# Can Music and Intelligence be directly correlated?



## StewartEhoff (Nov 3, 2012)

According to this man, it can. While he states in the article that it is not credible or accurate, there is certainly an underlying truth.







While listening to Nobuo Uematsu on my work break the other day, a colleague entered the room. She immediately declared I "turn that racket off", at which point, she continued to open her music library and blare one of Nicki Minaj's latest "songs". (I use that term very loosely)

So what do we think SSO? Am I just completely biased? Are we all just too kind to really admit that people who are happy enough to be spoon fed what is given to them in the charts every week are simply less intelligent than those who takes an active interest in finding less popularised music?


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 3, 2012)

Let me get this straight: Beethoven's music is less likely to make you dumb than say, Green Day? 

I personally think there are some inconsistencies in that list. While I am a music elitist myself and do think some genres are "reserved" for people prone to think (rather than dance), I don't really think there is a direct correlation.


----------



## IRequirezANewHOST (Nov 3, 2012)

Generally, I don't think that you can directly correlate a person's intelligence with the music that they listen to and I'm not buying that list. However I feel that choosing music that has been marketed to the masses doesn't reflect the same amount of thought it may require to go out and choose less popular music in spite of what the people around you may associate with it. 

Although some may people choose less popular music to fit in with another subculture instead which would be similar to just buying/listening to music that is marketed to the masses...

Nah, I'm not convinced taste of music is related to intelligence at all. 

EDIT: but it can reflect it. If someone's a die hard Nicki Minaj fan I don't exactly imagine a smart person


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Nov 3, 2012)

Ehm, first of all not many things in the world can be "directly correlated", as in, you can't make a deduction that intellect people ALWAYS listen to this and this and vice versa.

Secondly, I don't think there is really any relevance, since even though you can see causality in the way that "listens to some type of music (say classical or something)->is intelligent", it's not as clear in reverse. You can't call someone stupid just because he likes 'stupid people's music'. It's not valid a argument since there's no 'direct correlation' in it.

Say, it's completely normal not to pay attention for what you're listening to if you're not a musician or just don't "like to listen to music". Then you most probably, when you rarely feel like it, listen to music that's you can get your hands on easily. There's nothing to be ashamed if you listen to such music. You're not any more intelligent because you "take active interest in finding less popularised music", since well... music being "less popularised" isn't even the thing here. (I'm saying, that the point of the whole "intelligent music" is not that it's "less popularised" imo)

Anyway, yes, you are biased and no, there's no direct correlation. But there is some correlation, but in my opinion, it's not relevant to any sort of discussion since it doesn't add anything to the table.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Nov 3, 2012)

IRequirezANewHOST said:


> Generally, I don't think that you can directly correlate a person's intelligence with the music that they listen to and I'm not buying that list. However I feel that choosing music that has been marketed to the masses doesn't reflect the same amount of thought it may require to go out and choose less popular music in spite of what the people around you may associate with it.
> 
> Although some may people choose less popular music to fit in with another subculture instead which would be similar to just buying/listening to music that is marketed to the masses...
> 
> ...



I don't think you should say the list is flawed since it's not. The point is to make the right deductions out of it, not to say it's wrong since it's, most probably, a well made research anyway...


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 3, 2012)

I certainly think that a persons overall music taste can reflect aspects of their personality, including intelligence. Those who listen to whatever simple, catchy shit that is in the charts are sometimes kinda a bit less bright, because it reflects a lack of desire to open your mind to new things, and look beyond what is presented to you. That can extend to a thirst for knowledge, which might be stronger in someone who actively seeks different music and can appreciate a wider range of things. 

That being said, this sort of debate can stem purely from someones desire to validate their own elitism.


----------



## JosephAOI (Nov 3, 2012)

I think people who say they don't like a band because they write songs longer than 5 minutes are fucking stupid.


----------



## Spike Spiegel (Nov 3, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> I certainly think that a persons overall music taste can reflect aspects of their personality, including intelligence. Those who listen to whatever simple, catchy shit that is in the charts are sometimes kinda a bit less bright, because it reflects a lack of desire to open your mind to new things, and look beyond what is presented to you. That can extend to a thirst for knowledge, which might be stronger in someone who actively seeks different music and can appreciate a wider range of things.
> 
> That being said, this sort of debate can stem purely from someones desire to validate their own elitism.



Just because someone chooses the popular music of the day doesn't mean they don't appreciate other music or actively seek other forms of musical stimulation. From what i understand this chart shows who they enjoy listening to, not who they have listened to in the past year etc. Judging someone to be closed minded based on their favorite genre or style is a little closed-minded in itself.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Nov 3, 2012)

I often say that simple people listen to simple music. Call it elitist, but I've never seed an idiot listen to Venetian Snares or Blotted Science and like it.


----------



## The Omega Cluster (Nov 3, 2012)

I don't know which influence the other, though.

Does the music you listen to influence your intelligence?
or
Does your intelligence influence your musical tastes?


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 3, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> I certainly think that a persons overall music taste can reflect aspects of their personality, including intelligence. Those who listen to whatever simple, catchy shit that is in the charts are sometimes kinda a bit less bright, because *it reflects a lack of desire to open your mind to new things,* and look beyond what is presented to you.



This. A million times this. People who aren't willing to challenge their ears and brains with more complex music are more prone to be less intelligent, or at least I dare to claim so.

@theomegacluster: It's a correlation, not a causal relationship.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Nov 3, 2012)

leftyguitarjoe said:


> I often say that simple people listen to simple music. Call it elitist, but I've never seed an idiot listen to Venetian Snares or Blotted Science and like it.



Well then your sample is way too little. I have met really loser, idiot, people that listen to Blotted Science and all that stuff. Again, I agree there's correlation, but it's not direct as you seem to claim.


----------



## IRequirezANewHOST (Nov 3, 2012)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> I don't think you should say the list is flawed since it's not. The point is to make the right deductions out of it, not to say it's wrong since it's, most probably, a well made research anyway...



didn't say it was flawed. Just saying I don't buy it  Based on personal experience i've met really intelligent people who don't care for music, and I have a sociology professor who I really admire who enjoys annoying pop music.

Edit: which reminds me.

Classical music is often appreciated much more by high society, which also suggests a more educated audience and that has been known to affect IQ scores positively.


----------



## Necris (Nov 3, 2012)

I never even took an SAT so maybe I'm biased, but I think the creator trying to apply the term "scientific" as a descriptor for his study is laughable.

One thing I couldn't help but notice is that while the blanket term"Classical" is down near the bottom of the list the more specific name Beethoven is ~120 points ahead of everything else. I can't help but imagine that if pressed for a specific composer (which obviously couldn't happen since this is a graph drawn from data from facebook stats) those people may well have gone for the first "classical-y sounding" name they knew, be it Bach, Chopin, Mozart, Beethovens and thus dragged Beethoven score down in with the rest.
The same is true for the term "Bob Marley" being ~200 points above the catch all terms Reggae and Reggaeton. Alternative and Rock each being a few hundred points below "Radiohead" etc. 

I think all this graph has proven is that, no, you can't make any real judgement on a persons intelligence based on their music tastes.


----------



## Sikthness (Nov 3, 2012)

garloof said:


> Just because someone chooses the popular music of the day doesn't mean they don't appreciate other music or actively seek other forms of musical stimulation. From what i understand this chart shows who they enjoy listening to, not who they have listened to in the past year etc. Judging someone to be closed minded based on their favorite genre or style is a little closed-minded in itself.



well not necessarily. But it takes a certain degree of brain power to appreciate and even recognize complex musical pieces. If you had to guess which was more intelligent, a guy intelligently discussing the enjoyable aspects of pseudo-post-modern-bla bla art and a guy staring at a bunch of stick figures drawn in chalk on the sidewalk, momentarily wiping the drool off of his lower lip long enough to comment on how 'sick' they are, which person would you guess? Of course listening to certain music doesnt MAKE you smart or dumb, there is simply a correlation between IQ and musical choice.


----------



## groovemasta (Nov 3, 2012)

why is jazz almost the lowest one


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 3, 2012)

garloof said:


> Just because someone chooses the popular music of the day doesn't mean they don't appreciate other music or actively seek other forms of musical stimulation. From what i understand this chart shows who they enjoy listening to, not who they have listened to in the past year etc. Judging someone to be closed minded based on their favorite genre or style is a little closed-minded in itself.



That's why I was referring to people who solely listen to pop music and don't bother trying anything else. I listen to a bit of pop music. There's plenty of good pop music in my opinion, but I try to check out all different things. I don't think there is anything wrong with having a favourite genre, but to only listen to that genre I think is close-minded, and it's evident when you try to introduce them to new stuff and their preconceptions start to emerge.


----------



## Spike Spiegel (Nov 3, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> That's why I was referring to people who solely listen to pop music and don't bother trying anything else. I listen to a bit of pop music. There's plenty of good pop music in my opinion, but I try to check out all different things. I don't think there is anything wrong with having a favourite genre, but to only listen to that genre I think is close-minded, and it's evident when you try to introduce them to new stuff and their preconceptions start to emerge.


Ah, this i can understand. I thought you were referring to anyone who enjoys pop music at all.


