Sunday morning links

Satoshi Kanazawa postulates the following: ...more intelligent individuals are more likely to acquire and espouse evolutionarily novel values and preferences than less intelligent individuals". He goes on to posit that primitive music was largely vocal and instrumental music was largely novel - thus more intelligent individuals are attracted to instrumental music as a marker in the theory of the evolution of general intelligence.

I wonder how he came up with this idea.

It would logically follow that the voice was the first "instrument" - some theories suggest that primitive vocal music was the result of "patterning" - the imitation of natural noise and sounds of game animals. Other theories suggest that the more natural evolution of voice music is the result of mother/child interaction.

On the other hand, rhythm instruments can be as simple as hand claps, foot stomps or simple beating on a hollow log and can, with simple adjusting of power or tone, be musically effective. Similarly simple primitive gizmos like Bullroarers or rasps can be amazingly effective instruments.

I'm of the opinion that this is a chicken or the egg question.

With respect to the original theory about intelligence, this is the same guy who developed the "liberal are smarter than conservatives". I wouldn't put too much credence in it.

#1 Tom Francis on 2011-02-13 07:40 (Reply)

Liberals are smarter than Conservatives, Tom. Everybody knows that.

We are proudly stupid knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing clingers here at Maggie's.

#1.1 Bird Dog on 2011-02-13 07:44 (Reply)

Heh - yeah, well I can relate to the stupid knuckle dragging, mouth-breathing thing - the Mrs. tells me that all the time.

I guess it's true then because I like it here. :>)

#1.1.1 Tom Francis on 2011-02-13 07:57 (Reply)

With respect to the original theory about intelligence, this is the same guy who developed the "liberal are smarter than conservatives". I wouldn't put too much credence in it.

Agreed one shouldn't put much credence to his music theory. It would be more accurate to say he "further developed the 'liberal are smarter than conservatives' " theory. He was just following a narrative that has been around since at least the days of Adlai Stevenson II.

During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Mr. Stevenson "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Stevenson called back "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

One ironic implication of this this "study" is that proponents of rap music are not brighter than the average bear. Who are the biggest fans of rap music? People under 30 and blacks, both core constituencies of the Democrats. Which is evidence the libs won/'t push this study much.

I rather like choral music, myself.

One could do a comparison of the general population to those who purchase season tickets for the symphony. The conclusion would be that those who purchase season tickets for the symphony are brighter, better educated, et al. But what groundbreaking information have we discovered here?

Nada. Zilch. Nothing.

Perhaps one should do a study comparing the general population with that of "social scientists" regarding the ability to accurately discern reality. It is no accident that one town that was blessed with being the object of a sociological treatise responded by including a manure spreader in the Fourth of July parade with an effigy of author of the treatise.

#1.2 Gringo on 2011-02-13 15:34 (Reply)

re: Wow — Government Overreach of the Week

What I sent to the blogfaddah this morning on that very subject:

California has done similar for years.

Hypothetically. Say you are a commissioned salesperson in a no income tax state (like Texas).
Say you earn BIG commissions in the first half of the year but income falls dramatically the second half.
Say you earn a paltry $1000 in December, but decide California is where you want to live, so you move to California in December.
Then you file your income tax for that year and low and behold, California claims 1/12 of your annual income was earned in California, so you pay income taxes to California OF MORE THAN YOU EARNED IN DECEMBER.

Uh-huh. 1993 for me.

#2 JoeC on 2011-02-13 09:31 (Reply)

RE: Peggy Yen insists that “people need simple guidelines for choosing the food they eat”

The problem with Government guidelines is they become government laws with penalties and bureaucracy to ensure enforcement and eventually you have OSHA, the EPA, NTSB, the T&A... TSA, and on. and on. and on. Never let a good suggestion lay fallow without making a regulation out of it.

#3 JoeC on 2011-02-13 09:35 (Reply)

Mitch Daniels!

Wow - first time I've heard him speak.

Mitch Daniels

Wow! A great, straight-talking speech.

More than enough charisma for this voter!

#4 Ben David on 2011-02-13 10:16 (Reply)

“people need simple guidelines for choosing the food they eat”

How simple - and how practical?

A recent article in Australia warned that about 20% of children were "overweight or obese," presumably using the BMI figures. Not mentioned is how many were underweight. But a throw-away line needs more attention - only 14% (possibly including some of the overweight) were in compliance with government guidelines.

http://www.news.com.au/national/one-in-four-teens-overweight-as-australia-sits-on-health-time-bomb-expert-warns/story-e6frfkvr-1226002498572
"Just 14 per cent of the students were found to meet both the recommended daily intake of vegetables and fruit, while 85 per cent did not engage in enough activity for it to have a health benefit."
Yet 80% were not over BMI guideline...

