Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers (it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

SEARCH
the Forums & Piano World

This custom search works much better than the built in one and allows searching older posts.
(ad 125) Sweetwater - Digital Keyboards & Other Gear
Digital Pianos at Sweetwater
(ad) Pearl River
Pearl River Pianos
(ad) Pianoteq
Latest Pianoteq add-on instrument: U4 upright piano
(ad) P B Guide
Acoustic & Digital Piano Guide
PianoSupplies.com (150)
Piano Accessories Music Related Gifts Piano Tuning Equipment Piano Moving Equipment
We now offer Gift Certificates in our online store!
(ad) Estonia Piano
Estonia Piano
Quick Links to Useful Stuff
Our Classified Ads
Find Piano Professionals-

*Piano Dealers - Piano Stores
*Piano Tuners
*Piano Teachers
*Piano Movers
*Piano Restorations
*Piano Manufacturers
*Organs

Quick Links:
*Advertise On Piano World
*Free Piano Newsletter
*Online Piano Recitals
*Piano Recitals Index
*Piano Accessories
* Buying a Piano
*Buying A Acoustic Piano
*Buying a Digital Piano
*Pianos for Sale
*Sell Your Piano
*How Old is My Piano?
*Piano Books
*Piano Art, Pictures, & Posters
*Directory/Site Map
*Contest
*Links
*Virtual Piano
*Music Word Search
*Piano Screen Saver
*Piano Videos
*Virtual Piano Chords
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
#1732760 - 08/14/11 11:27 AM Re: Academic Research [Re: painter55]
rocket88 Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 09/04/06
Posts: 3160
Painter, I think what you are doing is wonderful...it would be a valuable resource to know what works and what doesn't.

One big problem I see is that the fruits of a particular practice method often do not appear immediately. Instead, they may appear months later.

This is because of at least 2 things. First, the student probably also practiced/played several if not many other things during that time, thus adding some learning to the mix.

Second, the brain takes a unknown amount of time to completely process the information, so how can it be determined that "X practice" caused "Y result", and would have caused the same result if nothing else was played/practiced during that time?

I say this because if I have learned anything about practicing, it is this, that practicing = fruits is not a linear logical process.

Its not like you practice something for one hour a day, and at the end of 30 days you have 30 hours of discernable result equal to the input.

Instead, after 30 days, you may see great results, or scant results. Yet during that time period, you continue practicing a variety of other things, including, say, scales, arpeggios, other repertoire. Then, much later, say 200 days later, the fruit of that initial 30 days, combined with all the other things you have done, manifests as good results.

In other words, I think that the very complex processes of learning to play the piano are too varied to say that 2 + 2 equals four, so I am wondering how you would take this into account in a scientific study.


Edited by rocket88 (08/14/11 12:17 PM)
Edit Reason: clarity
_________________________
Music teacher and piano player.

Top
(ad) Piano & Music Accessories
piano accessories music gifts tuning and moving equipment
#1732876 - 08/14/11 04:04 PM Re: Academic Research [Re: ShiroKuro]
polyphasicpianist Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/21/11
Posts: 1238
Originally Posted By: ShiroKuro
If you want to take a scientific approach to practicing and try to document what works better for you and what doesn't, I think that's great. But I still think you're shooting yourself in the foot if you don't make use of, or perhaps experiment and try out, some of the practice techniques that have been described by various teachers and/methods.


Exactly. It is difficult to experiment if you have nothing to experiment with. Obviously, deriving methods based on what is currently known in the scientific literature is useful, but by ignoring methods advocated by various other non-scientific sources, you would not be doing yourself any favours. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that even though a method advocated by a instructor may only have a "I was tought this way, therefore I will teach you this way" type of rationale. This method may, nevertheless, still make use of cognitive and behavioural mechanisms completely consistent with those revealed in the scientific literature.

Top
#1732923 - 08/14/11 05:31 PM Re: Academic Research [Re: painter55]
Minniemay Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/07/09
Posts: 1702
Loc: CA
There are way too many variables to codify practice into a one-size-fits-all approach. Good luck trying to figure it out. What works for one student won't necessarily work for the next one that walks in the door. We all have different cognitive processes and different physiology.
_________________________
B.A., Piano, Piano Pegagogy, Music Ed.
M.M., Piano

Top
#1733024 - 08/14/11 07:20 PM Re: Academic Research [Re: painter55]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11706
Loc: Canada
Rocket said it about as clearly as it can be said.