----------



## StewartEhoff (Nov 3, 2012)

The chart itself isn't entirely accurate, I just thought something visual would spark good debate, and I believe it has.

I personally think music taste can be a direct influence on people's attitudes and values. I completely agree with the opinion that a thirst for knowledge is what drives a lot of us in this scene.

" it reflects a lack of desire to open your mind to new things"

Best quote I can find in the thread so far.


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 3, 2012)

You need to make the distinction between:

Music that dumb/smart people listen to because they are dumb/smart

Music that "makes" people dumb/smart


----------



## bhakan (Nov 3, 2012)

I don't think music necessarily has any connection with intelligence. I would say some music is inherently more "intelligent" than others, but that doesn't always reflect the listener's intelligence. I know a lot of extremely smart people who listen to generic pop because they aren't looking to challenge themselves with music. They get something different from it than most of on this forum do, but it doesn't make them any less intelligent.


----------



## SirMyghin (Nov 3, 2012)

Nope


----------



## abandonist (Nov 3, 2012)

I have an IQ that tests in the genius range.

I think King of Wishful Thinking is one of the best songs ever written.

This list is stupid.


----------



## Miek (Nov 3, 2012)

define intelligence first, please and thanks image guy.


----------



## Stealthtastic (Nov 3, 2012)

Not only does it depend on what the listener is listening too, but also how they view it/take from it.


----------



## kamello (Nov 3, 2012)

nope. but the lower you tune the smarter you are  
(so guys, you should consider selling your capos)


----------



## Bloodbath Salt (Nov 4, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> Let me get this straight: Beethoven's music is less likely to make you dumb than say, Green Day?
> 
> I personally think there are some inconsistencies in that list. While I am a music elitist myself and do think some genres are "reserved" for people prone to think (rather than dance), I don't really think there is a direct correlation.



have you met anybody that listens to Toby Keith? Or heard his latest album? The term "retarded" does it no justice. 


_Posted from Sevenstring.org App for Android_


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 4, 2012)

abandonist said:


> I have an IQ that tests in the genius range.
> 
> I think King of Wishful Thinking is one of the best songs ever written.
> 
> This list is stupid.



A person's IQ score is meaningless. Those tests weren't designed to find out who is more intelligent than others, but who is more likely to have problems at school.


----------



## abandonist (Nov 4, 2012)

I'd tend to agree, but it's an easy way to express a measurement of something immeasurable, to the layman. 

I stand by the whole concept of this being nothing but a masturbatory fantasy of someone trying to "prove" a disingenuous base for their perceived superiority. It's entirely subjective, has no concern for causation/correlation, and has no empiricism. 

To wit, it's a silly thing to waste time on.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Nov 4, 2012)

kamello said:


> nope. but the lower you tune the smarter you are
> (so guys, you should consider selling your capos)



Side note: drop tuning automatically multiplies one's intelligence quotient by -1.


----------



## Miek (Nov 4, 2012)

SchecterWhore said:


> Side note: drop tuning automatically multiplies one's intelligence quotient by -1.



this actually makes my IQ higher


----------



## Loomer (Nov 4, 2012)

JosephAOI said:


> I think people who say they don't like a band because they write songs longer than 5 minutes are fucking stupid.



I agree wholeheartedly. It should be two minutes AT THE VERY MOST and no more!


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Nov 4, 2012)

Feel your IQ power LEVEL!!!!


----------



## Demiurge (Nov 4, 2012)

Certainly, when you take music taste, which is not only subjective but also affected unrelated factors like region, culture, and demographic, and map it against results of a test that has been argued to be biased toward certain regions, cultures, and demographic, it's going to be, like, a truth double-rainbow.


----------



## fps (Nov 4, 2012)

Elitist bollocks. What music you like may make a big difference to how intelligent you think you are, or how superior you think you are to other people, but it has nothing to do with intelligence as a measurable commodity. 

A high proportion of metalheads think they're really something special because of the music they listen to. That's fine, it's empowering music, but don't then make out that this means you're better than other people simply because of your musical taste.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Nov 4, 2012)

fps said:


> Elitist bollocks. What music you like may make a big difference to how intelligent you think you are, or how superior you think you are to other people, but it has nothing to do with intelligence as a measurable commodity.
> 
> A high proportion of metalheads think they're really something special because of the music they listen to. That's fine, it's empowering music, but don't then make out that this means you're better than other people simply because of your musical taste.



Plain wow how you can make so strictly say that this research is complete bullshit. It is proven by the research that these things do have correlation, now you can't falsify it just by saying "I disagree". It's not the point of this thread, the point is, again, to make the right deductions out of the research. I claim that your post and the feeling to say what you said comes from a hate against elitists.



> it has nothing to do with intelligence as a measurable commodity



Like, what the hell man? Prove yourself right before you say anything like that, since that statement is proven false already. Go make another research that proves that there is no correlation at all and I believe you.

And again, being more intelligent is not the same as being "better". And no, musical taste doesn't make you better, no-one ever claimed that. The research is claiming that people who listen to certain type of music *are more likely to have higher IQ than people who listen to some other type*, there's nothing elitist or wrong in that, yet why would there be? It's true until proven false.

Also, read my earlier post to see better where I'm coming from; alone this post is not totally representative of my opinion so don't make hesitate statements out of it...


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 4, 2012)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> Plain wow how you can make so strictly say that this research is complete bullshit. It is proven by the research that these things do have correlation,


Dude, there are correlations between all kinds of things.

There is actually a negative correlation between the amount of time you spend on SS.org and your level of culturedness (is that a word lol).


----------



## StewartEhoff (Nov 4, 2012)

Listen to this entire song and tell me that this isn't stupid music made for stupid people.


----------



## fps (Nov 4, 2012)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> Plain wow how you can make so strictly say that this research is complete bullshit. It is proven by the research that these things do have correlation, now you can't falsify it just by saying "I disagree". It's not the point of this thread, the point is, again, to make the right deductions out of the research. I claim that your post and the feeling to say what you said comes from a hate against elitists.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hahhaa. And let me guess, it turns out that the music YOU like means you're very intelligent? I know all kinds of brilliant people who don't listen to much music, but what they like involves cheese, and going to clubs and dancing to cheese. These people went to Oxford and Cambridge, have degrees and masters out the wazoo, and are doctors, lawyers etc. It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny in reality.


----------



## fps (Nov 4, 2012)

Oh and for a start, the kind of people who take the time to post their favourite songs etc. as declared preferences online are not necessarily representative of an entire college, and everyone knows that metalheads are more likely to go online and seek out surveys and such than the average person who likes dance. The results are always going to be skewed by the kind of person who feels compelled to fill out facebook details about themselves. You take the people who are on facebook the whole time and want to tell people their favourite music, and make those people representative of entire colleges? Ridiculous. Bear in mind that music can also be a cultural thing, and that those cultures contain many more social, economic, familial complexities than simply what music someone likes to listen to, and the whole thing falls apart. Consider that someone can like several different styles of music equally, and again the whole thing falls apart. It's terrible, terrible research. I hope that the first three things I thought about this off the top of my head at least point you in the direction of how wrong this is.


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 4, 2012)

I'm gonna Google this, but when I come back, I'm gonna do some elitist-ego-stomping. Maybe you've all gotten really insular because we're all musicians on the internet, with niche interests, but we're no smarter or dumber than anyone else. 

Go see AAL in real life and see the sweaty redneck guitarists gush about his technique and how happy they are to have a new Line 6 Spider III to nail that Tosin tone. Go to a jazz concert in Austin, TX on East 6th and talk to some vapid UT student about shit he read off the back of a philosophy book. Go hang out with music performance majors, a surprising number of whom are actually totally average in intelligence, despite being incredibly intimate with 'the smartest genre of music'. 

Get off the internet, and your high horse.


----------



## StewartEhoff (Nov 4, 2012)

What of the attitudes and values that certain types of music promote? Dylan of Daemoness views pop to be a promoter of "obsession of the self, non-existant attention spans (who's top of the charts this week) and detestable senses of entitlement (I really want to be a billionaire).

Does the attitude of a particular artist reflect upon it's fan base? Music is a way of speaking to people, it's a way of speaking to the soul. Lets not forget how influential music can be, and the sheer power that people at the top of the food chain hold.

(Great stuff by the way guys, really interesting to see both sides of the debate. I think either way, there will always be an argument for or against, and from a strictly statistical point of view, there will always be anomalies for every constant)


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 4, 2012)

Jazz is overrated.


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 4, 2012)

StewartEhoff said:


> What of the attitudes and values that certain types of music promote? Dylan of Daemoness views pop to be a promoter of "obsession of the self, non-existant attention spans (who's top of the charts this week) and detestable senses of entitlement (I really want to be a billionaire).
> 
> Does the attitude of a particular artist reflect upon it's fan base? Music is a way of speaking to people, it's a way of speaking to the soul. Lets not forget how influential music can be, and the sheer power that people at the top of the food chain hold.
> 
> (Great stuff by the way guys, really interesting to see both sides of the debate. I think either way, there will always be an argument for or against, and from a strictly statistical point of view, there will always be anomalies for every constant)



Music can also be made purely for entertainment. If you decry pop as being a soulless, manufactured genre that fosters ignorance, than you must do the same for metal. It's a genre that promotes hyperaggression, promotes subversive thought and behavior, and further fractures society into ever-increasing subcultures.


