Debenhams Bans Retouching of Its Lingerie Models (more) We expect news photos to be unretouched, but art gallery photos are fair game. Lingerie ads are in between – some think retouching is fraud, others don’t care. We also formally distinguish between fiction and non-fiction in books, and put them in clearly different sections in libraries, and we similarly formally distinguish documentaries from fiction movies. People get upset when they see fiction presented as if it were non-fiction.
If you're not willing to take my word for it that personal experience with musical composition is what is generating my thoughts here (what else do you think is?), then you are free to continue believing that music is created by magic (or "intuition" or "parallel processing" or whatever substitute-word you prefer).
Our disagreement isn't about music; it doesn't get that far. You think parallel processing, intuition, etc. (that is, far mode) are equivalent to magic. That's because you don't understand what far mode is according to CLT. (Or you reject CLT, but you don't seem to.)
Am I misunderstanding you? You think all skilled cognitive processes can be conveyed by an explicit algorithm? (I recall Vassar embraces tacit knowledge.) Music is only an extreme case, in that I don't think most people have an inkling of how to compose it. But all skills contain tacit components (some of which are far-mode).
[Why not posts links that the system can't recognize as such: precede and follow by ! or some other symbol?]
Vassar doesn't seem to suggest what he calls social cognition (I think he understands near-far but uses imprecise labels for the sake of communication, and you took them as more rather than less precise.) In any event, he doesn't consider his "social" cognition magical. Perhaps you could get there with a strong dose of homo hypocritus, which seems alien to Vassar's thinking.
Robin, let me know what your fiction/non-fiction assessment of this song (by Jasiri X) is. I know X, I'm proud to have worked with him on a few occasions, which raises the question: how relevant is it whether the artist and/or performer is available for follow-up inquiry?
I concede that comparing novels to textbooks might be a bit like comparing Green Day to recordings of lectures. They happen to have the same medium, but aren't the same kind of thing.
However, we do distinguish novels from memoirs, and it's weird that there isn't such a clear distinction in music. Maybe serious vs other rap music is it, I wouldn't know.
>See also the distinction made by Michael Vassar in his Edge essay between "physical" (near) and "social" (far) modes of cognition.
I know what near/far are, in fact they are encoded in my fundamental 27 universal categories of cognition. Hanson and construal level theory are definitely on the right track, but the theory as it stands is not complete. But Hanson is close.
Strictly speaking there are three categories:
very near, near and far
'very near' mode is thought about the compositional elements of things (how things are put together),
'near mode' is thought about the functional elements of things (what things do)
'far mode' is thought about the representational elements of things (how things are presented)
Physical/Social is different distinction which has nothing to do with this.
Music contains all of very near, near and far components.
1. The reason I can't post links is presumably because I'm posting as a "Guest". (I also can't edit comments after posting them, which you appear to be able to do.)
2. When I google "michael vassar edge", the first result is a Less Wrong post about the essay that links to the essay. The relevant paragraph of the essay is the fourth (beginning "Some of those programs allocate attention..."). Note that the claim that Vassar's distinction supersedes CLT is mine, not his.
3. Our (interesting) disagreement here is not about what CLT is, it's about the mental processes involved in musical composition. You are under the impression that that musical composition cannot be done via a "conscious algorithm", and I pointed out that this is neither true nor a reasonable inference from the data you have (namely that it seems mysterious to you).
4. If you're not willing to take my word for it that personal experience with musical composition is what is generating my thoughts here (what else do you think is?), then you are free to continue believing that music is created by magic (or "intuition" or "parallel processing" or whatever substitute-word you prefer).
5. Edge (dot org) does not, to my knowledge, have anything particular to do with video games.
See also the distinction made by Michael Vassar in his Edge essay between "physical" (near) and "social" (far) modes of cognition. (If that isn't the near/far distinction, then as far as I'm concerned it supersedes it.)
Which was my point: you are using a distinction that bears no direct relationship to CLT. As far a you're concerned, it's the same distinction--of course. I haven't read Vassar (btw, I don't experience any delays in posting links), but it's plain to anyone who knows anything about CLT that many prototypical forms of social cognition are near and many forms of physical cognition are far. (The best evolutionary account of near-far is that far's origin lies in detecting physical threats at a distance.)
If you think the Psychlopedia's definition is the same as the one you attribute to Vassar, you're simply wrong. If you think the (alleged) Vassar version supersedes CLT, then you haven't shown sufficient understanding of CLT to take your claim seriously.
I don't know enough about musical composition (or production or appreciation) to contest you at the level of opinion rather than belief. (http://tinyurl.com/77ob2m3) But the other musician commenting, Ari, seems to disagree with you. I'm persuaded mainly by the lateralization studies concerning music and by my own (and others') utter inability to compose anything. (You thought this should "set off alarms," but its unlike any other activity in this regard. (Of course, the lateralization evidence is stronger.)