Top
#1733077 - 08/14/11 08:48 PM Re: Academic Research [Re: Minniemay]
polyphasicpianist Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/21/11
Posts: 1238
Originally Posted By: Minniemay
. . . We all have different cognitive processes and different physiology.


Ummm, no we don't.

On average, everyone uses the same basic cognitive processes and everyone has the same basic physiology. If this weren't true then science would be effectively futile (medicines would not work, biological classifications would become obsolete, evidence for evolution would be non-existant, psychotherapies would be useless, ect, ect, ect.) Of course, I am not denying that are minor variations from one person to the next (e.g. things like brain plasticity due to past learning experiences, toxins, ect.) But in general these variations are minor variations within a species, and 95% of the population will fall within two standard deviations of the absolute mean. You have to remember that we are built by evolution, for the purposes of reproductive effectiveness. We tend to inflate these perceived differences in people as being more drastic then they really are, and this is because it is to our own reproductive advantage to notice these differences within our own species. This is why when you look at two dogs who are the same breed, they typically look exactly the same unless you really make the effort to seek out the differences. Such an effort, it must be conceded, is not required with humans.

Sorry to sound so coldly logical, but I felt this needed to be clarified.

Top
#1733104 - 08/14/11 09:32 PM Re: Academic Research [Re: painter55]
MadForBrad Offline
Full Member

Registered: 08/11/11
Posts: 202
Loc: LA / Montreal
I have trouble agreeing with your statement that cognitive processes are the same. Why do we all come up with different solutions, opinions and thoughts. These processes are shaped by our environment and how we are nurtured. SOmeone that is abused will have a much more different way of thinking things thru.

How do you explain pedophilia ?
Sexual preference ?
Musical preference ?

Cognitive to me goes beyond the actual micro functioning of the brain that sure , I suppose most would have the same processes going on but have a few here and there differ , and how that difference will be compounded a million times before you display a behaviour from a cognitive process to me indicates that we are all a little different, Like snowflakes.

Top
#1733200 - 08/14/11 10:55 PM Re: Academic Research [Re: painter55]
Minniemay Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/07/09
Posts: 1702
Loc: CA
You'll never convince me that we all have the same processes and physiology. I've been teaching for too long to believe that. People might look the same on paper, but they are definitley not the same in real practice.

Just physiologically, at 5'6", I have to do things quite differently at the piano than my 6'3" student whose torso is much longer and whose hand is vastly larger than mine. Sure there are some similarities, but I have to make many more adjustments to play large repertoire and he has to make many to play intricate things. His hand moves with a different shape and with faster muscle responses.

I started two young girls in lessons this week. One learns through example, one learns through reading. These are different processes. I cannot teach them the same way because they don't learn the same way.
_________________________
B.A., Piano, Piano Pegagogy, Music Ed.
M.M., Piano

Top
#1733207 - 08/14/11 11:08 PM Re: Academic Research [Re: Minniemay]
rocket88 Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 09/04/06
Posts: 3160
Originally Posted By: Minniemay
You'll never convince me that we all have the same processes and physiology. I've been teaching for too long to believe that.


Good post, Minniemay. I have been teaching for too many years, (and been alive for too many years) to believe that. You are exactly right.
_________________________
Music teacher and piano player.

Top
#1733223 - 08/14/11 11:28 PM Re: Academic Research [Re: Minniemay]
polyphasicpianist Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/21/11
Posts: 1238
Originally Posted By: Minniemay
You'll never convince me that we all have the same processes and physiology. I've been teaching for too long to believe that. People might look the same on paper, but they are definitley not the same in real practice.

Just physiologically, at 5'6", I have to do things quite differently at the piano than my 6'3" student whose torso is much longer and whose hand is vastly larger than mine. Sure there are some similarities, but I have to make many more adjustments to play large repertoire and he has to make many to play intricate things. His hand moves with a different shape and with faster muscle responses.