----------



## pacobronmandera (Nov 4, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> This. A million times this. People who aren't willing to challenge their ears and brains with more complex music are more prone to be less intelligent, or at least I dare to claim so.
> 
> @theomegacluster: It's a correlation, not a causal relationship.



Good point! Less intelligent people are (usually) not interested in expanding their horizons.


----------



## pacobronmandera (Nov 4, 2012)

StewartEhoff said:


> Listen to this entire song and tell me that this isn't stupid music made for stupid people.




LOL. Maybe we should all join Cash Money Records and get "rich bitch" like her! 

NOT.


----------



## TheKhann (Nov 4, 2012)

In my opinion, the complexity of one`s musical taste, only shows one`s musical culture and has nothing to do with intelligence. I know plenty of intelligent people that dont care about music at all, it plays no role in their life, they get their fix elsewhere, like literature for example.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Nov 4, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> Jazz is overrated.




Listen to this and get back to me on that


----------



## groovemasta (Nov 4, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> Jazz is overrated.


----------



## Loomer (Nov 4, 2012)

As someone who actually gets out and has a social life, I can safely say that this survey is completely wrong, via the empirical evidence of having met many, many more ignorant, narrow-minded idiots in the metal scene than I ever will anywhere else. 

The only difference between metalheads and any other brand of idiot (save for entry-level "jazzers") is just that they like to consider themselves awful smart and feel superior for it. 

Any other person just doesn't care, and the people who are legitimately smart have no such views, since a huge part of being intelligent is realising what you DON'T know and acting accordingly. 

Of course, I do agree that some music is deliberately stupid and it's fanbases consist mainly of stupid people, but that's only because there are so immeasurably many twats to go around.


----------



## otisct20 (Nov 4, 2012)

I read an article somewhere that a study was done at a school and it was discovered that the more intelligent kids listened to prog metal, not classical like the stereotype. I'll have to find it and link it here.


----------



## Loomer (Nov 4, 2012)

otisct20 said:


> I read an article somewhere that a study was done at a school and it was discovered that the more intelligent kids listened to prog metal, not classical like the stereotype. I'll have to find it and link it here.



Yet none of them have lost their virginity yet although the study was conducted 20 years ago. At least 80% of them also would save their Star Wars action figures before their parents if the house was on fire.


----------



## spawnofthesith (Nov 4, 2012)

Malarkey.


----------



## wankerness (Nov 4, 2012)

I've known idiots that have listened to everything on that list, pretty much. A lot of perfectly intelligent people really just do not give a shit about music and just want something that sounds nice in the background because it's not a high priority in their life. And with genres, you're going to get a lot of people who are passionate about one genre and listen to all the "INTELLIGENT" choices in it and then dismiss what's good in other genres cause they just don't get it. 

It might be hard to imagine dealing with this sort of thing if you are still in college or mainly interact with people through the internet, and I still struggle with it cause I haven't been out in the "REAL WORLD" for that long, but it's something you have to get over unless you want to be constantly angry and bitter and basically a sociopath. I know plenty of people who are more competent and intelligent than me when it comes to all kinds of stuff-art, literature, whatever, who will make a disgusted face and turn anything off instantly if there's so much as one chord that sounds even remotely dissonant in a piano piece, or if there's any soloing or dynamic changes or anything. It's just noise to them and the simpler it is, the less annoying it is. Or, they care about lyrics primarily and just have no interest in anything that prioritizes music over lyrics, which is basically the opposite of most of how that list is constructed.

Another thing, many people on this board seem totally content with the movie equivalents of Lil Wayne cause this is a music board, not a film snob board, but then try to correlate music choices to intelligence while ignoring the fact that a similar chart would put them in the top left if it was movies instead of music. It's an arbitrary way to measure intelligence that really doesn't say much by itself. If someone is like, rabidly in love with Lil Wayne then yes, they are probably an idiot. If someone truly thinks that The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift or The Human Centipede are great movies, then they are probably an idiot. But if they just listen to/watch them cause they don't really care and haven't bothered to learn more about music/movies, then whatever. I wouldn't say that most people who are rabidly into black metal or say, Manowar are any smarter. Same deal with people who love say, Dario Argento.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Nov 4, 2012)

fps said:


> Hahhaa. And let me guess, it turns out that the music YOU like means you're very intelligent? I know all kinds of brilliant people who don't listen to much music, but what they like involves cheese, and going to clubs and dancing to cheese. These people went to Oxford and Cambridge, have degrees and masters out the wazoo, and are doctors, lawyers etc. It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny in reality.



No, music that I like would probably classify me as below average IQ or something like that so you're wrong again. Just read my earlier post dude... It's not black and white; you can't make direct correlation, but sure as hell there is some. It's proven, and it's obvious that there is some correlation. The question is, what's the order of the causality AND if the order, or the level of causality is relevant to anyone's interests (which I don't believe in, since again, it doesn't add anything to the table).


----------



## abandonist (Nov 4, 2012)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> It's proven



You keep saying this. Care to provide some empirical evidence?


----------



## Demiurge (Nov 4, 2012)

abandonist said:


> You keep saying this. Care to provide some empirical evidence?



There was a chart. On the internet. Unassailable.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Nov 4, 2012)

abandonist said:


> You keep saying this. Care to provide some empirical evidence?



Oh, you are right, I'm basing my opinion on the fact that I assume the chart to be well made, which is kind of a bad thing to begin with, my apologies, BUT it is somewhat likely that they're not trying to tricking people in this kind of matter so I still feel like I'm on a really solid ground against people who think the list is complete bullshit.

I'm simply taking the chart as given to make this conversation worthwhile, since the point of this topic (as far as I understood) was to do so and discuss the relevance of the correlation between people's IQ and their taste of music and NOT try to falsify it. After all, it's pretty unlikely that singular people here on this forum would even have enough "empricial evidence" against the chart to prove it wrong (since the sample for singular people is waaay smaller than the one used for the study).

And yes I can offer! Majority of the people that I know and that I would assume to have a high IQ, listen to music that the chart (or other similar studies that I've seen around the web) would classify as "high-IQ music". NOW attention here! I'm not saying *ALL*. I'm sayin *MAJORITY*. That is over 50%, so it's somewhere from 50% to 100%. 
Also I'm taking only people that listen to music anyway, uncounting all the people who wouldn't give a damn about music so that narrows down my sample quite a lot. Again, it's not a goddamn 100%, BUT I still see correlation. I can't say if it's even near 100%, but I can say, for sure, that the distribution is NOT even. There's a clear trend.


----------



## abandonist (Nov 4, 2012)

You're bad at this.


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 5, 2012)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> Oh, you are right, I'm basing my opinion on the fact that I assume the chart to be well made, which is kind of a bad thing to begin with, my apologies, BUT it is somewhat likely that they're not trying to tricking people in this kind of matter so I still feel like I'm on a really solid ground against people who think the list is complete bullshit.
> 
> I'm simply taking the chart as given to make this conversation worthwhile, since the point of this topic (as far as I understood) was to do so and discuss the relevance of the correlation between people's IQ and their taste of music and NOT try to falsify it. After all, it's pretty unlikely that singular people here on this forum would even have enough "empricial evidence" against the chart to prove it wrong (since the sample for singular people is waaay smaller than the one used for the study).
> 
> ...




The chart says that if you listen to Counting Crows, you are likely to be just as smart as a Beethoven fanatic. 

Counting Crows.


Counting. Fucking. Crows.


I'll let you gather your thoughts on that point. 







I hope you try to draw a comparison between Counting goddamned Crows and Beethoven. I really hope you do.


----------



## glpg80 (Nov 5, 2012)

You are who you are. I listen to metal because it is calming. There are complexities that i enjoy paying attention to that at first glance would be hard to follow. When i first began listening to hardcore music i could barely understand any lyrical content - over the years it isnt a problem.

Rap has the same concepts but with lyrical choices and subliminal messages. Some people may listen to it for this very reason; or for the simple fact they enjoy the common genre sub-low frequencies that are common with it. 

Also think of it this way. If you take the position to compare lower status quota's against an elitist attitude then you must also twist the analogy to others smarter than yourself and assume the same outcome.

If you take the position to compare higher or lower classes against one another based on nothing but assumed intelligence on the topic of musical preferences, you are assuming an elitist position whether it was initially intended or not. When forming this basis on musical tastes alone there are too many variables. Do not even bother.

The intelligent response would be to enjoy music for whatever intended outcome the artists allowed without classifying others in an elitist attitude.

I know some idiots on this world that are millionaires. And i know some of the smartest people i have ever came across are normal Joe's like everyone else who listen to gospel. Music most definitely is not the bridge here by any means necessary.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 5, 2012)

I believe the guy who made that chart listens to Lil Wayne.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Nov 5, 2012)

abandonist said:


> You're bad at this.



Oh wow... OH WOW. This is ironic. You're seriously saying "I'm bad at this" not even defining what I am bad at, I'm assuming you're accusing me for bad argumentation, and at the same time you make a four word statement that's overly provocative and doesn't include any kind of basis and is aggressive and immature. And seriously... I'm bad at this?

