# Study Finds Genes Dominate Certain Musical Abilities



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

A recent study found that certain musical skills are not improved much by general musical practice. Three skills were measured in the study.

1) Ability to detect differences in pitches
2) Ability to distinguish between different strings of notes (i.e. "melodies")
3) Ability to distinguish rhythms

Many sets of identical twins and fraternal twins were tested on these three abilities after estimating the time spent practicing either an instrument or singing over their lives. The study found that "there appeared to be no relationship between practice and musical ability of the sort she was measuring. A twin who practised more than his genetically identical co-twin did not appear to have better musical abilities as a result."

*NOTE*: The term musical ability here specifically refers to the three abilities listed above - not, for example, the ability to play instruments well.

Apparently, the study author believed that practice would make a significant difference in the three abilities, but to me those abilities do not obviously seem that they should be influenced by practice.

Another interesting result from the study indicates that the desire to practice appears to have a strong genetic correlation.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Quite believable, given that musical prodigies are often apparent at a very young age...


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Quite believable, given that musical prodigies are often apparent at a very young age...


Yes but they are well traine when they are young


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> Another interesting result from the study indicates that the desire to practice appears to have a strong genetic correlation.


The main conclusions may be plausible but I'd be more sceptical of this last suggestion - complex human behaviour (like motivation) is rarely determined by genes alone.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

TurnaboutVox said:


> ...complex human behaviour (like motivation) is rarely determined by genes alone.


I think that's quite true. But genes may load the dice.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Begin the musical eugenics!

:devil:


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Raw ability may be down to the genes, but what you make of it, and whether you become a virtuoso on an instrument, is down to character and environment. So no need to stop practising!


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

KenOC said:


> I think that's quite true. But genes may load the dice.


I still fail to see why so many people think that may be evident. If it's not even proven yet that genes can cause a number of neurological disorders (aside from clearly genetic cases where someone is missing the corpus callosum like FG syndrome, or diseases like encephalitus where there is inflammation of the frontal lobe), what makes people think that things like talents, personality traits, sexuality, and general behavior might be linked to genes?

What I think is at the root of this issue of overplaying the role of genes in mental development is general ignorance about neuroplasticity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity



> Neuroplasticity, also known as brain plasticity, is an umbrella term that encompasses both synaptic plasticity and non-synaptic plasticity-it refers to changes in neural pathways and synapses which are due to changes in behavior, environment and neural processes, as well as changes resulting from bodily injury.[1] Neuroplasticity has replaced the formerly-held position that the brain is a physiologically static organ, and explores how - and in which ways - the brain changes throughout life.[2]
> 
> Neuroplasticity occurs on a variety of levels, ranging from cellular changes due to learning, to large-scale changes involved in cortical remapping in response to injury. The role of neuroplasticity is widely recognized in healthy development, learning, memory, and recovery from brain damage. During most of the 20th century, the consensus among neuroscientists was that brain structure is relatively immutable after a critical period during early childhood. This belief has been challenged by findings revealing that many aspects of the brain remain plastic even into adulthood.[3]





> Decades of research[6] have now shown that substantial changes occur in the lowest neocortical processing areas, and that these changes can profoundly alter the pattern of neuronal activation in response to experience. Neuroscientific research indicates that experience can actually change both the brain's *physical structure* (anatomy) and *functional organization* (physiology). Neuroscientists are currently engaged in a reconciliation of critical period studies demonstrating the immutability of the brain after development with the more recent research showing how the brain can, and does, change.[7]


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

My professional work depends heavily on that neuroplasticity.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

TurnaboutVox said:


> My professional work depends heavily on that neuroplasticity.


How fascinating, would you care to share about that a bit?


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> I still fail to see why so many people think that may be evident. If it's not even proven yet that genes can cause a number of neurological disorders (aside from clearly genetic cases where someone is missing the corpus callosum like FG syndrome, or diseases like encephalitus where there is inflammation of the frontal lobe), what makes people think that things like talents, personality traits, sexuality, and general behavior might be linked to genes?
> 
> What I think is at the root of this issue of overplaying the role of genes in mental development is general ignorance about neuroplasticity:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity


But genes and brain structure - fixed or plastic - are not the same thing. What isn't clear from the article (I've not read the study itself!) is whether the study established a mere statistical correlation or an actual causation. I suspect, as usual, that it's only the former.

