question of whether intellectual ability has a genetic factor.

[avasopht]

How could people with less information than we have available today not be less informed?

 
If the information we have today was corrupted.

Even if that were the case, they still would have less information. Is every addition to psychology in the last 100 years corrupted? I highly doubt so. You could ask the same question about the older concepts, were they corrupted? etc. etc.

An unbalanced scepticism denotes a bias, demonstrating that a personal conclusion has already been settled upon, from which ones scepticism is shaped.

[Flandersh]

How could people with less information than we have available today not be less informed?

I can't see that we have any more information today on the critical questions. Scientific findings do not develop in the same way as technology, so a new technology would not necessary give any new scientific information. 

The main point is that there is some condition referred to as Aspergers that references a significant difference in people typically classified with that particular problem

Acording to the standard of psychiatry.

People within the category where it is "high functioning" tend to have above average intelligence

There is no category called 'high functioning' in Asperger syndrome, but there is a discussion if it exist a category of childhood autism which can be denoted "high functioning" (HFA). This discussion is not about any above average intelligence, but if it is useful to denote HFA or if Asperger syndrome should be used for those cases.

and the condition itself has strong evidence of being genetically determined (there are other studies).

There exist many studies which link genes and pervasive developmental disorders, but a link is not an evidence as it is not about causation but correlation. In addition do the fact that it is a mental disorder make it hard to make a good enough research design, since the classification of the disorder is based on interviews and questionnaires (like the EQ and AQ developed by Baron-Cohen) which involves human judgements. And the disorder (as well as the results of 'tests' like EQ/AQ) must be impossible to explain on other grounds.

[avasopht]

I can't see that we have any more information today on the critical questions. Scientific findings do not develop in the same way as technology, so a new technology would not necessary give any new scientific information.  

Not sure if you've seen, but the last 100 years has seen the introduction of behavioural psychology, which led to the cognitive science revolution, giving us a much more objective set of tools. Then add neurology to that. So erm, yes. Really not sure why you are now arguing dishonestly. You clearly are capable of finding information so I can only assume you are aware of the last 100 years of advancements.

Acording to the standard of psychiatry. 

No, come on, stop being dishonest. Not sure what you're getting at but there is no logical way to say that what is observed in people classified as having Aspergers is non existent. That is just downright dishonest

If you're going to be dishonest I think I'll refrain from communicating with you. Really not sure what your game is. Either you are playing games or you, ironically, have some communicative peculiarities, and by peculiarities I don't just mean a different way of seeing things, which is a good skill to have, but an inability to see what others can.

[Gaja]

Plot twist: the OP meant is musical ability generic?

It's really the same topic. The question of musical ability being genetic is inextricably linked to the question of whether intellectual ability has a genetic factor.

I was just trying to make a joke.
I left university, because all the intellectuality for thensake of intellectuality was disturbing to me. Not that nothing relevant comes out of it, but I think if one really understands a problem and believes that it is worth a discussion, then there should be nothing stopping them from making it understandable to the people who are no academics. While I find it fascinating that people are able to express themselves like that (and I can too, if I must - at least in german), I find it questionable to make the information only accessible to an elite group (and many times even this group has to reread certain sentences in order to understand). To be fair, texts by US authors tend to be much easier to understand, whereas german texts tend to be really difficult (stuff like Weber or Gadamer etc), and incomprehensible. I know a guy whose PHD thesis was rated excellent, because the professor didn't understand what he was saying. Something is wrong about this.
If you have understood something, you can make others understand without forcing them to rip out part of their brains (sorry for this disturbing image, I'm really bad at analogies...).
Anyway this is a Forum for users of music software.
I don't care for bibliography on psychology or any other academic subject really (unless it's about audio production), so even if Flandersh's bibliography is correct, I wouldn't dig that stuff up anyway, because it would probably mean I'd have to go to te uni's library (which I can't because I'm no student) or suscribe to one of tose really expensive scientific magazines that I'm really not interested in.
It's totally fine of course to discuss these things, after all this is the kitchen, but still...
It appears to me that this particular discussion about aspergers, does not help many people here. But maybe I'm just projecting my ignorance...

[3rd Floor Sound]

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

Exactly. If you're producing shit and screwing people over how long will that need and desire last?

[3rd Floor Sound]

I wonder now if my intuition about this thread way back in post 7 was based on some kind of premonition or whether it was merely to do with previous learned experience.

It's genetics.