I don't think so... Sounds like someone just ran out of arguments...



The Reverend said:


> The chart says that if you listen to Counting Crows, you are likely to be just as smart as a Beethoven fanatic.
> 
> Counting Crows.
> 
> ...



Never heard Counting Crows music, but who ever said it would be the complexity of music that somehow magically raised the odds or vice versa? You also have to take in count that for the highest and the lowest end of the chart, the reliability of it goes down drastically since the amount of individuals are the least in there, yet making it easily influenced by singular people.

You people seriously need to understand that causality =/= correlation.


----------



## Prydogga (Nov 5, 2012)

To me, I think 'stupid' people will listen to 'stupid' music, but smart people can listen to 'stupid' music and enjoy it, and vice versa. there will be some correlation that probably suggests some groups flock to whichever side of the spectrum fits best, but there's nothing to suggest it's all either here or there, or even close to being a majority. 

Like Wankerness said, some people just don't care, and they can enjoy whatever style of music for whatever reason. that being said, I don't think you'd find many science majors attending the live shows of Brokencyde, or whatever else.


----------



## ihunda (Nov 5, 2012)

Correlation does not imply causation!
Repeat 1000 times and read:
Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Henderson presented the argument that "global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of pirates since the 1800s.


----------



## LiamENGL (Nov 5, 2012)

While there isn't a 100% guaranteed correlation between the two.

As a loose rule of thumb you can be confident in saying someone who listens to a technical band, practices their instrument hard, has learned their scales/times signatures is probably a reasonably intelligent person.

Whereas someone who listens to Nicki Minaj is just...well someone who listens to Nicki Minaj.


----------



## Demiurge (Nov 5, 2012)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> You also have to take in count that for the highest and the lowest end of the chart, the reliability of it goes down drastically since the amount of individuals are the least in there, yet making it easily influenced by singular people.
> 
> You people seriously need to understand that causality =/= correlation.



Exactly, and it's those reasons why the chart is not surviving scrutiny. Even if we're talking about just correlations, all correlations aren't exactly made equal, and IMO the correlations here are tenuous at best and misleading at worst (do these correlations really mean what they're being implied to mean?).

It does seem appealing to see music one thinks is dumb and associate it with stupidity of the listeners and even say, "well, the science behind it is wonky, but it looks right, so good enough", but that itself undermines the whole point of research and investigation.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Nov 5, 2012)

Demiurge said:


> Exactly, and it's those reasons why the chart is not surviving scrutiny. Even if we're talking about just correlations, all correlations aren't exactly made equal, and IMO the correlations here are tenuous at best and misleading at worst (do these correlations really mean what they're being implied to mean?).
> 
> It does seem appealing to see music one thinks is dumb and associate it with stupidity of the listeners and even say, "well, the science behind it is wonky, but it looks right, so good enough", but that itself undermines the whole point of research and investigation.



Well you are probably right when you say that the chart shouldn't be taken as a given fact, but I just think it's a lot easier and it would lead to a lot more interesting discussions if we did, since there certainly is some correlation between these two things. 
People shouldn't think they can prove it wrong just by saying it doesn't apply to their friends or people they know since their sample is most probably utterly below the sample of the study, which leads us to the simple fact that we shouldn't discuss, whether if it's wrong or not, BUT to discuss the meaning and applications for real life (which I claim to be almost non-existent; I don't see the reason for this study anyway, BUT some people may disagree and I'm happy to ready why), of the study.

Makes any sense? :/


----------



## cwhitey2 (Nov 5, 2012)

IRequirezANewHOST said:


> Generally, I don't think that you can directly correlate a person's intelligence with the music that they listen to and I'm not buying that list. However I feel that choosing music that has been marketed to the masses doesn't reflect the same amount of thought it may require to go out and choose less popular music in spite of what the people around you may associate with it.
> 
> Although some may people choose less popular music to fit in with another subculture instead which would be similar to just buying/listening to music that is marketed to the masses...
> 
> ...



You need to meet the people I know...you will change your opinion


----------



## Loomer (Nov 5, 2012)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> Well you are probably right when you say that the chart shouldn't be taken as a given fact, but I just think it's a lot easier and it would lead to a lot more interesting discussions if we did, since there certainly is some correlation between these two things.
> People shouldn't think they can prove it wrong just by saying it doesn't apply to their friends or people they know since their sample is most probably utterly below the sample of the study, which leads us to the simple fact that we shouldn't discuss, whether if it's wrong or not, BUT to discuss the meaning and applications for real life (which I claim to be almost non-existent; I don't see the reason for this study anyway, BUT some people may disagree and I'm happy to ready why), of the study.
> 
> Makes any sense? :/



No. No it doesn't. 

The thing here, is that you're hinging your entire argument on a study that is dubious at the very best. I don't understand why you're defending this so hard, when the whole idea of this study and the study itself doesn't stand up to reality even in the slightest. I think your bullshit detector needs re-calibration, is what I'm saying. This study and the very idea of it, as it is presented here is only good for laughing at. Sorry, but it just really seems like you reeeaally want this study to be true so you and your D&D group can sit by yourselves, hug your Dream Theater CD's and take comfort in the "fact" that "at least you're smarter than everyone".

Now, if the study was to posit that it was about how smart people _considered themselves_, it'd be spot-on. At least from my experience, make of that what you will. 
I'm sure there are people out there who listen to prog-metal and aren't geeks, Thrash fans who aren't dyslexic mexicans, Power Metal fans who aren't Germans who read too many bad Fantasy books, "Toughguy"-Hardcore fans who aren't fat men with goatees and no education, and I know for a fact that there are plenty of people who listen to absolute crap music (or just none at all), that are veritable angels. People are just too damn varied, and too damn alike at the same time for studies like this to be anything but a total waste of time and effort. 

Also, continuing the trail of Absurdity: 

This study is RACIST! As you can see, the genre "Soca", which is primarily music with a black fanbase is placed at the bottom of the rung. Does this mean that the people behind this study are having a good laugh at the expense of the uncouth, sweaty jigaboos swinging their big chocolate-y booties around to Kevin Lyttle and Baha Men while they're enjoying their Beethoven at a Klan rally?! 

Well, there's a _correlation_, definitely.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Nov 5, 2012)

> I'm sure there are people out there who listen to prog-metal and aren't geeks, Thrash fans who aren't dyslexic mexicans, Power Metal fans who aren't Germans who read too many bad Fantasy books, "Toughguy"-Hardcore fans who aren't fat men with goatees and no education, and I know for a fact that there are plenty of people who listen to absolute crap music (or just none at all), that are veritable angels.



Who ever said anything against this? Again, correlation isn't causation.

Well the thing is that I've seen different studies showing the exact same thing that came up in this one, maybe with a little different results, but still showing that there is correlation and that there is a trend. So no, it's not complete bullshit at all. Why did they have different results/details? Maybe it's something based on where the study was done and there's always some error in these things. However, it's not relevant.

And yet again I can make the assumption that you didn't read my earlier posts since I already told you that music that I listen to probably would classify me as below average IQ, which I'm not. So the study doesn't apply to me, yet I'm defending it because I think there's correlation between these two things.

I mean, why wouldn't there be? If two people are smart, they're MORE LIKELY to be similar to each other in any kind of liking which results in them to more likely, like similar music. It's influence by other people that are similar to you and who you stick to. There HAS to be SOME correlation. High-IQ and low-IQ people are less likely to hang out with each other than people with the same IQ and that results in them influencing each other in musical taste, more or less. 
It's also reaallly weird how musically educated people I know usually are really well educated (in other terms than music that is) and I don't think I even have met anyone musically well educated who didn't go to an university or similar place that usually requires a high-IQ to even get in. Oh, maybe their parents are just rich and they would have high-IQ without musical education? Well maybe, but what does that have to do with correlation?

To me it sounds like people here have some irrational hate against elitists and when they think they have spotted elitist behavior (which I claim I don't even exercise here) they assume they can back up their argument just by saying "You're elitist", which of course is complete bullshit itself.

And I would really look up if my facts are based in a well made study/studies, but no-one else seems to be doing it anyway (no, saying "it's a chart in the internet->it's bullshit" is NOT a good argument), and I wouldn't give a damn if they weren't (since I don't think this study was even worth making). It's just funny how you can use the argument that 'You haven't read the whole study->you're wrong' when you haven't done so yourself. 

IOW, the thread is not about proving the chart right or wrong, but to discuss its continents. If you want to falsify it, go ahead, but I can tell you it's not worth it and likely you will end up with similar results than what came up in OP's chart. It's not me who should prove it right, it's you who should prove it wrong anyway. Until then, can we continue to discuss whether if it's relevant to our interests if high-iq people listen to a certain type of music? Or maybe applications for the study?