I started two young girls in lessons this week. One learns through example, one learns through reading. These are different processes. I cannot teach them the same way because they don't learn the same way.


Well, that settles it then, 61 years of scientific research into how humans learn is wrong.

(I am just going to assume that both the girls you mention are the same age, raised in the same household, are twins that are genetically 100% alike, and have shared identical life experiences. wink )

Top
#1733224 - 08/14/11 11:40 PM Re: Academic Research [Re: MadForBrad]
polyphasicpianist Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/21/11
Posts: 1238
Originally Posted By: MadForBrad
I have trouble agreeing with your statement that cognitive processes are the same. Why do we all come up with different solutions, opinions and thoughts. These processes are shaped by our environment and how we are nurtured. SOmeone that is abused will have a much more different way of thinking things thru.

How do you explain pedophilia ?
Sexual preference ?
Musical preference ?

Cognitive to me goes beyond the actual micro functioning of the brain that sure , I suppose most would have the same processes going on but have a few here and there differ , and how that difference will be compounded a million times before you display a behaviour from a cognitive process to me indicates that we are all a little different, Like snowflakes.


The answer to your first question actually requires an in depth knowledge of learning theory and behavioural genetics, the answer to your second only requires a knowledge of behavioural genetics. The third, only requires a knowledge of associative learning. Beyond that I won't go into anymore detail, suffice to say that if you want I can send you some references to peer reviewed papers that deal with each topic respectively.

Frankly though, I am a bit shocked you even asked the question about sexual preference. I thought it was common knowledge that people understood that homosexuality is a entirely genetic phenomenon. Scientists do not even dispute this anymore.

Oh yeah, and the first two questions (and possibly 3rd depending on which type of preference you are talking about) represent statistical outliers, meaning they are not representative examples of the population at large. So they are actually irrelevant to the point I was making.

Top
#1733241 - 08/15/11 12:16 AM Re: Academic Research [Re: painter55]
Minniemay Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/07/09
Posts: 1702
Loc: CA
You obviously have no teaching experience. Try teaching for 30 years, then come and tell me you think the research is correct.

Research, in my experience, is often flawed. You can't account for every variable.
_________________________
B.A., Piano, Piano Pegagogy, Music Ed.
M.M., Piano

Top
#1733249 - 08/15/11 12:33 AM Re: Academic Research [Re: Minniemay]
polyphasicpianist Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/21/11
Posts: 1238
Originally Posted By: Minniemay
You obviously have no teaching experience. Try teaching for 30 years, then come and tell me you think the research is correct.

Research, in my experience, is often flawed. You can't account for every variable.


Obviously? Does 5 years of teaching side-drum count?

Yes you are correct, research is often flawed, that is why studies are replicated, improved upon, and sceptically reviewed by the scientific community at large. And you typically can account for every variable, that is what is so great about experiments. They, assuming you have not missed any confounding variables and have randomised properly, isolate causal factors. Obviously, if you are just doing correlational research or observational studies, then yes, every variable cannot be accounted for. But that is rarely the kind of research seen in cognitive psychology and learning theory. Experiments are the name of the game.

You are dismissing this science, but how much do you really know about it? Perhaps it could help you become a better teacher (I am not suggesting you are a bad one - so please don't construe it that way). Why would you reject something that could be of legitimate value to you?

P.S. If you are unfamiliar with side-drum drumming then click here .


Edited by polyphasicpianist (08/15/11 12:37 AM)

Top
#1733255 - 08/15/11 12:59 AM Re: Academic Research [Re: polyphasicpianist]
MadForBrad Offline
Full Member

Registered: 08/11/11
Posts: 202
Loc: LA / Montreal
Originally Posted By: polyphasicpianist
Originally Posted By: MadForBrad
I have trouble agreeing with your statement that cognitive processes are the same. Why do we all come up with different solutions, opinions and thoughts. These processes are shaped by our environment and how we are nurtured. SOmeone that is abused will have a much more different way of thinking things thru.

How do you explain pedophilia ?
Sexual preference ?
Musical preference ?

Cognitive to me goes beyond the actual micro functioning of the brain that sure , I suppose most would have the same processes going on but have a few here and there differ , and how that difference will be compounded a million times before you display a behaviour from a cognitive process to me indicates that we are all a little different, Like snowflakes.