Even so, a statistical correlation that suggests a genetic predisposition is worthy of note, surely? It doesn't imply that this makes the capability of the brain fixed or limited.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Jobis said:


> Begin the musical eugenics!
> 
> :devil:


And thus, we force Beethoven to have twelve children, and we euthanize Darwin (who was notoriously tone deaf).

Bach at least did his bit for the musical gene pool.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Anyway, it's a relief to me: I am seriously rhythm deaf, and no amount of study or practice seems to make any difference. I also hate practicing, so I never mastered an instrument. And now I know it's not my fault and there's not a thing I can do about it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> A recent study found that certain musical skills are not improved much by general musical practice. Three skills were measured in the study.
> 
> 1) Ability to detect differences in pitches
> 2) Ability to distinguish between different strings of notes (i.e. "melodies")
> ...


Yet another study confirming what is already widely known. Ho-hum.



mmsbls said:


> Another interesting result from the study indicates that the desire to practice appears to have a strong genetic correlation.


This takes the cake and the blue ribbon for nonsense.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

TurnaboutVox said:


> The main conclusions may be plausible but I'd be more sceptical of this last suggestion - complex human behaviour (like motivation) is rarely determined by genes alone.


In general, as far as we know, that's true. There is certainly research that seems to indicate that identical twins show marked similarities in some behavioral traits (e.g. outgoing/shy). The desire to practice does appear to be a complicated behavior, but perhaps it depends on something simpler that can affect it moderately. At any rate the correlation described is interesting.



MacLeod said:


> What isn't clear from the article (I've not read the study itself!) is whether the study established a mere statistical correlation or an actual causation. I suspect, as usual, that it's only the former.


Unfortunately, I could not locate the actual study even though I looked. When I searched recent issues of _Psychological Science_ I saw no article my Mosing. I was a bit hesitant to post the thread without access to the article. I also assume that a simple correlation was established rather than a causal explanation since that would require an enormous understanding of detailed brain processes.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Yet another study confirming what is already widely known. Ho-hum.


Have there been other studies that systematically looked at the affect of practice on these particular abilities? If so, were the results widely disseminated? If you mean that _some_ people strongly _suspected_ that _some_ of these abilities might not be strongly affected by practice, that seems reasonable but far from what I would call knowing.



PetrB said:


> This takes the cake and the blue ribbon for nonsense.


The statement simply says there is a correlation between desire to practice and genetic endowment. Unless the study made clear mistakes in methodology or statistical analysis (generally rare in peer-reviewed articles), it's reasonable to accept the possibility of an actual correlation. You may not believe that the desire to practice truly is determined by one's genome, but that's different from a correlation. Also I'd be a bit shocked if anyone knew enough about brain processes and behavior to _know_ that such a specific correlation might not have a partial genetic cause.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Interesting. The problem is that it runs up against studies on tonal language and perfect pitch which indicate that the study of a tonal language improves pitch perception. The effect is not purely genetic because people from the same gene pool raised not speaking a tonal language do not develop perfect pitch. Secondly, even when we look at relative pitch and playing, the wiki article on absolute pitch points out:



> Violin students learning the Suzuki method are required to memorize each composition in a fixed key and play it from memory on their instrument, but they are not required to sing. When tested, these students did not succeed in singing the memorized Suzuki songs in the original, fixed key.


Point is, I can play piano at an intermediate level, but my aural / singing skills are poor. To pass my exams I need good relative pitch skills so I am taking singing lessons. I have good sight reading skills but limited ability (none!) to play by ear. My singing skills are improving as is my ability to sing relative to a given tonal centre but this is totally separate from my instrumental skills.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2014)

I read only the title and immediately thought of Gene Simmons, Gene Krupa, and Gene Pitney.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

DrMike said:


> I read only the title and immediately thought of Gene Simmons, Gene Krupa, and Gene Pitney.


Not to mention the Swinging Blue Jeans!

Seriously, there is some part of musical talent - maybe even genius - which appears to be genetic - why are so many good composers called Bach? It's not only nurture because you can look at W F Bach who a) sold his dad's manuscripts to pay his debts and b) claimed some of his dad's music as his own - the Bach who never really made it. If it had been down to family connections and influences he could have done really well.

Equally many people can learn to play an instrument moderately well without too much talent.

Maybe the desire to practice is simply a recognition that you're good at what you're doing or that the brick wall in front of you will eventually go away once you build up your technique; and the desire not to practice is a simple recognition that you're going nowhere fast.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> The statement simply says there is a correlation between desire to practice and genetic endowment. Unless the study made clear mistakes in methodology or statistical analysis (generally rare in peer-reviewed articles), it's reasonable to accept the possibility of an actual correlation. You may not believe that the desire to practice truly is determined by one's genome, but that's different from a correlation. Also I'd be a bit shocked if anyone knew enough about brain processes and behavior to _know_ that such a specific correlation might not have a partial genetic cause.