----------



## Loomer (Nov 5, 2012)

Well, if there are such other studies and you've seen, why don't you show us!? That would have spared you from coming off as just being stubborn and substantiated your whole argument immensely. 
The thing is just, that the entire premise of this sort of study is inherently flawed, by virtue of it dealing with such a huge, huge subject that can't be measured objectively. Taste can't ever be objective. 
To make a study such as this even remotely passable you'd need to have a MASSIVE test group and equally massive control group. The test in OP only deals with SAT scores for _one_ college, making it utterly irrelevant for everything outside that one college. 
Factor into that the country of origin, the US, and the myriad infinitely complex factors of race and class and things start to get _really_ fucked up. Of course predominantly black genres score low if the SAT test is written from a white perspective, and it's taken in a country with a long and still unfinished history of institutionalised racial discrimination. Public schools in black neighbourhoods are grossly underfunded and thus pupils graduate from there less prepared for Academia than Honky McWaspington graduating from an expensive private school. Soca is a genre with consistent popularity limited to Caribbean island nations, where educational standards also aren't as "high" as Crackertown, USA. There are SO LUDICROUSLY MANY factors coming into play here, that any study of this correlation is always, always doomed to be incomplete at best. 
Also, what about people from higher IQ levels who've checked out Stravinsky, Penderecki, Coltrane, Gorguts, all sorts of high-brow bullshit but ultimately enjoy Carly Ray Jepsen the most!? 

Also, hard lol @ the irony of a board chock-full of elitist tech/prog ponytails hating elitists. Not saying it's not true, it's just funny.


----------



## Joose (Nov 5, 2012)

It's called music *taste* for a reason.

I don't consider somebody less intelligent for enjoying a really popular food item that I hate. Therefore, the same applies to someone who enjoys radio stuff.

I think a lack of intelligence would be demonstrated by thinking music taste can be directly-related to intelligence.

Lol, I kid... but still; no, it's dumb.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Nov 5, 2012)

Loomer said:


> Well, if there are such other studies and you've seen, why don't you show us!? That would have spared you from coming off as just being stubborn and substantiated your whole argument immensely.
> 
> Also, hard lol @ the irony of a board chock-full of elitist tech/prog ponytails hating elitists. Not saying it's not true, it's just funny.



Nonono, again; I'm not wasting my time to prove myself right in a matter I haven't even been proven wrong yet. And to take a little back, I wouldn't trust my memory on the few studies I've read since I didn't read them thoroughly, but then again "otisct20" described a similar study that I've seen. Just CBA to start looking for it, sorry.

And @Joose: I don't think it's about anyone considering someone to be intelligent/less intelligent since the study is only showing relations between IQ and musical taste. IQ doesn't necessarily imply intelligence.

E: Uhh yea, taste can't be objective, but why would anyone even imply that taste can't be affected by things, such as sociality and all that? And I do agree that the sample should be a lot bigger to make this study worth taking actions of. (I mean, it's barely now only interesting to us now, no-one's even trying to find out what possibilities or applications it might have) It still does show that in the one college, there is a trend so if you are really that strict, and don't want to make assumptions that some (maybe same, maybe other) correlation would hold outside it, then be. I claim that there's some correlation between musical taste and IQ outside that one college, but since either of us can't back up our arguments in this case (the case if there's correlation outside the one college), it's redundant to discuss it.

Oh and no, I'm no saying that the correlation wouldn't change depending on country of origin and other things you listed. What I'm saying that dependless of such things, there is correlation between these two things. Intelligent people in africa might listen to Nicki Minaj whereas intelligent people in US might listen to Beethowen it doesn't matter. The smaller the cultural differences go, the more clear correlation we most probably get.



> Also, what about people from higher IQ levels who've checked out Stravinsky, Penderecki, Coltrane, Gorguts, all sorts of high-brow bullshit but ultimately enjoy Carly Ray Jepsen the most!?



Again, correlation doesn't imply causation. There's a trend, some people don't fall on the trend, it's that simple. It's about probabilities, not about if high iq would ALWAYS result in something.

And yeah, what study wouldn't be incomplete at best? Nothing in science, especially not in statistics is never perfect or complete, but that's not the point, there's always error; it's not breaking news to anyone.


----------



## Loomer (Nov 5, 2012)

Please refer to the argument I put into the edit above. I still hold that simple logic defeats the feasibility and trustworthiness of studies such as this, before they're even carried out.


----------



## Murmel (Nov 5, 2012)

wankerness said:


> Another thing, many people on this board seem totally content with the movie equivalents of Lil Wayne cause this is a music board, not a film snob board.



/thread


----------



## Loomer (Nov 5, 2012)

Exactly, and my favourite author is Dan Abnett, of all people!


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 5, 2012)

leftyguitarjoe said:


> I often say that simple people listen to simple music. Call it elitist, but I've never seed an idiot listen to Venetian Snares or Blotted Science and like it.



Define simple? Simplicity in one aspect of music doesn't rob it of complexity elsewhere... Also, sometimes simple songs are just damn catchy and you can't help but like them. Further, far be it for me to think not everyone cares about how complex a piece of music is... 

If someone is stupid every time they simply didn't care about something someone else does then we're all dumb... 

That said, my favorite things to listen to are typically rather complex, but that also has to do with the fact that I'm absolutely fascinated with sound. Other people don't share my passion... I don't fault them for it, I just avoid discussing music with them.


----------



## redskyharbor (Nov 5, 2012)

This chart is useless. Having a high SAT score means you're good at regurgitating the shit that gets taught in school. By no means is it measure of intelligence, just memory.


----------



## StewartEhoff (Nov 5, 2012)

Technical music board, intelligent discussion.

The proof is in the pudding.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 5, 2012)

redskyharbor said:


> This chart is useless. Having a high SAT score means you're good at regurgitating the shit that gets taught in school. By no means is it measure of intelligence, just memory.



For sure... A lot of the kids that got really high scores on the SAT's still ended up comin to my pothead ass for assistance with the application of all the things they could readily raise their hands and recite on cue...

I feel like the fact that the SAT was timed ended up working against me... I like to take my time when I do math. I raped the verbal part, though...


----------



## will_shred (Nov 5, 2012)

I can say that just from experience, the metal heads I know are generally a lot smarter than those who listen to the radio. I read something a while back that stated metal heads have often turned to the aggressive music as a form of release from being social outcasts, that is generally do to a much higher intelligence. (I can't site my source, I read it a long time ago). I won't say that being a musician will make you smarter either, because country music  but also I've found that people who are actual musicians are generally smarter. 

Unrelated: It bothers the hell out of me when people think that because they can play an instrument that they're a musician.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 5, 2012)

How do you explain all the really stupid metal heads, then? Not everyone I know that listens to metal even the more complex genres, is all that smart. In fact, some are down right dumb. 

Also... This made me laugh... (It's funny cuz it's true!)



> Unrelated: It bothers the hell out of me when people think that because they can play an instrument that they're a musician.


----------



## Thyber (Nov 5, 2012)

I think that's not true. I know lots of high school friends, who have become "masters and bachelors" in chemics and even 2 or 3 lawyers .

They all have the most lame taste in music.


----------



## wankerness (Nov 5, 2012)

I want to know what % of people in well-known death/black metal bands have gone to college


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 5, 2012)

Given my run-ins with folks here alone, I feel like the notion that ppl who like intense/complex music are smart is 100% bullshit...


----------



## CyborgSlunk (Nov 5, 2012)

I´m sure this already has been said, but it´s rather the other way around. If you´re intelligent, you´re probably going to listen to more "intelligent" music, but it won´t make you more intelligent, and vice versa.


----------



## CyborgSlunk (Nov 5, 2012)

Loomer said:


> Yet none of them have lost their virginity yet although the study was conducted 20 years ago. At least 80% of them also would save their Star Wars action figures before their parents if the house was on fire.



Wow, i know it´s a joke, but what do you have against prog metal?


----------



## somniumaeternum (Nov 5, 2012)

StewartEhoff said:


> According to this man, it can. While he states in the article that it is not credible or accurate, there is certainly an underlying truth.


 
If the guy who wrote the article himself states the article is neither credible or accurate.... that's where I stop reading


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 5, 2012)

Not a good idea to kill your own point before you make it...

This thread seems more like a dude w obscure musical tastes desperately in need of some ego strokin...


----------



## Loomer (Nov 5, 2012)

CyborgSlunk said:


> Wow, i know it´s a joke, but what do you have against prog metal?



Well, I have nothing against the music per se. It bores me to tears but that's okay, I don't listen to it so no biggie. It's just the whole "smarter-than-thou"-complex that a worryingly large amount of its fans tend to have.


----------



## abandonist (Nov 5, 2012)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> Oh wow... OH WOW. This is ironic. You're seriously saying "I'm bad at this" not even defining what I am bad at, I'm assuming you're accusing me for bad argumentation, and at the same time you make a four word statement that's overly provocative and doesn't include any kind of basis and is aggressive and immature. And seriously... I'm bad at this?
> 
> I don't think so... Sounds like someone just ran out of arguments...




Sounds like someone doesn't want to do this for 90 minutes with someone that doesn't even get the tip of the point. You're flat-out wrong and I don't want to waste time with an overly excited guy that insists on not listening to reason. I'm just going to throw some phrases/words out here for you to ponder:

Where are all these studies you've read on the internet? Show us them or you're a liar. "I can't find them" is not an excuse now.
Empiricism is the basis for proof.
Causation.
Correlation.
The burden of proof is on the accuser.
Assumptions.
The man who made the "study" knows it's not accurate or worthy of scrutiny.

