/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5348347]

All right /sci/
So I saw this chart a while back.
Does it actually make any sense for music to reflect intelligence?
If so, is it because you're more likely to listen to a certain type of music based on intelligence, or does intelligence develop listening to a certain type of music (probably as a kid)?
So my favorite band is Death Cab for Cutie. Does it actually make sense that the average Death Cab fan has an IQ of 1120?

tl;dr does this chart make any sense?

[Anonymous No.5348350]

>>5348347
Oops, sorry they're SAT scores, not IQ.

[Anonymous No.5348357]

>>5348347
>is it because you're more likely to listen to a certain type of music based on intelligence

Yes. But I expect it's a much weaker correlation than this chart implies.

[Anonymous No.5348363]

>>5348357
See I'm honestly kind of surprised there's any correlation at all....

Maybe they're only showing one deviation instead of two to make it appear more exact?

[Anonymous No.5348370]

>>5348347
>music

Get that mind-numbing hipster nonsense back to >>>/mu/

[Anonymous No.5348388]

>mfw according to this I don't listen to any music at all

Also no, I really don't think it's either of those suggestions are plausible. SAT score will definitely be affected by base intelligence but also by education, which will be partially affected by socioeconomic status and the education levels of your parents.

tl;dr
>pleb parents, pleb musical upbringing, pleb musical taste

[Anonymous No.5348393]

>>5348370

[Anonymous No.5348421]

No. All the people that bleat endlessly about classical music and jazz are the ones that just want everyone to think they're intelligent.

I agree, if you listen to the latest X Factor/Pop chart song and artist only you're probably not going to be that intelligent. But aside from that it's meaningless.

[Anonymous No.5348463]

The more popular a piece of music is the more likely it is to be near the average.

[Anonymous No.5348469]

>>5348463
But that doesn't mean that unpopular music is going to be listened to by more intelligent people. So what's the correlation?

[Anonymous No.5348486]

>>5348469

I propose that more intelligent people, and the children thereof, are likely to have better than average living conditions including (but not limited to) easier access to a larger selection of media thus they are also far more likely to list music that is not played in the common forum of the universities (or whatever you take SATs, I'm foreign)

[Anonymous No.5348495]

>>5348486
Interesting. That makes a lot of sense.
Does that mean, with access to the internet becoming easier and cheaper, this graph is going to become less and less true in the future?

[Anonymous No.5348499]

Am I the only one seeing a possible race correlation?

[Anonymous No.5348519]

>>5348499
I could see that, but then again there's already a correlation between race and socioeconomic status, right?

[Anonymous No.5348525]

>>5348388

OBJECTION.

No one in my family likes music. Dad only listens to old rock and mom and brother listens to popular shit. No teacher to guide me or tell me what to listen. I am poor and not very intelligent.

Yet I've been reading about sixteenth century counterpoint for the last 3 months.

[Anonymous No.5348526]

So people listening to music such as EDM have no SAT?

[Anonymous No.5348529]

>>5348499
>race correlation?
That guy

[Anonymous No.5348544]

i think this chart is fucked up because what type of music people listen to depends on social influences and on person's nature too...not everything can be described with a chart or a graph.

[Anonymous No.5348548]

>>5348347
>>5348350
In that case, I've listened to Tool, Radiohead, Metallica, Classic Rock, The Beatles, A dash of Beethoven, Jazz, System of a Down(syndrome), Led Zeppelin, and even Nirvana.

>Got a 1500 on the SAT, less than a few hours of study time spent within 6 months, on just one try.

What about it? It's worthless OP.

[Anonymous No.5348550]

>>5348347
I don't see a real correlation in specific music type (other than Christian being on the lower-middle), everything else with a decent sample seems to be varied throughout

[Anonymous No.5348570]

>>5348499
>>5348519
ITT: People don't know what correlation means

[Anonymous No.5348653]

the less popular the music, the easier it is for one person or a a few people to skew the data.

Extremely popular music will fall near the middle, anything else is scattered more or less randomly.

For instance, if you've got 5 dudes in your data pool that are all idiots, but they're best friends and someone got them all hooked on beethoven, it would drag his score way down.

If a group of 5 kids who wear helmets to school (or geniuses) love the most popular musician on there (kind of at a loss for which one it is), they will alter the average by almost nothing.

[Anonymous No.5348674]

>>5348570
In the US, the correlation in >>5348519 is definitely true.

More a result of history than genetics

[Anonymous No.5348679]

>>5348548
you consider that a good result?

I got a 1690 as a eurofag and I feel like a dumbass because I cocked the math portion.

[Anonymous No.5348695]

>>5348679
lol I don't know how I missed that.

I got close to 1500 if you forget to add (any) one of the subscores.

national merit finalist, bitches

[Anonymous No.5348708]

>>5348653
>beethoven
>not popular
wat

[Anonymous No.5348721]

>>5348708
People in high school take the SAT

I can't name one person in my high school that listened to beethoven. I had a few tracks on my computer, but never would have listed it amongst my favorite music.

Sure, if you take the entire history of listeners, beethoven is more popular than whatever's on your local top 40 station right now.

In college people got into "old stuff" like the beatles and rolling stones, but not beethoven.

Amongst people who took the SAT in any given recent year, (or several recent years combined) beethoven is not very popular. I'd bet a testicle on it.

[Anonymous No.5348723]

>>5348679
I'm pretty sure this graph is math and reading only, so perfect in both would give 1600. >>5348548 got about 750 on both.

[Anonymous No.5348727]

>>5348723
How do you know he isn't adding all 3?

[Anonymous No.5348735]

>>5348727
I suppose I don't, but that would be my guess if he thinks it's a good score. I don't consider average 500 on each section any good, and the graph seems to be out of 1600 so it'd make sense, but hey that's just me.

[Anonymous No.5348753]

I got a 1490, and my favorites at the time were a bunch of black and folk metal bands, and dead can dance

[Anonymous No.5348760]

Favorite band: Modest Mouse
SAT: 1560

[Anonymous No.5348775]

>>5348760
can't believe i forget to list them. and mars volta

[Anonymous No.5348776]

>>5348753
>>5348760
OP here.
Well you can't account for any one person based on stats, it's just the averages.
Like I said, my favorite's Death Cab, and my SAT was 1350, which is 200 points about the Death Cab average.
I'm more curious if there are any idea why the stats are like that.

[Anonymous No.5348782]

>>5348776
we've already covered that, so I was moving on to a new conversation.

[Anonymous No.5348788]

>implying the beethoven fags weren't forced to listen to it by strict parents which is the whole reason they got such a high score in the first place.

[Anonymous No.5348922]

Favorite band: Pendulum
SAT: 2240
they're not on the chart, but...

[Anonymous No.5349006]

>>5348775
> the mars volta
100% god-tier

[Anonymous No.5349036]

Fixed

[Anonymous No.5349038]

I don't really think there is a correlation between intelligence and music.Besides,what would happen if you listen,for example,Blink 182 and Beethoven?This chart would imply you are both dumb and smart?
Also,excuse my spelling or grammar mistakes,English is not my first language

[Anonymous No.5349052]

>>5349036
> bach above beethoven
yeah um

[Anonymous No.5349072]

>>5349052
Sorry that I made you realize your lack of intellect.