The answer to your first question actually requires an in depth knowledge of learning theory and behavioural genetics, the answer to your second only requires a knowledge of behavioural genetics. The third, only requires a knowledge of associative learning. Beyond that I won't go into anymore detail, suffice to say that if you want I can send you some references to peer reviewed papers that deal with each topic respectively.

Frankly though, I am a bit shocked you even asked the question about sexual preference. I thought it was common knowledge that people understood that homosexuality is a entirely genetic phenomenon. Scientists do not even dispute this anymore.

O


Sexual attraction is a cognitive thought. If we all had the same processes, then we would wouldn't have such widespread differences.

And scientists have not yet found anything remotely plausible as a theory to why homosexuality exists. The experts in the field will say there is a definite cultural aspect compounded by your physical make up and the resulting preferences.

Scientists cannot explain why the Bonobo Monkeys to the degree of the majority regularly engage in what one would consider homosexual acts. The prison phenomenon also clearly shows that sexuality is not just a genetic issue. It is tied to social norms and taboos. History also proves this.

the problem with trying to discover what makes you gay is that scientists and philosophers can't really agree on what it is to be homosexual. Much could just be considered a social construct so to find a purely genetic reason will not explain alot of behavior.

The only consensus in the scientific community is that nobody is really straight and nobody is really gay. Maybe go research the Kinsey scale.

But back to your false preposition, there is absolutely no consensus in the scientific field. There are only weak theories that all counter dict each other. Zilch. Nada.

Apology accepted. I also would stop telling people to go read the science. Post the articles you were talking about or stop assuming what I know.

Twin studies pretty much debunk your theory of that we all have the same cognitive functioning. The DSM IV provides a long list of individual types that do not conform to your theory. About 50 years of behavior psychology and the science behind it also undermines your theory.

ANd i have never heard that called side drumming. Pipe drumming, drumline , never side drumming. I used to do it so the name seems rather odd to me. Unless they changed it about 6 years ago. And the guy in that video is in desperate need of lessons.


Edited by MadForBrad (08/15/11 01:18 AM)

Top
#1733275 - 08/15/11 02:12 AM Re: Academic Research [Re: MadForBrad]
polyphasicpianist Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/21/11
Posts: 1238
Originally Posted By: MadForBrad


Sexual attraction is a cognitive thought. If we all had the same processes, then we would wouldn't have such widespread differences.


We don't have widespread differences. The problem is that people exaggerate the differences, because they are fascinating and unusual. Normal stuff is boring. Generally, for something to be considered an exception statistically, it has to exceed 2 standard deviations.

Originally Posted By: MadForBrad

And scientists have not yet found anything remotely plausible as a theory to why homosexuality exists. The experts in the field will say there is a definite cultural aspect compounded by your physical make up and the resulting preferences.


This is just simply incorrect, there is a ton of evidence to suggest a genetic basis. I will grant you that there are still a lot of questions to be answered, and a genetic explaination does not seem to explain all cases of homosexuality, but these cases lie on the statistical outer edge of the homosexual population.
Here is a good recent review of the literature:

Jannini E. A., Blanchard R., Camperio-Ciani A., et al. (2010) Male Homosexuality: Nature or Culture? Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7(10), 3245-3253. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02024.x

Or if you would prefer to watch a video on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saO_RFWWVVA

Originally Posted By: MadForBrad

Scientists cannot explain why the Bonobo Monkeys to the degree of the majority regularly engage in what one would consider homosexual acts. The prison phenomenon also clearly shows that sexuality is not just a genetic issue. It is tied to social norms and taboos. History also proves this.


Your confounding sexual preference with desire for sexual stimulation.

Originally Posted By: MadForBrad
the problem with trying to discover what makes you gay is that scientists and philosophers can't really agree on what it is to be homosexual. Much could just be considered a social construct so to find a purely genetic reason will not explain alot of behavior.


I think it is pretty straight forward what constitutes homosexual behaviour.

Originally Posted By: MadForBrad

The only consensus in the scientific community is that nobody is really straight and nobody is really gay. Maybe go research the Kinsey scale.