Perhaps we could make some assessment of your credibility this way: could you link to one of your musical compositions? If composition is teachable, and you're aware of the methods, surely you've experienced the benefits. If not that, perhaps a link to your musical resume, since you offer these comments partly on the authority of being a musician.
[Added.] So where is this Vassar article--or at least an adequate summary of its argument. Couldn't find by googling. I did find that Edge is a video games magazine--for God's sake. We have here a claim that the superseding interpretation of CLT is to be found only? in a ... video games magazine.
Robin, you are such a party pooper. People does not make a distinction between fiction and non-fiction music because it is a unpleasant act. If you start to care about this you will find all your "knowledge" about love and relationships that comes from music is just shit. If you ever mention this topic in a polite conversation, you're going to be pointed as a cold-heart monster. The people who dare to make the distinction between fiction and non-fiction music either: a) Are not that fond of music, b) Love instrumental music, c) Recognize all the fiction in music but just play along everybody else, what's more important? The sex that dancing to that music is going to get you or the truth? Why there's fiction and non-fictions books? Because books are consumed by almost every kind of person from introverts and intellectuals to people just looking for some porn or romance. In contrast, music with lyrics is not a universal product, it is meant for people looking for romance.
I've had similar thoughts RE documentary films. I've mostly stopped watching them. Film is not a good medium for actual arguments, as opposed to letting music and faces sway your audience while you (at best) imply a position they should be taking. (Making an explicit assertion gives away the persuasion game.) In contrast, for the most part music is not a medium where people have even pretended to make arguments. Lyrics are filled with commands, but I don't know if I can think of a single "therefore".
Right back at you. Quoting from Psychlopedia's entry on "Construal level theory" (apparently I can't post a link without the comment being sent to purgatory) :
"The key premise of this theory is that distant objects, events, or individuals are classified or represented as abstract, intangible, unobservable, and broad concepts. In contrast, close objects, events, or individuals are represented with concrete, specific, observable, or discrete features."
See also the distinction made by Michael Vassar in his Edge essay between "physical" (near) and "social" (far) modes of cognition. (If that isn't the near/far distinction, then as far as I'm concerned it supersedes it.)
You evidently think of musical composition as intangible and unobservable, whereas I think of it as concrete, observable, and discrete. I wish that people would think of music more as a complex system of moving parts (near) and less as a medium for signaling values and affiliations (far).
Your model is broken. "Aural images" are not irreducible, and they are not the opposite of "technical exercises". Technical exercises can build up aural images from nonexistent to primitive to vivid.
Indeed, the problem with most "music appreciation training" (in quotes, as opposed to actual music appreciation training) is that it fails at this. It tends to replace the layman's far-mode vocabulary with the music historian's far-mode vocabulary (instead of the composer's near-mode vocabulary). This is probably why you don't think music appreciation training will help you learn to compose, because as it's often practiced, it won't. The problem, however, is too few technical exercises, not too many.
Most Wikipedia articles on music (particularly pieces of music, and historical developments) are terrible; they're written in the music historian's (or music critic's) style, in far mode.
"The key premise of this theory is that distant objects, events, or individuals are classified or represented as abstract, intangible, unobservable, and broad concepts. In contrast, close objects, events, or individuals are represented with concrete, specific, observable, or discrete features."
See also the distinction made by Michael Vassar in his Edge essay between "physical" (near) and "social" (far) modes of cognition. (If that isn't the near/far distinction, then as far as I'm concerned it supersedes it.)
You evidently think of musical composition as intangible and unobservable, whereas I think of it as concrete, observable, and discrete. I wish that people would think of music more as a complex system of moving parts (near) and less as a medium for signaling values and affiliations (far).
Your model is broken. "Aural images" are not irreducible, and they are not the opposite of "technical exercises". Technical exercises can build up aural images from nonexistent to primitive to vivid.
Indeed, the problem with most "music appreciation training" (in quotes, as opposed to actual music appreciation training) is that it fails at this. It tends to replace the layman's far-mode vocabulary with the music historian's far-mode vocabulary (instead of the composer's near-mode vocabulary). This is probably why you don't think music appreciation training will help you learn to compose, because as it's often practiced, it won't. The problem, however, is too few technical exercises, not too many.
Most Wikipedia articles on music (particularly pieces of music, and historical developments) are terrible; they're written in the music historian's (or music critic's) style, in far mode.
Why Not Non-Fiction Lyrics?
Why doesn't that apply to documentaries too?
This argument also seems to apply to all the places we do make the distinction - why isn't it party pooping to invoke the distinction there as well?
Lies for students...