[selig]

I don't exactly know what "arguing dishonestly" means, but is sure sounds to me like you're all but calling someone a liar here. :frown:

This thread is already WAY OT, which maybe the OP is fine with. But seeing as how only a genetic scientist could actually answer this question in the first place, let's either keep it more friendly and casual or you guys can move the conversation to a more genetic-centric forum where this question could factually be answered!

I can't see that we have any more information today on the critical questions. Scientific findings do not develop in the same way as technology, so a new technology would not necessary give any new scientific information.  

Not sure if you've seen, but the last 100 years has seen the introduction of behavioural psychology, which led to the cognitive science revolution, giving us a much more objective set of tools. Then add neurology to that. So erm, yes. Really not sure why you are now arguing dishonestly. You clearly are capable of finding information so I can only assume you 

are 

aware of the last 100 years of advancements.

Acording to the standard of psychiatry. 

No, come on, stop being dishonest. Not sure what you're getting at but there is no logical way to say that what is observed in people classified as having Aspergers is non existent. That is just downright dishonest

If you're going to be dishonest I think I'll refrain from communicating with you. Really not sure what your game is. Either you are playing games or you, ironically, have some communicative peculiarities, and by peculiarities I don't just mean a different way of seeing things, which is a good skill to have, but an inability to see what others can.

[avasopht]

You are right, friendly and casual sounds good.

[zeebot]

This thread is already WAY OT, which maybe the OP is fine with.

A simple yes or no to my original question and a short sentence explaining why would have been sufficient

[selig]

This thread is already WAY OT, which maybe the OP is fine with.

A simple yes or no to my original question and a short sentence explaining why would have been sufficient

It was not my intention to enter this debate - wait, are you asking me to answer the question, or is your response directed at someone else?

[selig]

You are right, friendly and casual sounds good.

Thanks for that, and please accept my apology if my reaction to your comments was out of line since I'm unfamiliar with the terms being used here.

[3rd Floor Sound]

selig



Radministrator

I need a title like that. "Attic dweller" maybe?

[Flandersh]

Not sure if you've seen, but the last 100 years has seen the introduction of behavioural psychology, which led to the cognitive science revolution, giving us a much more objective set of tools. Then add neurology to that. So erm, yes.

What I do not understand is that my old sources already point to the information we should have got later:

"I will formulate it as a thesis:[..] 'A super-human intelligence, watching the dance of the atoms of which the human brain consists and possessing the psycho-physiological key, would be able to read, in the working of the brain, all that is occuring in the corresponding conscoiusness. [..] It is the metaphysics of science as science was conceived in the time of Descartes" (Bergson, 1920, p. 231-233).

"We have seen that at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the physiological conception had attained alomost universal acceptance. Research began to be devoted mainly to the anatomy and physiology of the brain" (Hart, 1918, p. 8).

"A theory, which has for some years flourished in the psychiatric world, admits that a large proportion of mental and physical affections are the result of degeneration, of the action, that is, of heredity in the children of the inebriate, the syphilitic, the insane, the consumptive, &c.; or of accidental causes, such as lesions of the head or the action of mercury" (Lombroso, 1891, p. 5).

The questions today are the same as in the sources; there is a belief in a working parallelism between the psychological and physiological, and a belief that neuroscience may find the answers. And the answers are the same too, since no answers has been found yet. So the information we have today has not given any more answers than one had for 100 years ago.

Not sure what you're getting at but there is no logical way to say that what is observed in people classified as having Aspergers is non existent

.

I have made clear that I have made no conclusion to it. But from a general perspective there is known by history that mental disorders can be influenced by cultural factors, and that some disorders has been more "epidemic" in some historical periods than others (Elliott, 2003). Further it is a fact that when using other standards than psychiatry which do not have the classification of psychiatry, other approaches are used to refer to the given person and other ideas are of importance.

Bibliography:
Bergson, H. (1920). Mind-Energy: Lectures and Essays. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Elliott, C. (2003). Better than Well: American Medicine meets the American Dream. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Hart, B. (1918). The Psychology of Insanity. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lombroso, C. (1891). The Man of Genius. UK: Walter Scott.

[Ostermilk]

I wonder now if my intuition about this thread way back in post 7 was based on some kind of premonition or whether it was merely to do with previous learned experience.

It's genetics.

Maybe, but I prefer to think, as my parents used to say, I was just born that way...

[avasopht]

I wonder now if my intuition about this thread way back in post 7 was based on some kind of premonition or whether it was merely to do with previous learned experience.

It's genetics.

Maybe, but I prefer to think, as my parents used to say, I was just born that way...

I blame it on all the pesticides they put in our veg