Several potentially fallacious studies...

[msbae]

Cambridge wastes time studying people's preconceptions about Musical tastes...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...listen-to-says-new-study-of-music-lovers.html

I have numerous disagreements with this study. Rockers are not any more (or less) emotionally unstable than anyone else. Musical tastes also have nothing to do with anyone's perceived attractiveness, either.

Evolution Of The Human Appendix: A Biological 'Remnant' No More

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090820175901.htm?vestigialorgan=0

So the Appendix does serve a purpose? And it took how many years since bacteria were discovered to figure out that this organ was their emergency shelter?

IE8 is (supposedly) more secure than Firefox 3, Opera, Safari and Chrome

http://blogs.channelinsider.com/sec...trounces_firefox_chrome_in_security_test.html

*cough* Bullshit! *cough*

 

[MetroKid]

Cambridge wastes time studying people's preconceptions about Musical tastes...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...listen-to-says-new-study-of-music-lovers.html

I have numerous disagreements with this study. Rockers are not any more (or less) emotionally unstable than anyone else. Musical tastes also have nothing to do with anyone's perceived attractiveness, either.

The first story is not about how you really are in regards to musical tastes but how people PERCEIVE you because of them.

The study just highlights (and once again proves) that people make judgements of other people based on largely arbitrary aspects of their personality.

Read the article again and see that the results have nothing to do with the characteristics of the actual music fan but how people think of them based on tastes.

I also want to point out, not in a mean way, that just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it not true. This is a researched subject with evidence to support their hypothesis. If you find the results to be faulty then the burden is on you to provide counter-evidence. Statements like "Musical tastes also have nothing to do with anyone's perceived attractiveness, either." are in error because this study shows that they DO.

 

[msbae]

Statements like "Musical tastes also have nothing to do with anyone's perceived attractiveness, either." are in error because this study shows that they DO.

Well, I hate what Pop music has become in the last 15 years. Yet, it has no bearing on whether or not I find the Pop-music loving buxom brunette attractive or not. The only thing affected by her musical tastes would be our personalities being a little less compatible.

 

[MetroKid]

Statements like "Musical tastes also have nothing to do with anyone's perceived attractiveness, either." are in error because this study shows that they DO.

Well, I hate what Pop music has become in the last 15 years. Yet, it has no bearing on whether or not I find the Pop-music loving buxom brunette attractive or not. The only thing affected by her musical tastes would be our personalities being a little less compatible.

But that wasn't the point of the study. The point was for people to describe the type of person that came to mind when only presented with a list of various genres. The didn't actually meet fans of those genres, nor were they shown any. They were looking for stereotypes the genre's conjured in their minds.

 

[paudemge]

But that wasn't the point of the study. The point was for people to describe the type of person that came to mind when only presented with a list of various genres. The didn't actually meet fans of those genres, nor were they shown any. They were looking for stereotypes the genre's conjured in their minds.

I would have liked to have read more on the study, than just the report on the study. Sounds like a poll we could set up here. It would be interesting to see how the people in the studies own musical tastes influenced how they answered. If you like Classical, would you be less likely to say classical music listeners where dull and boring?

 

[msbae]

But that wasn't the point of the study. The point was for people to describe the type of person that came to mind when only presented with a list of various genres. The didn't actually meet fans of those genres, nor were they shown any. They were looking for stereotypes the genre's conjured in their minds.

I would have liked to have read more on the study, than just the report on the study. Sounds like a poll we could set up here. It would be interesting to see how the people in the studies own musical tastes influenced how they answered. If you like Classical, would you be less likely to say classical music listeners where dull and boring?

Yes, something definitely seems fishy about that article...

So, let's just post our (mis)conceptions about various genres and their fans...

Rock - Far too widespread of a genre to think of any one particular stereotype. Probably America's greatest musical gift to the world.

Pop - Teenage girls with crushes on (possibly) gay members of various boy bands and poor role models in the form of the female singers.

Rap - Gangbangers, criminals of all kinds, low-lifes and Wiggers.

Jazz - New Orleans residents, intellectuals who have something of a heart to go with their brains, aging left-wingers, Depression-era coffin-dodgers who may or may not listen to Swing and Big Band.

Funk & Soul - Black people who actually have some musical taste and don't listen to Rap.

Disco - People who miss the 1970's for some reason, Homosexuals, people who like to dance.

Dance/Trance/Techno/House - Club kids, many of which are taking X in the club's filthy bathroom and cruising around in a Bimmer their parents bought for them.

Classical - Music teachers, musicologists, intellectuals, scientists of varying types, anyone who really wants to know how music works.

 

[MetroKid]

But that wasn't the point of the study. The point was for people to describe the type of person that came to mind when only presented with a list of various genres. The didn't actually meet fans of those genres, nor were they shown any. They were looking for stereotypes the genre's conjured in their minds.

I would have liked to have read more on the study, than just the report on the study. Sounds like a poll we could set up here. It would be interesting to see how the people in the studies own musical tastes influenced how they answered. If you like Classical, would you be less likely to say classical music listeners where dull and boring?

Yes, something definitely seems fishy about that article...

<snip>

Once again, you missed the point. If you want to learn the methodology behind the study then just find out what journal it is published in and read it.

There is nothing fishy about it. Just because you don't agree with the results doesn't make them suspect or untrue. The researchers are not deliberately trying to mislead people.

I can't understand you gripe with this story, is it because listeners of your favorite music genre were categorized unfavorably?

 

[msbae]

I can't understand you gripe with this story, is it because listeners of your favorite music genre were categorized unfavorably?

