Thanks Pat, the article that you linked was very much appreciated. I haven't finished it yet, but will over the next couple of days. What I found interesting is that musical aptitude correlates to language ability, according to the article.Pat Dodson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:56 amThis is a rather complex, fraught topic. Much of the research is of poor design and of doubtful validity. @gitgeezer's and @Rasputin's posts also amusingly highlight the problems of correlational evidence. Even very high correlations, and those for this topic are generally low, don't provide good predictive value for individuals as opposed to large populations.
There have also been claims that physical exercise or dance for example seem to boost IQ (whatever that measures) and of course deep study of many subjects hones critical analytical and reasoning skills. And supportive parents and high amounts of good tuition might be other factors?
I don't know of any studies that have focussed on guitarists; the majority have looked at general populations of children or students or at those at music schools or conservatories, whether across all instruments or focussed on pianists or violinists.
The best review of this area is perhaps that of Schellennberg and Weiss (2013)
http://www.utm.utoronto.ca/~w3psygs/FIL ... issPoM.pdf
It is not an easy read perhaps but it covers the ground very well. Here is the final paragraph from its conclusion section:
"Music training is associated with enhanced performance on a wide variety of listening tasks, musical or otherwise. Music training in childhood also tends to be a predictor of good performance across a wide variety of cognitive tests, including tests of memory, language, and visuospatial abilities. Music training is also associated positively with general intelligence and school performance. By contrast, comparisons of adult musicians and nonmusicians often yield null findings when the outcome measures do not involve music or listening. Regardless, the correlational and quasi-experimental designs that typify the vast majority of the available research preclude clear inferences of causation whatever the outcome variable. The available evidence suggests that high-functioning children (i.e., higher IQ, better performance in school) are more likely than other children to take music lessons and to perform well on a variety of tests of cognitive ability, and that music lessons exaggerate these individual differences slightly. Cognitive advantages for individuals who become musicians in adulthood are less consistent except on listening tasks."
Absolutely!PeteJ wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:32 pmPerhaps the guy is so intelligent he realises the triviality of what he's being taught or is just lazy. There's no way to pick apart these things without in-depth analysis of the situation. My two achievements at school were a healthy IQ rating and a complete absence of academic achievement, and I suspect these two are often correlated.
Bit of a gross oversimplification there, often touted around by people who are not very good at IQ tests (broad brush generalisation there!).
I've certainly come across people who are nervous around psychologists because they are worried they'll read their deepest darkest secrets in the way they pour the wine or the colour of their shoes. In the nicest possible way, I think they are overestimating psychology...Pat Dodson wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:55 pmWhen at university in the 70s I hitch-hiked home every fortnight or so (whatever happened to hitch-hiking?) After several awkward debates with drivers about aspects of psychology I decided to say I was studying mathematics. Journeys were then much more enjoyable.
OK, but that doesn't disprove what simonm said. IQ tests measure IQ, and IQ is whatever is measured by IQ tests. This is true by definition - it doesn't mean that IQ tests are a valid measure of general intelligence, or even that there is such a thing as general intelligence.UKsteve wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:02 pmBit of a gross oversimplification there, often touted around by people who are not very good at IQ tests (broad brush generalisation there!).
It's well-established that performance improves with some practice, as the participant becomes familiar with the type of domain investigated (e.g. verbal reasoning, maths, etc.) and the way in which the question is asked. However, saturation occurs beyond a certain amount of practice.
The score then becomes a function of how often the participants gets the answer right and the speed with which they do so (given that the tests are time-limited). People with high IQ get the right answer, and they get it quick.