Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsScientific American: Music Changes The Way You Think
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/music-changes-the-way-you-think/?&WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20140625Is it possible that hearing such isolated musical components can change the way you think? An ambitious new paper recently published by Jochim Hansen and Johann Melzner in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology argues precisely that. The researchers brought pedestrians into a laboratory and played them a short, stripped-down piece of music consisting of a series of alternating chords. Some people heard chords including the tritone; others the perfect fifth. A couple other tweaks were also made: in the tritone condition, the chords were played slowlyonly once every four-beat measurewhile in the perfect fifth condition, the chords went by rapidly, sounding every beat. Further, a reverberation effect was added such that the tritone chords sounded like they were being played in a cavernous cave and the perfect fifth chords in a carpeted closet.
What the scientists found is that the simple act listening to either of these two chord sets changed how people processed information in a very basic way. For example, the researchers asked people to take a list of shopping items and organize them into groups. Think detergent and paper towels: same kind of thing, or different? Results showed that tritone people formed fewer categories than perfect fifth people, indicating that they were thinking in broader, more inclusive categories than their counterparts.
In a separate measure, the scientists asked people to imagine buying one of two imaginary toasters. These toasters varied in what is known as aggregated versus individualized information. Do you know how on Amazon.com you can learn the average star rating of a given item? This is aggregated information; its pooled from a wide range of sources. Individualized information, by contrast, would be the customer reviews that appear at the bottom of the page. Which do you pay more attention to when these give conflicting messageswhen, say, the aggregated information is largely negative but there is a single glowing customer review? Turns out that people who are exposed to tritone-type music samples are more likely to be swayed by aggregated information, and fifth people by the reverse.
Underlying these seemingly disparate questions is a relatively new theory in social psychology that has shown itself capable of explaining an impressive variety of human behaviors. Its known as construal level theory, and its core premise is that theres a link between how far things are from people and how abstractly they construe them. Distant thingsa Hawaii vacation next year, sayappear to us general and decontextualized, their basic features (the beach, the sun) forefront in our minds. As they draw near, however, elements we never before considered (the packing, the possibility of rain) suddenly demand our attention. The forest, in other words, becomes the trees. Overall, the theory helps explain many seemingly disparate phenomena, like why were bad at predicting how long itll take us to fix the kitchen sink, why absence makes the heart grow fonder, and why we rarely follow through on New Years resolutions. In all these cases, what seemed a certain way from afar turns out, up close, to be a different beast entirely.
What the scientists found is that the simple act listening to either of these two chord sets changed how people processed information in a very basic way. For example, the researchers asked people to take a list of shopping items and organize them into groups. Think detergent and paper towels: same kind of thing, or different? Results showed that tritone people formed fewer categories than perfect fifth people, indicating that they were thinking in broader, more inclusive categories than their counterparts.
In a separate measure, the scientists asked people to imagine buying one of two imaginary toasters. These toasters varied in what is known as aggregated versus individualized information. Do you know how on Amazon.com you can learn the average star rating of a given item? This is aggregated information; its pooled from a wide range of sources. Individualized information, by contrast, would be the customer reviews that appear at the bottom of the page. Which do you pay more attention to when these give conflicting messageswhen, say, the aggregated information is largely negative but there is a single glowing customer review? Turns out that people who are exposed to tritone-type music samples are more likely to be swayed by aggregated information, and fifth people by the reverse.
Underlying these seemingly disparate questions is a relatively new theory in social psychology that has shown itself capable of explaining an impressive variety of human behaviors. Its known as construal level theory, and its core premise is that theres a link between how far things are from people and how abstractly they construe them. Distant thingsa Hawaii vacation next year, sayappear to us general and decontextualized, their basic features (the beach, the sun) forefront in our minds. As they draw near, however, elements we never before considered (the packing, the possibility of rain) suddenly demand our attention. The forest, in other words, becomes the trees. Overall, the theory helps explain many seemingly disparate phenomena, like why were bad at predicting how long itll take us to fix the kitchen sink, why absence makes the heart grow fonder, and why we rarely follow through on New Years resolutions. In all these cases, what seemed a certain way from afar turns out, up close, to be a different beast entirely.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 1394 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (13)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scientific American: Music Changes The Way You Think (Original Post)
Scuba
Jun 2014
OP
Coventina
(27,093 posts)1. Fascinating! I'd like to see even more research in this area.
I've used music all my life to affect my thinking, just through trial and error.
So, based on my own experience, I feel there is a lot to discover in this field.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)3. There are two GREAT books on this topic, both loved and re-read by me:
"Musicophilia" and "This is Your Brain on Music"
Both are awesome
Coventina
(27,093 posts)4. Thanks! I will look for them!
arcane1
(38,613 posts)7. Written by the great Oliver Sacks and Dan Levitin, respectively
Uncle Joe
(58,338 posts)2. Fascinating.
Thanks for the thread, Scuba.
randome
(34,845 posts)5. Democrats in general are happier, and have more fun, than Republicans.
In general again, I bet they have a wider range of music appreciation. Can you imagine the likes of Boehner dancing to a house tune?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesnt always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one youre already in.[/center][/font][hr]
Uncle Joe
(58,338 posts)6. I'm curious, does anyone know
which genres of music and theme music from network news programs have the most tri-tones and which have the most perfect 5ths?
On a thread by Hissyspit.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025150743
How the Iraq War Launched the Modern Era of Political BS
(snip)
Authoritarianism and Iraq War myths. In 2006, two political scientists, Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler, conducted a survey to examine the political beliefs of a subset of the US population that they termed "authoritarians." Part a political identity and part a psychological profile, an authoritarian, as they put it, is a right-wing person whose style of thinking is characterized by black-and-white reasoning. He or she supports tough responses to crime and backs aggressive and muscular national security stances. These are precisely the people who would have been pro-war because they accepted the Bush administration's claims that invading Iraq would make the United States safer.
Hetherington and Weiler identified authoritarians using a questionnaire about child-rearing styles: authoritarians tend to prefer obedient, well-mannered children over independent, curious children. Then they asked authoritarians and nonauthoritarians two questions, both of which had a clear, factually correct answer: Had WMD been found in Iraq, and did Saddam Hussein have a role in the 9/11 attacks? The results were stark: For nonauthoritarians, only 15 percent of respondents erred on the WMD question, and only 19 percent got the 9/11 question wrong. For authoritarians, though, those numbers rose to 37 percent and 55 percent. On Iraq, authoritarians and nonauthoritarians perceived very different realities.