Tux of Borg Posted April 15, 2007 Share Posted April 15, 2007 http://www.synthesismagazine.net/2007/04/0...ld-prodigies-2/ Slayer - Soundtrack of Child Prodigies In a 1992 Slayer profile, Esquire magazine wrote, “Five out of five kids who kill love Slayer.” Times change. According to a report just last month in the UK’s national daily newspaper The Independent, a study reveals that “death metal and thrash bands such as Slayer and Slipknot produce the music of choice for today’s brightest youngsters.” The report is based on an online survey conducted with students at Great Britain’s National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth, representing the top five percent of the country’s students. The report further states that “this intellectual elite often [finds] themselves facing situations and issues not encountered by less able students.” Researchers associated with the study admitted their surprise that “intelligent” genres traditionally associated with the precociously bright, such as classical and jazz, were the least popular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted April 15, 2007 Share Posted April 15, 2007 http://www.synthesismagazine.net/2007/04/0...ld-prodigies-2/ Slayer - Soundtrack of Child Prodigies In a 1992 Slayer profile, Esquire magazine wrote, “Five out of five kids who kill love Slayer.” Times change. According to a report just last month in the UK’s national daily newspaper The Independent, a study reveals that “death metal and thrash bands such as Slayer and Slipknot produce the music of choice for today’s brightest youngsters.” The report is based on an online survey conducted with students at Great Britain’s National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth, representing the top five percent of the country’s students. The report further states that “this intellectual elite often [finds] themselves facing situations and issues not encountered by less able students.” Researchers associated with the study admitted their surprise that “intelligent” genres traditionally associated with the precociously bright, such as classical and jazz, were the least popular. INSIDE MY SHELL I WAIT AND BLEED, IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 15, 2007 Share Posted April 15, 2007 http://www.synthesismagazine.net/2007/04/0...ld-prodigies-2/ Slayer - Soundtrack of Child Prodigies In a 1992 Slayer profile, Esquire magazine wrote, “Five out of five kids who kill love Slayer.” Times change. According to a report just last month in the UK’s national daily newspaper The Independent, a study reveals that “death metal and thrash bands such as Slayer and Slipknot produce the music of choice for today’s brightest youngsters.” The report is based on an online survey conducted with students at Great Britain’s National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth, representing the top five percent of the country’s students. The report further states that “this intellectual elite often [finds] themselves facing situations and issues not encountered by less able students.” Researchers associated with the study admitted their surprise that “intelligent” genres traditionally associated with the precociously bright, such as classical and jazz, were the least popular. I'd really like to review the methodology and the data of both the 1992 study (or was that just an article with no research?) and the current "online survey". The findings of both are suspicious. The "five out of five" result doesn't pass the "smell test". The new report suggests "intellectual elite often [finds] themselves facing situations and issues not encountered by less able students". That's not something that I would ever try to discover via an online survey. I doubt the data had anything to do with that little nugget, but was rather an attempt by confused researchers over their heads and with a mess of crappy data due to sloppy methodology, to make "sense of it all". I realize this is a summary of a summary of a summary, of the research. That a remark like that made this meta-meta summary, suggests there was no real/strong/compelling findings from the data itself, or the summaries would contain those findings instead of this strange data-free observation. If, indeed the finding about the "intellectual elite's" facing these unique situations WAS based on data from the online survey, it suggests this was a really stupid survey that should be discounted from the get-go. As long as you don't confuse this with truth, it is fairly funny. I'm not saying it's not possible...I'm just saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Info Posted April 15, 2007 Share Posted April 15, 2007 Hmmm.... Well here are a bunch of young, accomplished musicians and not a one mentioned a metal band. HBO - Music in Me Perhaps these kids are not considered prodigies (though they all are damn good), perhaps they all constitute that 1 out of 5 in the other survey. Just saying that there may be some question on how the data was presented. I have seen some recent published clinical results on the positive effects of Sage on Alzheimer's disease. But there were no controls in the study. So, the derivation of results from an uncontrolled study in a small sampling means that potentially anything could have contributed to the positive results. Heck, the few people who were part of the study may have been taking Namenda or an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. OK, I went off a little bit but my point is that presenting data to justify your means without independent, objective review is easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I'd really like to review the methodology and the data of both the 1992 study (or was that just an article with no research?) and the current "online survey". The findings of both are suspicious. The "five out of five" result doesn't pass the "smell test". The new report suggests "intellectual elite often [finds] themselves facing situations and issues not encountered by less able students". That's not something that I would ever try to discover via an online survey. I doubt the data had anything to do with that little nugget, but was rather an attempt by confused researchers over