There definately music that get's sung in some church choirs that also get's played in secular contexts.
If you're not willing to take my word for it that personal experience with musical composition is what is generating my thoughts here (what else do you think is?), then you are free to continue believing that music is created by magic (or "intuition" or "parallel processing" or whatever substitute-word you prefer).
Our disagreement isn't about music; it doesn't get that far. You think parallel processing, intuition, etc. (that is, far mode) are equivalent to magic. That's because you don't understand what far mode is according to CLT. (Or you reject CLT, but you don't seem to.)
Am I misunderstanding you? You think all skilled cognitive processes can be conveyed by an explicit algorithm? (I recall Vassar embraces tacit knowledge.) Music is only an extreme case, in that I don't think most people have an inkling of how to compose it. But all skills contain tacit components (some of which are far-mode).
[Added. 6/29]Here's the Vassar essay url for anyone's convenience: http://edge.org/response-de...
[Why not posts links that the system can't recognize as such: precede and follow by ! or some other symbol?]
Vassar doesn't seem to suggest what he calls social cognition (I think he understands near-far but uses imprecise labels for the sake of communication, and you took them as more rather than less precise.) In any event, he doesn't consider his "social" cognition magical. Perhaps you could get there with a strong dose of homo hypocritus, which seems alien to Vassar's thinking.
Robin, let me know what your fiction/non-fiction assessment of this song (by Jasiri X) is. I know X, I'm proud to have worked with him on a few occasions, which raises the question: how relevant is it whether the artist and/or performer is available for follow-up inquiry?
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
I concede that comparing novels to textbooks might be a bit like comparing Green Day to recordings of lectures. They happen to have the same medium, but aren't the same kind of thing.
However, we do distinguish novels from memoirs, and it's weird that there isn't such a clear distinction in music. Maybe serious vs other rap music is it, I wouldn't know.
One possible reason is that performers don't get paid for radio plays, while composers (including lyricists) do.
>See also the distinction made by Michael Vassar in his Edge essay between "physical" (near) and "social" (far) modes of cognition.
I know what near/far are, in fact they are encoded in my fundamental 27 universal categories of cognition. Hanson and construal level theory are definitely on the right track, but the theory as it stands is not complete. But Hanson is close.
Strictly speaking there are three categories:
very near, near and far
'very near' mode is thought about the compositional elements of things (how things are put together),
'near mode' is thought about the functional elements of things (what things do)
'far mode' is thought about the representational elements of things (how things are presented)
Physical/Social is different distinction which has nothing to do with this.
Music contains all of very near, near and far components.
1. The reason I can't post links is presumably because I'm posting as a "Guest". (I also can't edit comments after posting them, which you appear to be able to do.)
2. When I google "michael vassar edge", the first result is a Less Wrong post about the essay that links to the essay. The relevant paragraph of the essay is the fourth (beginning "Some of those programs allocate attention..."). Note that the claim that Vassar's distinction supersedes CLT is mine, not his.
3. Our (interesting) disagreement here is not about what CLT is, it's about the mental processes involved in musical composition. You are under the impression that that musical composition cannot be done via a "conscious algorithm", and I pointed out that this is neither true nor a reasonable inference from the data you have (namely that it seems mysterious to you).
4. If you're not willing to take my word for it that personal experience with musical composition is what is generating my thoughts here (what else do you think is?), then you are free to continue believing that music is created by magic (or "intuition" or "parallel processing" or whatever substitute-word you prefer).
5. Edge (dot org) does not, to my knowledge, have anything particular to do with video games.
See also the distinction made by Michael Vassar in his Edge essay between "physical" (near) and "social" (far) modes of cognition. (If that isn't the near/far distinction, then as far as I'm concerned it supersedes it.)
Which was my point: you are using a distinction that bears no direct relationship to CLT. As far a you're concerned, it's the same distinction--of course. I haven't read Vassar (btw, I don't experience any delays in posting links), but it's plain to anyone who knows anything about CLT that many prototypical forms of social cognition are near and many forms of physical cognition are far. (The best evolutionary account of near-far is that far's origin lies in detecting physical threats at a distance.)
If you think the Psychlopedia's definition is the same as the one you attribute to Vassar, you're simply wrong. If you think the (alleged) Vassar version supersedes CLT, then you haven't shown sufficient understanding of CLT to take your claim seriously.
My essays dealing with CLT are at:
http://disputedissues.blogs...
and
http://juridicalcoherence.b...
I don't know enough about musical composition (or production or appreciation) to contest you at the level of opinion rather than belief. (http://tinyurl.com/77ob2m3) But the other musician commenting, Ari, seems to disagree with you. I'm persuaded mainly by the lateralization studies concerning music and by my own (and others') utter inability to compose anything. (You thought this should "set off alarms," but its unlike any other activity in this regard. (Of course, the lateralization evidence is stronger.)
Perhaps we could make some assessment of your credibility this way: could you link to one of your musical compositions? If composition is teachable, and you're aware of the methods, surely you've experienced the benefits. If not that, perhaps a link to your musical resume, since you offer these comments partly on the authority of being a musician.
[Added.] So where is this Vassar article--or at least an adequate summary of its argument. Couldn't find by googling. I did find that Edge is a video games magazine--for God's sake. We have here a claim that the superseding interpretation of CLT is to be found only? in a ... video games magazine.
Robin, you are such a party pooper. People does not make a distinction between fiction and non-fiction music because it is a unpleasant act. If you start to care about this you will find all your "knowledge" about love and relationships that comes from music is just shit. If you ever mention this topic in a polite conversation, you're going to be pointed as a cold-heart monster. The people who dare to make the distinction between fiction and non-fiction music either: a) Are not that fond of music, b) Love instrumental music, c) Recognize all the fiction in music but just play along everybody else, what's more important? The sex that dancing to that music is going to get you or the truth? Why there's fiction and non-fictions books? Because books are consumed by almost every kind of person from introverts and intellectuals to people just looking for some porn or romance. In contrast, music with lyrics is not a universal product, it is meant for people looking for romance.
I've had similar thoughts RE documentary films. I've mostly stopped watching them. Film is not a good medium for actual arguments, as opposed to letting music and faces sway your audience while you (at best) imply a position they should be taking. (Making an explicit assertion gives away the persuasion game.) In contrast, for the most part music is not a medium where people have even pretended to make arguments. Lyrics are filled with commands, but I don't know if I can think of a single "therefore".
Right back at you. Quoting from Psychlopedia's entry on "Construal level theory" (apparently I can't post a link without the comment being sent to purgatory) :
"The key premise of this theory is that distant objects, events, or individuals are classified or represented as abstract, intangible, unobservable, and broad concepts. In contrast, close objects, events, or individuals are represented with concrete, specific, observable, or discrete features."
See also the distinction made by Michael Vassar in his Edge essay between "physical" (near) and "social" (far) modes of cognition. (If that isn't the near/far distinction, then as far as I'm concerned it supersedes it.)
You evidently think of musical composition as intangible and unobservable, whereas I think of it as concrete, observable, and discrete. I wish that people would think of music more as a complex system of moving parts (near) and less as a medium for signaling values and affiliations (far).
Your model is broken. "Aural images" are not irreducible, and they are not the opposite of "technical exercises". Technical exercises can build up aural images from nonexistent to primitive to vivid.
Indeed, the problem with most "music appreciation training" (in quotes, as opposed to actual music appreciation training) is that it fails at this. It tends to replace the layman's far-mode vocabulary with the music historian's far-mode vocabulary (instead of the composer's near-mode vocabulary). This is probably why you don't think music appreciation training will help you learn to compose, because as it's often practiced, it won't. The problem, however, is too few technical exercises, not too many.
Most Wikipedia articles on music (particularly pieces of music, and historical developments) are terrible; they're written in the music historian's (or music critic's) style, in far mode.
Right back at you. Quoting from http://www.psych-it.com.au/... :
"The key premise of this theory is that distant objects, events, or individuals are classified or represented as abstract, intangible, unobservable, and broad concepts. In contrast, close objects, events, or individuals are represented with concrete, specific, observable, or discrete features."
See also the distinction made by Michael Vassar in his Edge essay between "physical" (near) and "social" (far) modes of cognition. (If that isn't the near/far distinction, then as far as I'm concerned it supersedes it.)
You evidently think of musical composition as intangible and unobservable, whereas I think of it as concrete, observable, and discrete. I wish that people would think of music more as a complex system of moving parts (near) and less as a medium for signaling values and affiliations (far).
Your model is broken. "Aural images" are not irreducible, and they are not the opposite of "technical exercises". Technical exercises can build up aural images from nonexistent to primitive to vivid.
Indeed, the problem with most "music appreciation training" (in quotes, as opposed to actual music appreciation training) is that it fails at this. It tends to replace the layman's far-mode vocabulary with the music historian's far-mode vocabulary (instead of the composer's near-mode vocabulary). This is probably why you don't think music appreciation training will help you learn to compose, because as it's often practiced, it won't. The problem, however, is too few technical exercises, not too many.
Most Wikipedia articles on music (particularly pieces of music, and historical developments) are terrible; they're written in the music historian's (or music critic's) style, in far mode.
Another example of nonfiction poetry:
http://andromeda.rutgers.ed...
Your ability to perform music pretty much correlates with your ability to compose it.
Really? I can't compose at all, but I can play well (for an amateur)...