That's it. I'm not arguing with you about this. You're incontrovertibly wrong. It's like a 5 year old telling you to prove the sky is really blue. Not the sort of thing that's worth spending time on. Have fun, goodbye.


----------



## IRequirezANewHOST (Nov 5, 2012)

cwhitey2 said:


> You need to meet the people I know...you will change your opinion



Haha maybe  

...but I don't think I'd want to meet them would I?

Edit: if you mean those nicki minaj listening beats wearing swaggots I see on the subway all the time.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Nov 5, 2012)

abandonist said:


> Sounds like someone doesn't want to do this for 90 minutes with someone that doesn't even get the tip of the point. You're flat-out wrong and I don't want to waste time with an overly excited guy that insists on not listening to reason. I'm just going to throw some phrases/words out here for you to ponder:
> 
> Where are all these studies you've read on the internet? Show us them or you're a liar. "I can't find them" is not an excuse now.
> Empiricism is the basis for proof.
> ...



Insist on listening to reason? Give me a break, I'm only trying to make this thread worthwhile whereas other people are constantly trying to disproof something that might wind up a good conversation. 
None of us can proof the study right or wrong here (take in note, we have about the same amount of "I agree" posts than "I disagree posts" here, so empiricism is well... out of question).

Neither does the fact that the dude who made it saying it's bad, necessarily disproof it by any means, though it does indeed make the study lose edge a lot. And again, I took the "other studies" back already (since I'm standing on solid ground without and cba to look for them. It's obvious though that that argument isn't even relevant here anyway, since I don't see the point in proofing or disproofing the study) so why are you using that as an argument? It's weird how you dare to constantly come up as aggressive when you even haven't read my posts.

And what the hell does "accusing" have to do with statistics...


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 5, 2012)

I'm still irked by Counting fucking Crows. 

Holy shit. 


If this study had been in the form of a questionnaire, with ready access to individual SAT scores, I'd be more inclined to take it seriously. Instead, we're going on aggregate scores with data pulled from Facebook (because everyone factually represents themselves online). It's interesting to me how jazz and classical were ranked lower than COUNTING FUCKING CROWS on the chart. I'd imagine enough music majors at elite schools would've placed those two genres higher. Perhaps, though, people who are genuinely intelligent just really like COUNTING CROWS. 

I'm not sure how we got started on complex music demanding higher intelligence. And really, what is 'complex' music? There are only so many notes, and so many intervals. There are a lot of chords, but the vast majority of possible chords go unused, and for good reason. Speed does equal 'complexity'. Neither does non-linear song structure. The brain has pieced together the language of music, even if we're not aware of it or capable of describing it to others by the time one would take an SAT. It doesn't sit well to assume that because your music is faster, or denser, that it is because you have the ability to hear something others don't. 

This chart is the equivalent of saying, "Smart people like to eat ramen noodles. They like that shit on Facebook." Motherfucker, I don't like how it tastes. I do not like it, Sam I Am. I do not fucking like it. It has nothing to do with how smart I am. It has everything to do with a smorgasborg of bullshit that is very nearly uniquely tailored to my experience on this planet. 

I would say that there is no correlation between music taste and intelligence, especially given the many contradictions on the chart. See Beethoven and Classical, for reference. 





Counting fucking Crows, my god.


----------



## bigswifty (Nov 5, 2012)

We can stop beating this horse now, I think it died a couple pages back.

I think to suggest that music and intelligence are correlated based on the information that "smart people understand prog/jazz/classical/whatever and stupid people like radio" is pretty ignorant. A better claim would be that some people hold music in higher regards than others. That doesn't relate to intelligence, however. 

Something interesting to think about would be that cognitive psychologists have discovered that the medial pre-frontal cortex of the brain is responsible for musical memory. Perhaps ones tastes in music stems from their experience or interest? I'm no dancer, so dance music has no appeal to me. Yet, progressive music speaks my language.

Another take on this is that learning music at an early age has benefits to an individuals IQ and other applications such as math. This is likely because the music system is governed by intervals and measures, tempos and beats etc. Given that the brain has its own area for music memory, one could then suggest a claim along the lines of "musical learning at an early age might be correlated to a better understanding of mathematics". The brain might make correlations between mathematics and musical rules (which would already be retained in memory).

But "music tastes are correlated to intelligence", no. This is a faulty claim.


----------



## Necris (Nov 5, 2012)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> Oh, you are right, I'm basing my opinion on the fact that I assume the chart to be well made, which is kind of a bad thing to begin with, my apologies, BUT it is somewhat likely that they're not trying to tricking people in this kind of matter so I still feel like I'm on a really solid ground against people who think the list is complete bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> After all, it's pretty unlikely that singular people here on this forum would even have enough "empricial evidence" against the chart to prove it wrong (since the sample for singular people is waaay smaller than the one used for the study).



This post made me laugh, you come out and say "the people saying this study is full of shit have no good argument in favor of their opinion since they are basing their opinion on anecdotal evidence which couldn't create an adequate sample size. 
While you were already wrong assuming that that anecdotal evidence is even permissible I was going to let that slide but then you said this in response to a request for evidence for your opinion:




> And yes I can offer! Majority of the people that I know and that I would assume to have a high IQ, listen to music that the chart (or other similar studies that I've seen around the web) would classify as "high-IQ music". NOW attention here! I'm not saying *ALL*. I'm sayin *MAJORITY*. That is over 50%, so it's somewhere from 50% to 100%.
> Also I'm taking only people that listen to music anyway, uncounting all the people who wouldn't give a damn about music so that narrows down my sample quite a lot. Again, it's not a goddamn 100%, BUT I still see correlation. I can't say if it's even near 100%, but I can say, for sure, that the distribution is NOT even. There's a clear trend.


Pay attention to the colored parts (but really the post as a whole nails it home.)

In the same post where you claim the people who think this graph is flawed are basing their opinion on anecdotal evidence which isn't enough to falsify this graph, you hold up your own anecdotal evidence as being enough to support it.

You would do well in a career in politics.


----------



## pacobronmandera (Nov 6, 2012)

leftyguitarjoe said:


> Listen to this and get back to me on that




This is absolutely outstanding.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 6, 2012)

Just for the sake of argument, I'll equate intelligence with IQ. It's not accurate fo' shit, but IQ still plays a part in how intelligent a person is. The crew at MENSA always likes to hype up the importance of IQ, but that is only natural, and related to Loomer's point about virginity.

So, we know that there is almost nothing a parent can do to influence their kids' IQ, it's more or less, within a variance of a couple of point, completely inherited. So if music taste would correlate with IQ, would someone then seriously suggest that taste in music is inherited? That is the logical implication after all, and I do not think someone would be willing to believe that.


----------



## pacobronmandera (Nov 6, 2012)

Loomer said:


> As someone who actually gets out and has a social life, I can safely say that this survey is completely wrong, via the empirical evidence of having met many, many more ignorant, narrow-minded idiots in the metal scene than I ever will anywhere else.
> 
> The only difference between metalheads and any other brand of idiot (save for entry-level "jazzers") is just that they like to consider themselves awful smart and feel superior for it.
> 
> ...



NAILED IT. Here's a study that goes along those lines: 

http://www.avila.edu/psychology/pdfs/avilapaper.pdf

I've met more "metal is God and everything else sucks" snobs (to put it nicely) in the metal scene than any other genre (and I have a degree in music) - _and I love metal_. The findings of correlation do not suggest causation. 

However, here is an interested study about music _lessons _and IQ: 
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/ps/musiciq.pdf

Someone else had commented on "IQ is BS", or something to that effect. Well, I have not investigated this but I can say that there must be a reason that certain institutions of higher learning look highly upon, and some require, IQ tests. Are they the end all, say all? I don't know but it is interesting.


----------



## pacobronmandera (Nov 6, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> I'm still irked by Counting fucking Crows.
> 
> Holy shit.
> 
> ...



NAILED IT. I love Austin, TX.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 6, 2012)

Another problem that this kind of research posits is the lack of an ultimate definition of intelligence. Most intelligence tests are based on an operational definition of this construct, meaning that there are as many kinds of intelligence as there are intelligence tests.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Nov 6, 2012)

Necris said:


> whole lot of text



I was only giving out my own empirical evidence because I were asked to do so, I didn't claim it to proof anything, nor did I think it would. :E And the case is, if I can show (in this case, speak of my empirical evidence) that there is correlation in my sample, then there is correlation. Not in everyones sample necessarily, but the fact that these two things, somewhere, in some culture might have correlation is enough to prove my, and the studies point, true. How? Why? Because that ultimately has been my point all the way through. I haven't, at any point, thought or claimed, that this would apply to everyone. What I do claim though, is that there is a trend and correlation, was it strong or weak, there still is.

E: I feel like some religious dude claiming that "you can't prove me wrong", but that's how it is. I have empirical evidence that proves my point true for me, maybe not you since you don't have it, so we need to rest this case. The only question remaining is that if you believe me and don't think I'm bullshitting you (why would I...) there's no other conclusion left to draw here. At least not for the part that I claim to be true.


----------



## median (Nov 6, 2012)

Loomer said:


> Well, I have nothing against the music per se. It bores me to tears but that's okay, I don't listen to it so no biggie. It's just the whole "smarter-than-thou"-complex that a worryingly large amount of its fans tend to have.