You are talking about motivation to work at something, supposedly because that something has seized the practitioner's passionate interest -- working at it, practicing, is driven primarily by that. The study makes it seem as if someone is searching for who will, or will not, practice their instrument _perhaps when the study of music was assigned them vs. having been a choice._

If it is a blanket statement (after all, why would there be 'a genome responsible "just about practicing an instrument?" '); is there is a genome which determines who simply studies and is more in step with doing their homework?

I mean, really, what does it matter... people _are motivated, driven,_ or not. Yes, there are ways to cajole Jimmy and Jane into practicing / doing their homework, but -- discovered long long ago -- if Jimmy or Jane _are not personally keen on music, the playing of it,_ then it does not matter one whit 'what genome' they have which might make them more inclined to practice.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

It's a possibility, and seems interesting... Not just skills, but likes, dislikes, ambitions, and inclinations are primarily ruled by genetics... so, no one has anything to be particularly proud of, as it's just their genes making them move in every way.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

This would be a great way to get out of consequences.... "Hey man, you just stole that crippled grandma's parking spot!" 

Sorry, pal... it's my genes.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Vesuvius said:


> It's a possibility, and seems interesting... Not just skills, but likes, dislikes, ambitions, and inclinations are primarily ruled by genetics... so, no one has anything to be particularly proud of, as it's just their genes making them move in every way.


This is exactly the kind of nonsense I think the scientific community should be warning folks against. We can't use anecdotal evidence, even studies with twins, because we haven't any control over all of the variables. Most twins grow up in the same household, others grow up in separate and different environments but that only accounts for that variable. Like I mentioned earlier there is the issue of neuroplasticity, and a host of other variables that can be provided.

So, until we can actually determine the individual genes, what it is exactly that they affect and the mechanism by which those processes result in what we see, then we just aren't able to reliably control the variables at all. Not only would we first have to determine which genes account for this amount of serotonin, dopamine, relative to this amount of activity in the visual cortex, angular gyrus (AKA the "Einstein area" responsible for metaphorical and abstract thinking), Wernicke's area (language interpretation), and so on and so forth.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> Another interesting result from the study indicates that the desire to practice appears to have a strong genetic correlation.


What makes identical twin studies so valuable, and the reason they have been used in so many groundbreaking experiments, is that they can separate out the effects of nature versus nurture - but only if the identical twins are raised in different households. You don't specify if the twins in these studies were raised together or separately. If together, then any similarities in motivation are likely to be learned and the experiment would, in any case, have no way to tell whether there was any genetic influence at all.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Lukecash12 said:


> This is exactly the kind of nonsense I think the scientific community should be warning folks against. We can't use anecdotal evidence, even studies with twins, because we haven't any control over all of the variables. Most twins grow up in the same household, others grow up in separate and different environments but that only accounts for that variable. Like I mentioned earlier there is the issue of neuroplasticity, and a host of other variables that can be provided.
> 
> So, until we can actually determine the individual genes, what it is exactly that they affect and the mechanism by which those processes result in what we see, then we just aren't able to reliably control the variables at all. Not only would we first have to determine which genes account for this amount of serotonin, dopamine, relative to this amount of activity in the visual cortex, angular gyrus (AKA the "Einstein area" responsible for metaphorical and abstract thinking), Wernicke's area (language interpretation), and so on and so forth.


It's all mind-games. No one really knows, but so many are absolutely desperate for 'knowledge' that they take anything they can get... even if it's out of the garbage. Billions of variables must be considered to make any objective claim that's actually a bit truthful, and even then, it's relative.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2014)

I can't help feeling that what some posters seem to be rejecting - yet warning us against making - are claims that the research hasn't made.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> I can't help feeling that what some posters seem to be rejecting - yet warning us against making - are claims that the research hasn't made.


Nah... skills and desire to practice are normally correlated to fans of Gene Simmons. About right?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> What makes identical twin studies so valuable, and the reason they have been used in so many groundbreaking experiments, is that they can separate out the effects of nature versus nurture - but only if the identical twins are raised in different households. You don't specify if the twins in these studies were raised together or separately. If together, then any similarities in motivation are likely to be learned and the experiment would, in any case, have no way to tell whether there was any genetic influence at all.