No, it just feeds on misconceptions and nonsense. It was also a complete waste of time.

 

[chardman]

I'm guessing the purpose of the study was to learn more about those misconceptions, and why they are associated to a specific musical specific stimulus, perhaps with an eye to educating people so that they don't automatically react with misconceptions and nonsense in the future.

Doesn't sound remotely fallacious to me.

 

[FordSVT]

In my opinion, most often the first people who say "That study is a stupid waste of time and money/ that study is stupid because it's common sense/ that study is stupid because I already knew the answer to it" are usually the last people who have any clue about the nature of scientific research, funding and scientific public relations.

Many things we historically thought were "common sense" have been proven to be completely bullshit. Many things people believe today in their everyday lives is proven bullshit. The reality of the physical world (especially in the micro-universe) is often very different and completely counter-intuitive to what our eyes tell us is "truth".

Often these studies that we read about in the media are just tiny little parts of much large studies and research projects, but they're reported on because someone in a lab or university or corporate PR office someplace thinks it might be something people would be interested in. Sometimes it's a bored reporter without a scientific bone in his body creating a story for the same reason the OP created this thread.

If a company is going to spend fifteen million dollars marketing a product, for example, wouldn't it be a good idea to know that the marketing method actually works and that the product is actually needed instead of just relying on "common sense", which may be 100% wrong?

Scientists attempt to find out what is "real" and what is "truth" in the physical world. Testing assumptions is part of that. There is no subject so minute that there isn't someone out there itching to study it. We need more science, more studies, and less ridicule. I have little patience for people who speak without even comprehending the articles that they are referring to.

 

[MetroKid]

I can't understand you gripe with this story, is it because listeners of your favorite music genre were categorized unfavorably?

No, it just feeds on misconceptions and nonsense. It was also a complete waste of time.

the point of the study was to find out what those misconceptions ARE! It in NO WAY feeds them. You assume because of the findings, it condones the misconception of certain people; that because of these results that it is ok to judge people based on arbitrary characteristics. In reality, it does no such thing, it simply states scientific findings.

As for it being a "complete waste of time". How so? And please don't give me the whole "they could have been spending that time any money finding a cure to cancer/AIDS/rabies/Fashionable-Cause-Of-The-Moment" line of BS.

 

[T'Girl]

Cambridge wastes time studying people's preconceptions about Musical tastes...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...listen-to-says-new-study-of-music-lovers.html

I have numerous disagreements with this study. Rockers are not any more (or less) emotionally unstable than anyone else. Musical tastes also have nothing to do with anyone's perceived attractiveness, either.

The first story is not about how you really are in regards to musical tastes but how people PERCEIVE you because of them.

The study just highlights (and once again proves) that people make judgements of other people based on largely arbitrary aspects of their personality.

Read the article again and see that the results have nothing to do with the characteristics of the actual music fan but how people think of them based on tastes.

I also want to point out, not in a mean way, that just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it not true. This is a researched subject with evidence to support their hypothesis. If you find the results to be faulty then the burden is on you to provide counter-evidence. Statements like "Musical tastes also have nothing to do with anyone's perceived attractiveness, either." are in error because this study shows that they DO.

Don't know, if you enjoy fighting, you might seek out a punk bar over a jazz club. If you're looking for sex with a twenty-something then rap. Your attraction to others can be based, very reasonable, on the music you surround yourself with. says a lot about you, and your personallity

 

[Barbreader]

The study is very narrow. What about other types of music? Show tunes, military music, marching bands, big band (WWII), traditional ethnic and religious music of an assortment of cultures: folk, gospel, Catholic and Epis. masses, Islamic religious music, Buddhist, Jewish litergical and folk, traditional native American Andean music (I have a collection of this myself) ...

 

[MetroKid]

Cambridge wastes time studying people's preconceptions about Musical tastes...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...listen-to-says-new-study-of-music-lovers.html

I have numerous disagreements with this study. Rockers are not any more (or less) emotionally unstable than anyone else. Musical tastes also have nothing to do with anyone's perceived attractiveness, either.

The first story is not about how you really are in regards to musical tastes but how people PERCEIVE you because of them.

The study just highlights (and once again proves) that people make judgements of other people based on largely arbitrary aspects of their personality.

Read the article again and see that the results have nothing to do with the characteristics of the actual music fan but how people think of them based on tastes.

I also want to point out, not in a mean way, that just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it not true. This is a researched subject with evidence to support their hypothesis. If you find the results to be faulty then the burden is on you to provide counter-evidence. Statements like "Musical tastes also have nothing to do with anyone's perceived attractiveness, either." are in error because this study shows that they DO.

Don't know, if you enjoy fighting, you might seek out a punk bar over a jazz club. If you're looking for sex with a twenty-something then rap. Your attraction to others can be based, very reasonable, on the music you surround yourself with. says a lot about you, and your personallity

That is absolutely true, but that is not what the study set out to examine. This study was about what other people think of you based on your musical tastes.

 

[FordSVT]

The study is very narrow. What about other types of music? Show tunes, military music, marching bands, big band (WWII), traditional ethnic and religious music of an assortment of cultures: folk, gospel, Catholic and Epis. masses, Islamic religious music, Buddhist, Jewish litergical and folk, traditional native American Andean music (I have a collection of this myself) ...

Doesn't matter. If they show that people's perceptions about those who listen to a half dozen musical forms are stereotypical, you don't need to test and examine every type of music known to man in order to draw the same conclusion about all of them. It's a sample.