So true! 

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/general-music-discussion/217167-how-can.html#post3259569


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Nov 6, 2012)

Wow, you guys have been melting your keyboards over this topic!

I don't know if music can make you become or appear to be smarter, but I know *FOR A FACT* it can make you not only _dumberizer_ but ALSO more _retarderated_!

Listen to this, but only if you have IQ points to spare!



And in case there's still any brain cells left alive...



ajfioaask...................dffffffddddddddddddddddddddddd 


The only people to ever give me grief, and possibly try to start a fight, were some Oasis fans at the London guitar show, when I was all metalled up with a Dream Theater shirt on.








They walked past and shouted at me. 
"Elitist bastard!!!".
I carried on walking while I tried to work out what just happened... 
_Hmmm. I think he insulted me because he hates the music he thinks he likes because people think he's a retard for liking it.... And he's projecting his inferioirity complex onto me.... hmmm....Best not hurt him too much, he probably has a lot of issues and life is tough enough for him as it is, with all those bad records to pawn and Epiphone knock off 335's to sell..._
**ignore + forget = WIN!!!**


----------



## Loomer (Nov 6, 2012)

Fuck me.. Who _isn't _elitist compared to an Oasis!?


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 6, 2012)

The unthinking man's band.


----------



## Loomer (Nov 6, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> The unthinking man's band.



In the quest to out-stupid the Gallagher brothers, even their die-hard fans fall short.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 6, 2012)

Dude, have you ever heard of Anubis Gate? Totally underrated Danish band (prog).


----------



## Loomer (Nov 6, 2012)

Yup. Doesn't sound like Insect Warfare, so... I hate it.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 6, 2012)




----------



## Loomer (Nov 6, 2012)

Well okay. I've heard of them, but I generally dislike prog metal, and Danish metal as well, so I decided time was better spent listening to Grind and reading bad sci-fi.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 6, 2012)

But listening to Anubis Gate is like listening to metal AND watching a sci-fi film. Two of their albums are sci-fi masterpieces.


----------



## Loomer (Nov 6, 2012)

DO U EVEN MITHRAS BRO!?


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 6, 2012)

If I tell you what I think about that band, you will send a virus my way.


----------



## Loomer (Nov 6, 2012)

You have no idea how flattered I am by you assuming I'm actually clever enough to do that


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 6, 2012)

HOLY SHIT, GUYS. 

snopes.com: Washington Redskins Predict Presidential Elections

What a strange correlation between the Redskins' home game losses and wins and the Presidential election. I think this is because the Redskins are smarter because they're the Redskins.

I know this thread is dead, but still. 

Sometimes correlations are just correlations, and nothing more. 









Fuck Counting Crows, too. I'm out. *drops mic*


----------



## Loomer (Nov 7, 2012)

I believe there may also be a correlation between men liking penis in their butt, and homosexuality. 

Just a theory, though.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Nov 7, 2012)

^lol Mithras....

That's some catchy shit right there! 

The only band that can sue Jesus for plagiarism.


----------



## Edika (Nov 7, 2012)

Just to add to the conversation a bit, I had seen a documentary about education and development of intelligent in children. Their studies showed that learning an instrument increased their IQ by 5 points but if they stopped their IQ reverted to the their usual rating.

I don't believe that more intelligent people will listen to more complicated music. They might, and I stress might, be able to appreciate it but not necessary like it. Music taste really depends on cultural, emotional and psychological factors. It is not so uncommon that certain types of music are more popular in certain ages (metal/rock/punk to adolescents).

Since I haven't read any studies or have no immediate interest to do so, I'll give some examples from personal experience. I am rather intelligent and have completed higher education studies. Most of my friends are in a similar educational and/or cognitive level. Most of them listen to pop music or stuff that would not be considered technical or complicated. The reasons for doing so is that they listen to music to relax and have some fun. After racking your brain all day with rather difficult subjects, doing experiments and reading scientific papers and books most of them really don't care about complicated structures, different rhythms and obscure chord progressions. Add to that the uncertainty of duration and country of employment. Most days I don't want to even touch the guitar, let alone listen to stressing music. 

In my country the general focus is in the voice and singing so, as a cultural reference, songs that are based on music and not voice are not preferred. Eastern "traditional" music for example is mostly based on feeling and doesn't follow a certain rhythm. The time signature may change into very complicated values when viewed from the western music point of view. But if you can't feel it, it will sound like crap. The same for jazz, the same for prog-rock, the same for regular rock etc etc. What someone finds exciting another might find it boring.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Nov 8, 2012)

To be honest I wouldn't place much relevance onto IQ tests. When I flew to the states last time my friend brought an IQ test practice book, 14 hour flights can get pretty dull.

Looking at manipulated platonic solids and carrying out object based mental challenges is not a valid test of anything worthwhile in my life.

My favourite intelligence test my teachers gave me started with;
"Write your name in the box provided."
Next to it was a giant circle, at the bottom of the page was the box. Quite a few people fell for that little trick. 

I thought the empathy test in child development was interesting, though.
*ugh* cannot find link, no energy left for typing/explaining*

Read if you find interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy


----------



## Loomer (Oct 26, 2014)

Bumpin' cuz this malarkey somehow found its way onto Metalsucks. ....in' hell..


----------



## wankerness (Oct 26, 2014)

The user base of Metalsucks single-handedly refutes this entire idea.

EDIT: gawd, I just looked at the graph and got mad all over again. The guy who made this is an idiot of almost indescribable proportions. My favorite thing on it is how all jazz music is summed up as "jazz" and is on the stupid end of the spectrum between The Used and Jay Z, while Norah Jones (who's color-coded as Jazz) is all the way on the genius end of the spectrum.


----------



## Augmatted (Oct 26, 2014)

Well if you were to declare they were directly correlated then you would have to prove that Music/Intelligence=a constant, for all music and intelligence values, sooooooo
NO.


----------



## Dr Zoidberg (Oct 26, 2014)

"People that like what I like are smart, people that like what I don't like are dumb" - half the people on this thread.

Really though, I spend every day around lots and lots of ridiculously smart people, and plenty of them don't care about the music they listen to at all. Some do, but trying to correlate intelligence and musical tastes is going to go terribly because neither is easily quantifiable.


----------



## The Mirror (Oct 26, 2014)

I didn't read through the thread so I won't add to any discussion, but let me say this:

I never met a person who exclusivly listesn to shitty pop music like Nicki Minaj whatshername or WiggleWiggle blabla who actually seemed to be smart or went to a university or something. 

The overall topic is indeed delicate and I won't confirm it with the one exception:

Everyone who is older than 16 years and listen exclusivly to Radio-Pop (I really mean exclusivly, like never bought a full record and doesn't know music that's older than 5 years) has to be of low intelligence. 
It may sound radical, but I truly believe that...

&#8364;: Oops. Sorry guys. Didn't know that I actually did some gravedigging with my post.


----------



## Thorerges (Oct 26, 2014)

Ok, I am a metalhead who also happens to have background in statistics - so here are my two cents. 

I don't know of any studies of this type that are actually reliable. Usually, these data driven studies rely heavily on correlations and in many cases, these correlations might not exist. As with most studies that have attempted to link intelligence with music, this one is a miserable failure because of a slew of confounding variables that aren't quantitative and aren't taken into account.

For example, it so happens that Radiohead is an extremely popular alternate rock band that is easy to digest but not 'poppy' or distracting the way other artists are, so people who for example, might not heavily engage in the party/drug scene might find this a much better alternative to lil wayne or beyonce. This has nothing to do with being intelligent, but a personal preference that so happens to be shared amongst students who go to Caltech. 

Additionally, Caltech students are pretty chill. As an alumni of an ivy league school, these kind of students not interested in stressing themselves out or thinking too hardly about anything besides academics (unless it is a lifelong passion). So Metal or anything with a substantial effect on your mood/stability would throw them off and they'd gravitate to something else. 

Also, the smartest guy I personally know both in terms of his sharpness and being a complete over-achiever is actually a huge lil wayne fan and dresses like a pimp. He's also a Caltech student (ironic considering this was part of the sample Mr. Griffith used to extrapolate his end product from). 

Finally, I definitely knew a few hardcore metal fans there. There was this Indian guy from the physics department (he actually worked at JPL, which is pretty hardcore) who <b>always</b> wore death metal t-shirts all the time.

Finally, I know a lot of people who might not appear intelligent or capable listen to pop/hip hop or the like, but I also know a lot of complete morons who listen to radiohead and even more who listen to heavy metal.


tl;dr - This study is completely useless because <b>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation</b>


----------



## Abaddon9112 (Oct 27, 2014)

I don't think musical tastes are a reflection of intelligence in any real sense of the word. But they are often a reflection of social and economic class. There are genius-level intellects in every socioeconomic demographic, but in America at least the level of formal education one can attain is largely dependent on how much money you have. And I think people who are better off financially are often more likely to insist their kids get a college level education than less wealthy people. But.. in our civilization, you can't be taken serious as a "legitimately" educated and intellectually-oriented person unless you go to college and get a high-level degree. Therefore, wealthy people are perceived as being smarter, when in reality they probably aren't any different than the general intelligence curve of any population. They just had access to resources others didn't. 