Yes, you're right. Unfortunately, as mentioned, I could not find the actual study so it's hard to say. The media reports talk about identical twins but don't say if they were raised apart. Since so many studies use the collection of identical twins who were raised apart, I assume this one did as well, but I don't know for certain.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> Yes, you're right. Unfortunately, as mentioned, I could not find the actual study so it's hard to say. The media reports talk about identical twins but don't say if they were raised apart. Since so many studies use the collection of identical twins who were raised apart, I assume this one did as well, but I don't know for certain.


That's why I hate media coverage of science - they generally don't know enough science to cover it. I also wonder whether those identical twins raised apart have any other occupation besides experimental subject - or whether they need one ;-)


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2014)

Perhaps one of the scientists here would like to read the study -

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ality_the_Swedish_Musical_Discrimination_Test

(Need to open a free account).

[add] Sorry - wrong study. Try here for an abstract at least...

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/07/30/0956797614541990.abstract


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

This study has a big flaw: it doesn't take into account other musical activities than playing an instrument, such as, mainly, listening to music. All of these three skills would develop also when simply listening to music, so ultimately this study doesn't confirm anything, since it's deeply flawed.

Sorry, this study is what science passes for these days.


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> This study has a big flaw: it doesn't take into account other musical activities than playing an instrument, such as, mainly, listening to music. All of these three skills would develop also when simply listening to music, so ultimately this study doesn't confirm anything, since it's deeply flawed.
> 
> Sorry, this study is what science passes for these days.


It shows what it shows...ie, what the report's authors report in statistical terms. You can read it here (I think I've got the right one)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000841

On the issue of how the twins were selected...does this mean anything to anyone?



> *2.7. Twin modelling (using the full sample including single twins)*
> 
> The classical twin design makes use of the differences in genetic sharing between MZ and DZ twins. While the former share 100% of their segregating genes, the latter share only 50% on average. This information can be used to partition trait variance into that due to _additive genetic_ (A) and environmental influences (_common_ (_C_) - all influences shared between the pair making them more alike and _unique_ (E) - all influences not shared between the twins making them more different from each other including measurement error). With the help of structural equation modelling the combination of ACE influences best explaining the population variance in a trait can be estimated. Here, maximum likelihood (ML) modelling procedures using the flexible matrix algebra program Mx ( Neale, Boker, Xie, & Maes, 2006) were used to derive parameter estimates for the saturated model. We explored age and sex effects on the mean and for normality of the three musical sub-domains prior to genetic modeling.


[add] No, I've got an earlier one in which the validity of the musical tests is being checked.

This makes interesting reading in itself, though, as it shows, for example, that there is a statistically significant correlation between the number of hours of training (not practice) and the scores in the tests.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> It shows what it shows...ie, what the report's authors report in statistical terms


i.e. nothing at all.

As usual with studies done outside the laboratory with real humans, it fails to control for all of the important factors. This is often due to lack of finances or the impossible scope of the undertaking, but in this case it's carelessness and lack of imagination on the part of the researchers.


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> i.e. nothing at all.
> 
> As usual with studies done outside the laboratory with real humans, it fails to control for all of the important factors. This is often due to lack of finances or the impossible scope of the undertaking, but in this case it's carelessness and lack of imagination on the part of the researchers.


So, you've read the research report (not just the media article) and you're challenging their findings: which ones, exactly?


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> So, you've read the research report (not just the media article) and you're challenging their findings: which ones, exactly?


Why do you keep asking questions from me when I have pointed out, twice, that they didn't control for musical activity except singing and playing an instrument? I'm challenging all of their findings because that flaw in methodology is so deep that all of their findings become suspect.

This is from the study:



> 2.5.1. Musical activity
> 
> Participants were asked whether they play or have played a musical instrument or sung actively. This was used as a categorical variable to separate musically active and non-active participants.


The news article reported it accurately, and I accurately criticised it for its obvious flaw based on the news article.

My understanding is that the most important thing for a person's development of musical perception is early childhood (neuroplasticity) and what happens there. Four things might happen: listening to music, playing instrument / singing, learning theory, studying scores.

My understanding is that listening to music and playing / singing are the most important in improving musical perception.

I'm not aware of studies that competently study this issue, but my ideas gain strong support from my personal experiences in developing my own musical perception through playing and listening to music, as well as the well-known fact that the brain is the most malleable in early childhood.