#5 John A on 2011-02-13 12:02 (Reply)

If only someone actually knew what a healthy diet was. The government and all of the self appointed food czar organizations have flipflopped their recommendations over the years so many times I'm not sure they even know what, exactly, is healthy and what is not. When you factor in the simple truth that we are all different, i.e. eating lots of salt may not cause me any harm at all but for someone else it could cause high blood pressure, then you recognize the problem with any guidelines for everyone. Lets be honest; most so called guidelines for healthy eating simply reflect the author's bias and not science. Vegetarians think we should cut back red meat with the eventuial gaol being to cut out meat entirely. Health food nuts think vitamins and supplements will make you live forever. New age people want you to eat sprouts and get wheat grass enemas. Everyone thinks we should cut out fat but grudgingly admit that our bodies are intended to eat about 30% of our calories from fat. Some bigots swear transfats will kill you but back in the 50's the government convinced us all that margerine was better for us then butter so we have all been eating transfats by the tubful for 60 years and ourt life expectancies have nearly doubled. I understand some extremist have even banned fruit juices from schools because fruits have sugar in them. But they seem blissfully unaware that our body runs on sugar (glucose) and that our body turns all carbohydrates including the sugar in fruits into glucose.
One last point: The food nuts like to point out that according to the BMI over 20% of children are obese. But obviously that means about 80% are not! And our children all eat the same crap so what does it all mean? Not to mention that the BMI was an arbitrary measure and tends to label shorter people obese and taller people skinny without regard to whether they are or are not.

The bottom line is self-limited diets are more harmful for you then typical American diets are. Be very careful about embarking on some fad diet or eliminating esssential nutrients and minerals from your diet. Recent studies have shown that limiting salt is more harmful then too much salt. Also remember that whatever the guidelines are today they will be different next year when a new group of food bigots are self-appointed to tell you how to live your life.

#6 GoneWithTheWind on 2011-02-13 12:28 (Reply)

Well said. All true.

#6.1 Bird Dog on 2011-02-13 12:34 (Reply)

On unions getting more.

The post is very good but misses one alternative point. Unions do not need to get more as in wages and benefits they also could get more as in power within the company. Logically the unions should press for wages and benefits until those are at market costs. Then the unions should press for real power within the company.

But the union management understands this would create workers who do not need union management or union bargaining power. After all why would you need a power broker to negotiate with yourself?

As a result unions have over bid the wages and benefits and are only nominally useful in the private sector. They have so over bid the wages and benefits in the public sector they will likely cause the public to illegalize strikes as against the public interest.

The end is in sight.

#7 Maddog on 2011-02-13 13:17 (Reply)

Looks like Obama wants to double down on passenger rail service. They believe high speed trains will attract customers that shun AMTRAK. Just remember that AMTRAK was supposed to be a temporary program untill it could become self supporting. It never has and remains a sink hole for taxpayer money. The next great idea will be high speed stage coaches.

#8 Ray on 2011-02-13 13:21 (Reply)

Re Al Gore: Gore's education had nothing to do with science; his environmental guru is one Amy Kreider, a 1992 grad from Rollins College who has done what passes for research to back up his statements on the topic. The mystery is why anyone pays attention to Gore at all.

#9 Claritas on 2011-02-13 18:46 (Reply)

Claritas ... You're right that Al Gore's education had nothing to do with science. An article on the Internet a year or two ago stated that in the required science course he had to take to graduate from Yale, he earned a grade of C or C minus.

In a TV interview with his wife Tipper the year he lost the election, she said that he went down into the basement and dug around in his old term papers to find something to comfort him, and that's when he emerged with the idea of the dangers of global warming to the future of the planet. As far as the so-called scientific support for the global warming theory, scientists are probably as venal as the rest of us, and a monetary grant of support for one's research is pretty attractive.

At any rate "the science" is not settled, as the warmenists claim. Science is never "settled", as Einstein would tell you if he were still alive. That's the fun of it. New discoveries are out there waiting to be found.

Marianne

#10 Marianne Matthews on 2011-02-13 22:29 (Reply)

Meself rarely disagrees with George Will and can't deny Mitch has some charisma of competence.

However, his CPAC speech doesn't rise to competence.

He failed to mention the menace of unfunded government employee pensions.

#11 Leag on 2011-02-14 12:38 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Sunday, February 13. 2011

Sunday morning links