Education in Western art music traditions has been pretty much confined to the university and to private music schools for a long time. And those cost money. The instruments used in that music are often more expensive than say, an electric guitar, laptop, turntable or keyboard synth. To develop a strong interest in classical music would also require encouragement from your parents and peer group, feedback from teachers and mentors if you're playing it, and all the other resources musicians in general rely on. None of which is easy to find in the cultural vacuum of an American urban "hood". So I'd be willing to bet there are plenty of guys and gals from poor families who've tested highly on scholastic tests and are obviously gifted minds, but who've never been exposed to Western art music because of the environment they grew up in. So, if they are really into music, they maybe go with musically challenging stuff that appeals to average people, like extreme metal or the more lyrically sophisticated varieties of hip-hop. If they're not aficionados, they'll probably listen to whatever the hell they feel like. Doesn't make them stupid, and it is silly to think it would, in my opinion.


----------



## chopeth (Oct 27, 2014)

Not possible, how would you explain Ted Nungent then?


----------



## wankerness (Oct 27, 2014)

Abaddon9112 said:


> Education in Western art music traditions has been pretty much confined to the university and to private music schools for a long time. And those cost money. The instruments used in that music are often more expensive than say, an electric guitar, laptop, turntable or keyboard synth. To develop a strong interest in classical music would also require encouragement from your parents and peer group, feedback from teachers and mentors if you're playing it, and all the other resources musicians in general rely on. None of which is easy to find in the cultural vacuum of an American urban "hood". So I'd be willing to bet there are plenty of guys and gals from poor families who've tested highly on scholastic tests and are obviously gifted minds, but who've never been exposed to Western art music because of the environment they grew up in. *So, if they are really into music, they maybe go with musically challenging stuff that appeals to average people, like extreme metal or the more lyrically sophisticated varieties of hip-hop. *If they're not aficionados, they'll probably listen to whatever the hell they feel like. Doesn't make them stupid, and it is silly to think it would, in my opinion.



Having gone to a conservatory, I can say that a substantial portion (maybe even a majority) of students listened to brainless pop music in their spare time cause they were sort of tired out from doing music as a "job" all day.


----------



## Abaddon9112 (Oct 27, 2014)

wankerness said:


> Having gone to a conservatory, I can say that a substantial portion (maybe even a majority) of students listened to brainless pop music in their spare time cause they were sort of tired out from doing music as a "job" all day.



This is also true. And you certainly don't _need_ to be a classically schooled musician to appreciate classical music. People just like what sounds good to them So I guess I'd give it a "maybe" about the social correlation to music, and a straight up "no" about the intelligence one.


----------



## fps (Oct 27, 2014)

To reiterate what I said before, this is elitist bull at its worst.


----------



## thevisi0nary (Oct 27, 2014)

Lol tool lower than weezer.


----------



## vansinn (Oct 27, 2014)

IIRC, it was demiurge who mentioned cultural, environmental and demographics influences, and this is very true.

Someone in an environment that doesn't exactly consider building cognetive abilities to be the new black might choose music that's less prone to working on the brain's ability to produce enhancing chemicals.

Having spend some time studying how the brain works, left-right imbalance, how various chemicals are produced in the brain and how these affects us, and how frequencies affects such produces, I'd be inclined to say that music can and will affect how we function.

Intelligence is very much a matter of left-right balance. It's possible to have a high intellect but still be left-imbalanced, possibly in the direction of being an order-follower, or being right-imbalanced, unable to cope with real problems in our world, preferring to meditate for hours being a point in cosmos in 5th-6th dimension.
I too meditate almost every day; I just don't retreat away from real life 

Back on music making us more or less intelligent..
I do believe music can stimulate which chemicals are produced in the brain, which in turn can stimulate us in different directions.

Regarding this, and how frequencies affects us, this becomes quite evident when looking into mind control mechanisms (like mk-untra).
As such, it's absolutely possible certain types of designed-for-the-purpose music can make some move their cognetive patterns in certain directions.

However, I also think it's more correct to consider not how music can make dumb, but more how it can stimulate in which direction.

I won't go through the OP list, but just refer that studies did show Beethoven listeners to have a tendency to better mathematics solver.
I former colleague of mine preferred classical music for designing software algorithms, and death metal for dumping-in the code.
Go figure..


----------



## jjfiegel (Oct 27, 2014)

Hey guys, let's play a drinking game: read every single post, and any time you see "I don't know a single smart person who listens to Nikki Minaj" take a shot. Ooops, you're dead sorry guys.


----------



## Demiurge (Oct 28, 2014)

fps said:


> To reiterate what I said before, this is elitist bull at its worst.



Yeah, but one can be hopeful and think that just maybe some perspective has just been lost. There was once a time when heavy metal was believed to be dumb music for dumb people by the general populace. (Hell, it still might be true, but I digress.) I think most of us would say that it's unfair to make that characterization. Oh- but then a few accessible acts crack the Billboard charts and a few players start noodling something other than pentatonics over chugging, and somehow it's time to start casting judgment in the same way because we're so much more sophisticated?


----------



## Defi (Oct 28, 2014)

The Mirror said:


> The overall topic is indeed delicate and I won't confirm it with the one exception:
> 
> Everyone who is older than 16 years and listen exclusivly to Radio-Pop (I really mean exclusivly, like never bought a full record and doesn't know music that's older than 5 years) has to be of low intelligence.
> It may sound radical, but I truly believe that...



Not everyone is into music, and preference of hobbies must certainly correlate lower with intelligence than scope of experience/knowledge, or some subjective parameter within each hobby.

It's like saying someone who only knows as much about running a nuclear plant as they learn from watching the simpsons is an idiot.


----------



## shikamaru (Oct 29, 2014)

IMO, the study is skewed because it makes the assumption that someone will only listen to one kind of music/artist. Being close-minded is not really demonstrating someone&#8217;s intelligence, whether he listens to Beethoven, <<insert your favourite metal artist>> or Nikki Minaj (spelling&#8217;s right ?). Just the other day I read an interview of Michael Akerfeldt and he admitted listening to Rihanna. Given how diverse Opeth&#8217; music is, I can definitely see why being broad-minded can enhance one&#8217;s creativity.

With that said, I strive myself to be eclectic in my music tastes but I don&#8217;t consider myself above someone else with less diverse tastes, there isn&#8217;t a direct correlation between the two. I also agree with people saying you may as well be into movies or litterature rather than music, which would make an analysis based on music only totally miss the point.

But IMO there is something to be said about that topic that I haven&#8217;t seen. Usually recommendations engines like youtube&#8217;s or lastfm&#8217;s suck from that point of view, because they try to recommend things similar to what you already listen to. But what if you want to look for something different, that you probably have never heard of ? If someone listens to Nikki Minaj, he might get recommendations to listen to Justin Bieber, will that make that person smarter ? IMO, the downside of this is it tends to put people in boxes, prevents them to think outside of the box, and thus makes them easier to manipulate.

If Jordan Rudess only listened to progressive metal/rock, he would probably never have had the idea to compose the ragtime part of the Dance of Eternity, but if he listened to Scott Joplin for instance, he might. Similarly, you can see Reggae influences in Rush&#8217;s Spirit of the Radio, or Jazz and electronic influences in Animals as Leaders&#8217; music.


----------



## tedtan (Oct 29, 2014)

shikamaru said:


> If Jordan Rudess only listened to progressive metal/rock, he would probably never have had the idea to compose the ragtime part of the Dance of Eternity, but if he listened to Scott Joplin for instance, he might.



And the song would be that much better if Rudess had been more close minded .


----------



## WestOfSeven (Oct 29, 2014)

StewartEhoff said:


> Technical music board, intelligent discussion.
> 
> The proof is in the pudding.



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Oct 30, 2014)

Ok, I posted a rather harsh reply to this thread two years ago, so here is an update in my opinions.

I work with a guy who is dumb as a rock who loves all kinds of music. On any given day, he plays BTBAM, Brand New, Regina Spektor, Opeth, and tons of other different bands/genres from folk, electronic, rock, ect. He is a really good bassist, guitarist, and singer. He is a super cool dude, but dont ask him to write a paper or anything.

On the other hand, my girlfriend is possibly the smartest person I know. Yes, she has a music degree and is an opera singer, but she listens to alot of radio pop.

So yeah. Different strokes.


----------



## coreysMonster (Oct 30, 2014)

The most intelligent people listen to metal about puppets and coffee drinking aliens.

I'm basing this on a sample size of 1, which obviously proves it.

The same people are also incredibly well-endowed and muscular, as it turns out, and totally not pudgy nerds.


----------



## CTID (Oct 31, 2014)

My girlfriend's one of the smartest people I've ever met. Was Valedictorian in high school and is on her way to getting her doctorate. Her favorite musical artists are Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake. She also plays clarinet and is ....ing awesome at it.

I like to think I'm pretty smart, and I can appreciate some Britney and JT from time-to-time, myself. So there's that. I appreciate musical diversity.

Also, as a side-note, I've met a lot of people from playing shows in the metal scene in the southeast US, and there are some dumbass ............s that listen to metal. So there's that.


----------