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> This is from the study:


Apparently, it's not. Like mmsbls, I can't find the whole study, but have at least found an abstract. The abstract says:



> These findings suggest that music practice may not causally influence music ability


http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/07/30/0956797614541990.abstract

The report author is not asserting anything other than the _possibility _that their statistical findings _may _be interpreted this way. I don't agree that the study is 'deeply flawed', but I can agree that there is plenty of material for further study, taking into account other variables.

I wonder whether the study author approves of the headline used in the _Psychological Science_ journal? It seems to claim more than the report itself suggests.


----------



## Illuminatedtoiletpaper (Apr 12, 2012)

DrMike said:


> I read only the title and immediately thought of Gene Simmons, Gene Krupa, and Gene Pitney.


Gene Vincent!

...

On a more relevant note, why is it so hard for some to believe that we are the sum of the organic material we're made of? I don't think it makes us any more or less predictable with the definition, but it frames us as a reaction to our environment. Yes, you are the expression of your genetics, and yes, you can optimise and thrive in certain environments. Which is why wealth is often important; it can more easily flower the genetic potential with a more controlled exposure.

All this being said, having the best genes doesn't mean one will be the best in a given environment. And ultimately, the world has been more often shaped and enhanced by the combined efforts of average people than of the excellent.

Gotta' love culture!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

By the way, one of the study authors is Fredrik Ullén, who's recorded several albums of piano music for BIS.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Yeah, it's called "talent!"


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2014)

Coming late to this. Sorry if I repeat.

I haven't read the actual study, only the summary linked in the OP. But the biggest flaw that I could see is how the measurements of musical ability compare with what actual musicians consider musical ability. The study director created 3 measurement - but how do those really reflect what goes into making a truly good musician? In other words, are the questions being asked the right ones for actually testing the hypothesis? To me, it doesn't seem so. Another flaw - and I don't know if this is at all addressed in the actual study - is this: Beethoven, later in life, had he been given the same tests would likely rate as having zero musical aptitude. Why? His hearing was impaired. Do they allow for differences in that area? I have assaulted my ears with very loud music for a long time, so I am sure that my hearing is not as good as it could be. They are looking at twins born between '59 and '85. That is a huge spread. Someone born in '59 would have been ~55, and someone born in '85 would be ~29. At any rate, that is plenty of time for blasting your ears with loud music - all born into times where they would have been exposed to lots of it. So when they come to take these tests, are all things really equal? No, it might not be an extreme, like one is deaf and one can hear perfectly, but how much difference do you need in terms of hearing before discrepancies would creep into your ability to determine differences in pitch and tone and rhythm?

I don't buy it. The hypothesis may very well be sound, but I don't know that the data support it.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Yeah, it's called "talent!"


I'm going off on a bit of tangent here... But I suppose that what science is moving us away from is the strong loyalty to the idea of personal responsibility and pride for these traits. Because deep down you didn't really do it... luckily your genes were properly aligned somehow. I'm not arguing for or against this, but now more characteristics and attitudes are said to be a consequence of biology rather an individual will, which leaves the question as to where exactly does the responsibility lay? Should we feel as responsible for so many things like we do today?

If even the push to practice is a genetic trait... and if that's true... Maybe we all should let go a bit, as we're really not 'doing' as much as we think, rather it's the dance of genetics. Just allow yourself to be moved.

Again, all hypotheticals... I really don't know what's right either way.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> This study has a big flaw: it doesn't take into account other musical activities than playing an instrument, such as, mainly, listening to music. All of these three skills would develop also when simply listening to music, so ultimately this study doesn't confirm anything, since it's deeply flawed.


The flaw you mention seems to be that the researchers did not study the question you wanted them to study. They report that, independent of other musical activities such as listening to music, additional practice in playing or singing does not statistically affect the 3 defined abilities. Perhaps other studies will look at the effect of listening to music, but this study explicitly did not. I don't know that it is obvious or even true that listening effects the abilities.



Chordalrock said:


> As usual with studies done outside the laboratory with real humans, it fails to control for all of the important factors. This is often due to lack of finances or the impossible scope of the undertaking, but in this case it's carelessness and lack of imagination on the part of the researchers.


Controlling for other factors is only important when variation is measured. _If_ those abilities were not constant as a function of practice time (when genetic endowment was held constant), then other factors might play a role, and it would be important to control for all potential causes. Since there was statistically no change in ability when genetic endowment was held constant and practice time was allowed to vary, practice time cannot have a significant effect (unless some miraculous set of coincidences is occurring).