their heads and with a mess of crappy data due to sloppy methodology, to make "sense of it all". I realize this is a summary of a summary of a summary, of the research. That a remark like that made this meta-meta summary, suggests there was no real/strong/compelling findings from the data itself, or the summaries would contain those findings instead of this strange data-free observation. If, indeed the finding about the "intellectual elite's" facing these unique situations WAS based on data from the online survey, it suggests this was a really stupid survey that should be discounted from the get-go. As long as you don't confuse this with truth, it is fairly funny. I'm not saying it's not possible...I'm just saying... Why, because they don't listen to that douchebag garbage you "highbrow" music snobs dig? Or because you've always fancied yourself as a member of the "intellectual elite" but for the live of you can't figure out how the "effervescent" Boz Skaggs lost out to Slipknot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Why, because they don't listen to that douchebag garbage you "highbrow" music snobs dig? Or because you've always fancied yourself as a member of the "intellectual elite" but for the live of you can't figure out how the "effervescent" Boz Skaggs lost out to Slipknot? Not at all. i think I described what was questionable about the report, so I won't repeat it. The bottom line is: Most research is poorly done. Almost ALL reporting of research, by non-research professionals, is terrible. As much as I might be a music snob, I'm a WAY bigger research snob. The difference is, I'm no music expert, but I sure as hell am a research expert. (I despise the term "expert", BTW. I'm just using it here to make the point.) The reported results disturbed my music snobbery...this is true. The reported "conclusions" offended my research snobbery. I'm not saying it MIGHT be a good solid study and the results are sound...I'm just saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Not at all. i think I described what was questionable about the report, so I won't repeat it. The bottom line is: Most research is poorly done. Almost ALL reporting of research, by non-research professionals, is terrible. As much as I might be a music snob, I'm a WAY bigger research snob. The difference is, I'm no music expert, but I sure as hell am a research expert. (I despise the term "expert", BTW. I'm just using it here to make the point.) The reported results disturbed my music snobbery...this is true. The reported "conclusions" offended my research snobbery. I'm not saying it MIGHT be a good solid study and the results are sound...I'm just saying... Oh, I read your post. I just wanted to pick at you for your musical snobbery, use the word "effervescent", and rip at Boz Skaggs. Mostly because I'm bored and pretty sick of the whole "some scummer killed a bunch of people and society needs someone to blame post haste" thing that's currently all the rage. Childish? Sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Oh, I read your post. I just wanted to pick at you for your musical snobbery, use the word "effervescent", and rip at Boz Skaggs. Mostly because I'm bored and pretty sick of the whole "some scummer killed a bunch of people and society needs someone to blame post haste" thing that's currently all the rage. Childish? Sure. I have no problem with that. In fact, I encourage it. I also like that you slipped "douchebag" in to the riff. What post isn't better with "douchebag" added? Well...I'm off to a Florida bar filled (hopefully) with Sabres fans to smoke cigars, get real drunk and watch our boys spank Nolan's troops in their home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 As long as musical snobbery is the topic of the moment. I leave you to this. Ladies and Gentlemen, guitar and blues freaks, I link for you. Mr. Roy Buchanan (RIP): http://youtube.com/watch?v=yIz4PV9e1k8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Imus Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Mostly because I'm bored and pretty sick of the whole "some scummer killed a bunch of people and society needs someone to blame post haste" thing that's currently all the rage. Childish? Sure. Society sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffal0 Bill5 Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Not at all. i think I described what was questionable about the report, so I won't repeat it. The bottom line is: Most research is poorly done. Almost ALL reporting of research, by non-research professionals, is terrible. As much as I might be a music snob, I'm a WAY bigger research snob. The difference is, I'm no music expert, but I sure as hell am a research expert. (I despise the term "expert", BTW. I'm just using it here to make the point.) The reported results disturbed my music snobbery...this is true. The reported "conclusions" offended my research snobbery. I'm not saying it MIGHT be a good solid study and the results are sound...I'm just saying... I am not a professional researcher, nor do I play one on television, but it seems to me that the main problem is that researchers are motivated by their presuppositions to the point where they are no longer researching to attempt to identify what is true, but rather to support a specific agenda, cause, or theory. Evidence that is contrary to their objective is not accepted, but buried or ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 I am not a professional researcher, nor do I play one on television, but it seems to me that the main problem is that researchers are motivated by their presuppositions to the point where they are no longer researching to attempt to identify what is true, but rather to support a specific agenda, cause, or theory. Evidence that is contrary to their objective is not accepted, but buried or ignored. Add incompetence to the list and you've covered some of the ways research goes bad. Hence, my response to most research stories is: show me the raw data and let me review the methodology. I have one exception to this rule. I believe all research that suggests alcohol is good for our health WITHOUT QUESTION! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts