|
Dear list
I am enjoying the intellectual debate, which of course, goes a bit off-topic at times, but that's fun too.
Regarding "correlation is not causation," it is of course literally correct. However, sometimes it is used as if it meant "Correlation cannot even imply causation under any circumstances. Ever." At which point it shades into sophistry. (See for instance climate-change
deniers who say that greenhouse gases are merely correlated with temperature increases, and hence cannot be taken as causal agents.) So a little pragmatism in the interpretation can go a long way, as can a little humility on the part of those making claims.
Also, in neuroscience at least, the principle of plasticity is fundamentally recognized as central to the organization of the nervous system in relation to how it optimizes its interactions with the environment. So to believe that it does not happen in the
human brain seems odd. This is logically entirely distinct from whether cognitive transfer occurs or not, of course. Similarly, everything in biology depends on genetics. So taking that factor into account is also essential.
There are some nice papers from Fredrik Ullén's lab in Stockholm that document both ends of the nature/nurture continuum.
They emphasize the multifactorial nature of genetic and environmental factors on lots of variables that contribute to music-related behaviors. In this paper for instance, highly relevant to the current debate, they show that differences in intelligence test
scores that appear to be related to musical training are better explained by shared genes and environment:
Mosing, M. A., Madison, G., Pedersen, N. L., & Ullén, F. (2016). Investigating cognitive
transfer within the framework of music practice: Genetic pleiotropy rather than causality. Developmental
Science, 19(3),
504-512.
Conversely, in this paper they show that musical training has distinct influences on brain structure even in monozygotic twins who have different musical training:
de Manzano, Ö., & Ullén, F. (2018). Same genes, different brains: neuroanatomical differences
between monozygotic twins discordant for musical training. Cerebral Cortex, 28(1),
387-394.
So genes have a huge influence, but environmental variables, including musical training, also must be taken into account.
Finally, as a further contribution to rampant self-promotion, I wrote a little commentary about these issues in relation to music and language learning, which some of you may find useful (or may wish to bash, depending on your proclivities):
Zatorre, R. J. (2013). Predispositions and plasticity in music and speech learning: neural
correlates and implications. Science, 342(6158),
585-589.
Let's hope we can all head back to our labs soon so we can keep chipping away at these fascinating questions!
Robert
Robert Zatorre
Montreal Neurological Institute McGill University 514-398-8903 fax: 514-398-1338 www.zlab.mcgill.ca From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Jansen Erik <Erik.Jansen@xxxxxx>
Sent: August 17, 2020 6:04 AM To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Papers on lack of effect of musical training Hi all
I agree with Ian. This also connects to the debates regarding the value of music, or of art in general. If someone wants to show that music is good for something then this refers to an instrumental conception of music: it yields something of value that is external to the music. However, we can also view music as having intrinsic value: it is a valuable _expression_ of humankind, of what it means to be a human being. Apart from these instrumental and autonomous conceptions, one can further argue that the social and psychological processes that result from musical activity produce meaningful interactions and are therefore valuable to human life (i.e. socio-epistemic value). Thus, in my opinion, the researcher’s motivation may lie with the substantiation of either or all of these claims to value. And frankly, ever since the Mozart effect I think psychology has been way too focused on a mere instrumental view of music, the arts and also creativity. As such, I think also researchers sometimes implicitly and uncritically follow such neoliberal and instrumental rationales in studying music.
Just my 2 cts..
Erik
Erik Jansen PhD| Associate Professor Capabilities in Care and Wellbeing | Research Center for Social Support and Community Care | HAN University of Applied Sciences Visiting address: Room A3.13b, Kapittelweg 33, Nijmegen | Postal address: PO Box 6960, 6503 GL Nijmegen | T +31 (0)24 353 03 68 | E erik.jansen@xxxxxx www.han.nl | www.werkplaatssociaaldomeinnijmegen.nl | In office : Tuesday – Friday | Secretary | T +31 (0)24 353 03 69 (Helmie Kayser)
From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Ian Cross <ic108@xxxxxxxxx>
They might also be motivated by the need to produce arguments to substantiate a value for music in education in the face of neoliberal indifference and ineptitude… On 17/08/2020 09:27, Colette McKAY wrote:
-- Professor Ian Cross Chair, Faculty Board of Music Director, Centre for Music & Science Faculty of Music University of Cambridge Cambridge CB3 9DP |