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2014)

DrMike said:


> I haven't read the actual study,


That's alright - nor has anyone else. But you can use unvalidated, personal experience instead to support your views - it carries just as much weight as scientific method round here.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> The flaw you mention seems to be that the researchers did not study the question you wanted them to study. They report that, independent of other musical activities such as listening to music, additional practice in playing or singing does not statistically affect the 3 defined abilities. Perhaps other studies will look at the effect of listening to music, but this study explicitly did not. I don't know that it is obvious or even true that listening effects the abilities.
> 
> Controlling for other factors is only important when variation is measured. _If_ those abilities were not constant as a function of practice time (when genetic endowment was held constant), then other factors might play a role, and it would be important to control for all potential causes. Since there was statistically no change in ability when genetic endowment was held constant and practice time was allowed to vary, practice time cannot have a significant effect (unless some miraculous set of coincidences is occurring).


You don't seem to understand. Let me try one last time and then I'll bow out of the dance.

If listening to music affects these skills as much as playing an instrument, and if those who spend less or no time playing instruments spend more time listening to music, then even if playing an instrument affects these skills, you wouldn't be able to notice this by using the methods of this study, because you failed to take into account the activity of listening to music.

It sounds complicated but it's really a very basic flaw of this study, unless you assume that listening to music can't have an effect on these skills. But as a scientist performing research of this sort, it's not something you can simply assume. However, they conducted this study as if they knew beforehand that the activity of listening to music could simply be discounted, which I find absurd for the very good reason that it's so similar to the activity of playing an instrument - both involve listening to music and comprehending patterns and both involve the use of musical memory.

Sorry if that is still too difficult for you to understand, I've said my thing. You're welcome.


----------



## echo (Aug 15, 2014)

i think neurological conditions like Synesthesia may be genetic and could be argued as advantageous to a composer :devil:


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

echo said:


> i think neurological conditions like Synesthesia may be genetic and could be argued as advantageous to a composer :devil:


???? What does that have to do with genetics? Methinks you accidentally posted something in the wrong thread.


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> That's alright - nor has anyone else. But you can use unvalidated, personal experience instead to support your views - it carries just as much weight as scientific method round here.


Yeah, and I have since found the article, and skimmed through it quickly - especially the methods section. They don't address the concerns of mine. So I actually did consult their scientific method, and I find it flawed. My concerns stand. Or you can just attack the criticism.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> If listening to music affects these skills as much as playing an instrument, and if those who spend less or no time playing instruments spend more time listening to music, then even if playing an instrument affects these skills, you wouldn't be able to notice this by using the methods of this study, because you failed to take into account the activity of listening to music.


This statement is absolutely correct. _*If*_ the measured skills had varied between identical twins who practiced differing amounts, we would not know if practice or some other variable such as listening had the predominate effect.

_*But*_ the measured skills *did not vary* when genetic endowment was held fixed. So the researchers concluded that, statistically, practice time has little to no effect on these skills. If it did, the skills would have varied. Since the researchers did not estimate listening time, strictly they can make no statement on the effect of listening to these skills. But since the skills did not vary from twin to twin, we might suspect that listening also does not appear to effect these skills.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> This statement is absolutely correct. _*If*_ the measured skills had varied between identical twins who practiced differing amounts, we would not know if practice or some other variable such as listening had the predominate effect.
> 
> _*But*_ the measured skills *did not vary* when genetic endowment was held fixed. So the researchers concluded that, statistically, practice time has little to no effect on these skills. If it did, the skills would have varied. Since the researchers did not estimate listening time, strictly they can make no statement on the effect of listening to these skills. But since the skills did not vary from twin to twin, we might suspect that listening also does not appear to effect these skills.


You can't simply assume that an unaccounted variable has a negligible effect.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> You can't simply assume that an unaccounted variable has a negligible effect.


I don't assume that nor do the researchers. Let's assume that listening has a significant effect on those abilities. If so, identical twins who spent different amounts of time listening over their lives ought to show variation in those abilities. But the researchers measured *little to no variation* between twins. Therefore, if listening really does effect those abilities, we'd have to assume that somehow the twins spent roughly the same amounts of time listening (otherwise, they would have measured variation in the abilities).

We don't know how much time they spent listening since that wasn't estimated so the researchers made no claim about listening (as they shouldn't).


