When they measure IQ, it's excellent for determining your arithmetic skills, your ability to solve problems, and a bit of abstract visualization from prose. From that comes a number which identifies your smartness. So it does if your only application is playing chess as the relationship between IQ and chess playing ability is close to parallel.
It doesn't mean anything if you want to paint.
The traditional measure of IQ is important for music but it's only one component of it. Something IQ tests don't measure is memory and most hear music but then the memory of it trails off over time. For others, one hearing is enough and they know every note in the piece. This is an extraordinary skill and there may not be any measure of it but the skill is not that rare. Whether it is a blessing or a curse is arguable because with such a talent you can only be surprised by a piece of music once.
There is the ability to associate lyrics with music as this is the combination of multiple abstractions of entirely different forms. You've seen many performers and some have that timing and rhythm down to where it appears to be effortless and maybe, for them, it is. This is another form of highly esoteric intelligence in the ability to blend complex abstractions.
In the corporate world, intelligence of the unidimensional classification is highly-valued and frequently the consequence is they're exceptionally good with numbers but they're not particularly imaginative. A manager and I spoke of a movie and I mentioned watching it a second time. He could not understand why anyone would do that.
Answer: to be sure I picked up every nuance of it. Only a truly exceptional movie will impart every nuance on the first viewing but I would still want to watch it again if only to appreciate the excellence of it, study the styles and techniques of it. This makes the movie yet richer for me.
Inquisitiveness and curiosity are not mentioned by any IQ test and these are some of the most vital aspects to survival. The nature of these traits is highly variable in people and there's no measure of whether someone is curious or is not. Such a number would have value for design teams or anything of a creative nature.
This is a long-winded way to get to 'know thyself' but that's where it lands. It doesn't appear to me we know ourselves at all well. Unknown if it's useful to quantify all these things but it does seem it would be useful to understand them much better than we do.
For my own crew as guinea pigs, all in the family are at or not far off genius IQ. All are obsessively creative insofar as it's necessary to be making something. It doesn't necessarily have to be an artistic masterpiece but it has to be good for something and, best of all, hopefully someone likes it. There's no understanding of whether being smart makes you like that but I haven't seen evidence of it. There are lots of smart programmers but they aren't necessarily driven to create. Therefore it seems the measures are different.
Note: genius has a lot of levels. This is entry-grade.
For me, lyrics mean almost nothing in the context of music. Writing poetry is not difficult and some of it isn't completely horrible but retaining that and singing it on the beat isn't something which can sync with the clocks in my head. This is nothing new with age as this has never made sense for me. I was rarely interested in the lyrics and would often skip past them on a record to get to the guitar lead part. So there's some complex measure in this ability as well. Whether it's worth measuring is unknown but it's a capability in our minds we don't seem to know very well.
The reason for writing this is I strongly suspect if there were more understanding of these abilities then people might be encouraged to use talents they may not be aware they possess.
It doesn't mean anything if you want to paint.
The traditional measure of IQ is important for music but it's only one component of it. Something IQ tests don't measure is memory and most hear music but then the memory of it trails off over time. For others, one hearing is enough and they know every note in the piece. This is an extraordinary skill and there may not be any measure of it but the skill is not that rare. Whether it is a blessing or a curse is arguable because with such a talent you can only be surprised by a piece of music once.
There is the ability to associate lyrics with music as this is the combination of multiple abstractions of entirely different forms. You've seen many performers and some have that timing and rhythm down to where it appears to be effortless and maybe, for them, it is. This is another form of highly esoteric intelligence in the ability to blend complex abstractions.
In the corporate world, intelligence of the unidimensional classification is highly-valued and frequently the consequence is they're exceptionally good with numbers but they're not particularly imaginative. A manager and I spoke of a movie and I mentioned watching it a second time. He could not understand why anyone would do that.
Answer: to be sure I picked up every nuance of it. Only a truly exceptional movie will impart every nuance on the first viewing but I would still want to watch it again if only to appreciate the excellence of it, study the styles and techniques of it. This makes the movie yet richer for me.
Inquisitiveness and curiosity are not mentioned by any IQ test and these are some of the most vital aspects to survival. The nature of these traits is highly variable in people and there's no measure of whether someone is curious or is not. Such a number would have value for design teams or anything of a creative nature.
This is a long-winded way to get to 'know thyself' but that's where it lands. It doesn't appear to me we know ourselves at all well. Unknown if it's useful to quantify all these things but it does seem it would be useful to understand them much better than we do.
For my own crew as guinea pigs, all in the family are at or not far off genius IQ. All are obsessively creative insofar as it's necessary to be making something. It doesn't necessarily have to be an artistic masterpiece but it has to be good for something and, best of all, hopefully someone likes it. There's no understanding of whether being smart makes you like that but I haven't seen evidence of it. There are lots of smart programmers but they aren't necessarily driven to create. Therefore it seems the measures are different.
Note: genius has a lot of levels. This is entry-grade.
For me, lyrics mean almost nothing in the context of music. Writing poetry is not difficult and some of it isn't completely horrible but retaining that and singing it on the beat isn't something which can sync with the clocks in my head. This is nothing new with age as this has never made sense for me. I was rarely interested in the lyrics and would often skip past them on a record to get to the guitar lead part. So there's some complex measure in this ability as well. Whether it's worth measuring is unknown but it's a capability in our minds we don't seem to know very well.
The reason for writing this is I strongly suspect if there were more understanding of these abilities then people might be encouraged to use talents they may not be aware they possess.
1 comment:
You use the individual to try and prove the general. Your belief writing poetry is trivial would be the same as your father saying Chi squares or Laplace transforms are basic
If you are gifted at a task of course it becomes basic
Music and math are one in the same for patterns and logic but while musicians can be mathematicians the reverse in probably not true as they would lack the emotion music requires. Electronica is proof of that
A d creativity doesnt require intelligence I know alot of dumb as a rock artist types
Post a Comment