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> I don't assume that nor do the researchers. Let's assume that listening has a significant effect on those abilities. If so, identical twins who spent different amounts of time listening over their lives ought to show variation in those abilities. But the researchers measured *little to no variation* between twins. Therefore, if listening really does effect those abilities, we'd have to assume that somehow the twins spent roughly the same amounts of time listening (otherwise, they would have measured variation in the abilities).
> 
> We don't know how much time they spent listening since that wasn't estimated so the researchers made no claim about listening (as they shouldn't).


Of course, it may very well be that the same amount of listening can affect two people differently, as well. And what of their tastes? What of their musical education? If they both practiced who was passionate about it?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> Of course, it may very well be that the same amount of listening can affect two people differently, as well. And what of their tastes? What of their musical education? If they both practiced who was passionate about it?


It's possible all those things might effect the 3 abilities. We don't know if those other variables varied between the twins. We do know that practice time varied considerably. We also know that the measured abilities did not differ much.

The bottom line is that _nothing that did vary between the study twins_ collectively made a difference in the measured abilities. So unless there's an amazing coincidence between variables to make the overall effect zero (or close to zero), the one estimated variable, practice time, statistically has little effect.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> So unless there's an amazing coincidence between variables to make the overall effect zero (or close to zero), the one estimated variable, practice time, statistically has little effect.


I have to learn patience, so here I am again, patiently explaining: there is not necessarily any amazing coincidence involved in a situation where the twin who doesn't play an instrument uses a lot more of his spare time listening to music than the twin who plays an instrument. If you play an instrument, you probably have a lot less spare time available for listening to music as well as less motivation, so this "coincidence" follows quite naturally. No unlikely occurrences needed. Just two people engaging in roughly the same amount of musical activity as a result of the sort of dynamic I just outlined. This sort of thing could easily average out across a large population. The researchers didn't take this into account, so their findings are suspect.

I'd also point out again that early childhood, ages 0-5, probably has by far the biggest effect on the development of musical memory and related skills - if the right sort of environment is present. This implies another oversight the study has, since it fails to focus properly on the critical phase of musical development (listening to music being the most important variable in early childhood).

Since twins in this study are assumed to share the same growing up environment - they're not separated at birth and given different parents - you could assume that each pair of twins listened to about as much music in early childhood, especially from before birth to age two or something when they didn't have much control over their environment and would listen to what their parents made them listen.

BTW, I don't think you can turn just anyone into Mozart with the right sort of growing up environment, but you can certainly make anybody musical, just as you can make anybody speak and learn to read.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> there is not necessarily any amazing coincidence involved in a situation where the twin who doesn't play an instrument uses a lot more of his spare time listening to music than the twin who plays an instrument. If you play an instrument, you probably have a lot less spare time available for listening to music as well as less motivation, so this "coincidence" follows quite naturally. No unlikely occurrences needed. Just two people engaging in roughly the same amount of musical activity as a result of the sort of dynamic I just outlined. This sort of thing could easily average out across a large population.


You say twins who practice more could listen less, and the total time spent practicing plus listening could turn out to be the same. If listening and practicing both contribute to the 3 abilities, it's possible that practicing and/or listening could in fact improve those abilities. Yes, that's possible, but it seems quite unlikely to me, and more importantly it would lead to some extremely interesting results.

We all know siblings who spend very different amounts of time listening to and practicing music. There's certainly no reason to believe that all people or even all siblings will spend close to the same amount of time on these activities. Thinking that it's likely that the identical twins would in fact spend similar amounts of time listening/practicing seems extremely unlikely to me.

You say "This sort of thing could easily average out across a large population." Averaging out is not good enough. The statistical study compared twins on a twin by twin basis - not on average. It's not enough that each twin pair "could" spend the same listening/practicing time. Each twin pair _must_ spend essentially the same time. That would be an amazing result. We know that non-shared experiences shape a significant part of our behavior, but here we'd learn that genetic endowment and shared experiences result in exactly the same behavior (on an individual pair basis) in time spent listening/practicing to music. Non-shared experiences play no role! That would be a revolutionary result for such a behavior.



Chordalrock said:


> I'd also point out again that early childhood, ages 0-5, probably has by far the biggest effect on the development of musical memory and related skills - if the right sort of environment is present. This implies another oversight the study has, since it fails to focus properly on the critical phase of musical development (listening to music being the most important variable in early childhood).
> 
> Since twins in this study are assumed to share the same growing up environment - they're not separated at birth and given different parents - you could assume that each pair of twins listened to about as much music in early childhood, especially from before birth to age two or something when they didn't have much control over their environment and would listen to what their parents made them listen.


If early childhood has by far the biggest effect on these abilities, that would act to confirm the study thesis - later practice has little effect on the abilities (and nothing else does either). At any rate, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the study. The researchers state that practice has little effect. Essentially everyone starts to practice after 0-5 years. The researchers are looking at effects on those abilities from a behavior after the first 5 years. Since the abilities do not vary much, either twins at age 5 have roughly the same abilities *and* later practice does not affect the abilities, or the twins have differing abilities at age 5 and later practice serves to *exactly* balance, on a twin by twin basis, the abilities later in life. I'm going to say the later possibility is at least rather unlikely.


----------



## echo (Aug 15, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> ???? What does that have to do with genetics? Methinks you accidentally posted something in the wrong thread.


What other factor could be attributed to genes - and what other factor could possible result in quality music - i hope your not going to say something coy like intelligence or genes giving one a predisposition to certain beliefs.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> Each twin pair _must_ spend essentially the same time. That would be an amazing result.


Not really, because "essentially the same" could be one twin spending an hour per day and another spending two hours. The skills measured were such that there could be a min/max amount of time per day of musical activity beyond which no further benefit is conferred by such activity, especially if it's of the casual sort (which is typically the case) and not very intensive training designed to improve those skills in particular.

Did the study have any twins of whom one would have spent almost no time listening to or playing music and one would have spent hours per week? No, we don't know, because the study didn't record listening activity.

Wasn't the study looking at the heritability of these skills? Because if they fail to properly study the effect of early childhood, then their heritability estimates would have to be rubbish.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

echo said:


> What other factor could be attributed to genes - and what other factor could possible result in quality music - *i hope your not going to say something coy like intelligence or genes giving one a predisposition to certain beliefs.*


Wouldn't that be a valid point, though? You don't believe in the easter bunny anymore, I'd assume. And why's that? Well, because your intelligence has grown.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> Not really, because "essentially the same" could be one twin spending an hour per day and another spending two hours. The skills measured were such that there could be a min/max amount of time per day of musical activity beyond which no further benefit is conferred by such activity, especially if it's of the casual sort (which is typically the case) and not very intensive training designed to improve those skills in particular.


This would tend to confirm the study result - extra practice does not increase those particular skills.



Chordalrock said:


> Wasn't the study looking at the heritability of these skills? Because if they fail to properly study the effect of early childhood, then their heritability estimates would have to be rubbish.


Since I unfortunately could not read the study, I don't know exactly how they couched their results. The result that we've been discussing is that practice has little effect on the 3 particular skills when genetic endowment is held constant. Since the twins had essentially equal abilities later in life, only two possibilities exist. One, early development yielded roughly the same abilities at say 5, and practice has little effect. Two, early development yielded differing abilities, and later practice *compensated for those early differences on a twin by twin basis*. I'm apparently less willing to believe the second possibility.

You can throw in listening, but as I said before I'm enormously skeptical of the possibility of listening basically cancelling out any effect of practicing. There will be future studies on aspects of the brain and behavior, and I expect we will continue to learn more about both.


----------



## echo (Aug 15, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> Wouldn't that be a valid point, though? You don't believe in the easter bunny anymore, I'd assume. And why's that? Well, because your intelligence has grown.


What would be a valid point ? --- that intelligence is genetic ? --- is that's your point -- prove it, don't infer it because that's not evidence


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

echo said:


> What would be a valid point ? --- that intelligence is genetic ? --- is that's your point -- prove it, don't infer it because that's not evidence


I think my statement to the bolded part of your post was pretty clear cut. Re-read for clarity.


----------



## echo (Aug 15, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> I think my statement to the bolded part of your post was pretty clear cut. Re-read for clarity.


Well obviously all I have to prove your statement invalid is repeat myself and ask you to prove it - or can you only infer your beliefs ?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

echo said:


> Well obviously all I have to prove your statement invalid is repeat myself and ask you to prove it - or can you only infer your beliefs ?


Is it belief to understand that you don't believe in the tooth fairy anymore because your intelligence has improved? You are now more capable of distinguishing between your imagination and reality.

Post script - I'm referring to your implication that intelligence doesn't correlate with beliefs.


----------



## echo (Aug 15, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> Is it belief to understand that you don't believe in the tooth fairy anymore because your intelligence has improved? You are now more capable of distinguishing between your imagination and reality.
> 
> Post script - I'm referring to your implication that intelligence doesn't correlate with beliefs.


Yes - Knowledge and faith are subsets of belief


----------