How do you draw that conclusion from the Kinsey scale? What evidence do you have to back this assertion that this is the consensus?

Originally Posted By: MadForBrad
But back to your false preposition, there is absolutely no consensus in the scientific field. There are only weak theories that all counter dict each other. Zilch. Nada.


What proposition was false? And if I have contradicted myself, please point it out.

Originally Posted By: MadForBrad

Apology accepted. I also would stop telling people to go read the science. Post the articles you were talking about or stop assuming what I know.


What did I apologize for exactly? And I think you will find that I have posted an article.

Originally Posted By: MadForBrad

Twin studies pretty much debunk your theory of that we all have the same cognitive functioning. The DSM IV provides a long list of individual types that do not conform to your theory. About 50 years of behavior psychology and the science behind it also undermines your theory.


The DSM provides only behavioural criteria for diagnosing mental disorders. It is not evidence for anything. What twin studies debunk my theory? And how does Behaviourism undermine my theory? A foundational premise of behavioural/associative theories is that, across species, the same core principles of learning underlie all learned behaviour.

Originally Posted By: MadForBrad

ANd i have never heard that called side drumming. Pipe drumming, drumline , never side drumming. I used to do it so the name seems rather odd to me. Unless they changed it about 6 years ago. And the guy in that video is in desperate need of lessons.


Irrelevant, but okay.


Edited by polyphasicpianist (08/15/11 03:51 AM)

Top
#1733597 - 08/15/11 03:40 PM Re: Academic Research [Re: painter55]
MadForBrad Offline
Full Member

Registered: 08/11/11
Posts: 202
Loc: LA / Montreal
Conclusion to the article you provided. Now not only was this not a study therefore not science but it completely negatives your idea that there is a consensus. So here it is from the abstract.


Conclusions.  The JSM's readers should recognize that there are several biological factors in MH. However, these findings do not seem to be able to explain all cases of homosexuality. Some others may be due to particular environmental factors. The issue is complicated and multifactorial, suggesting that further research should be undertaken to produce the final answer to the question raised in this Controversy section. Jannini EA, Blanchard R, Camperio-Ciani A, and Bancroft J. Male homosexuality: Nature or culture? J Sex Med 2010;7:3245–3253.


I will assume your dealings with other matters are just as sloppy and leave it there. You argue a concept , cognitive process, without using the actual accepted definition of your concept. I can't debate a issue when you are conflating the meaning of the terms being used. I am quite interested in anything related to the functioning of the brain but you lack a fundamental understanding of basic physiology and psychology.






Edited by MadForBrad (08/15/11 03:56 PM)

Top
#1734172 - 08/16/11 09:41 AM Re: Academic Research [Re: ShiroKuro]
painter55 Offline
Full Member

Registered: 01/17/11
Posts: 101
Loc: New Mexico
ShiroKuro:

I have an excellent teacher that I see for one hour each week. I assiduously comply with her instructions. The problem I have is taking her verbal commands and translating them to a physical execution at the piano. My quest in this thread was to discover the cognitive basis for playing the piano so that I can translate my teacher's instruction effectively.

As to you question about what I actually practice for HS or HT, it turns out to be straightforward. My teacher gave me some exercises to work on. After reading up on how the brain works, I am convinced that what she has me doing will work because they have a basis in cognitive science findings. Plus, now that I know the route to training my brain to direct my hands, I can extrapolate the exercises that my teacher gave me.


Edited by painter55 (08/16/11 09:58 AM)
_________________________
Painter55 (Bobby in New Mexico)
Yamaha U3

Working on:
*Clementi 36/1
*Haydn Hob XVI/1
*Bach BWV 846

Top
#1734186 - 08/16/11 09:55 AM Re: Academic Research [Re: painter55]
painter55 Offline
Full Member

Registered: 01/17/11
Posts: 101
Loc: New Mexico
To All:

Thank you for your participatation. I found a direction to pursue answers to my questions. Polyphasicpianist was quite helpful.




_________________________
Painter55 (Bobby in New Mexico)
Yamaha U3

Working on:
*Clementi 36/1
*Haydn Hob XVI/1
*Bach BWV 846

Top
#1734300 - 08/16/11 12:51 PM Re: Academic Research [Re: painter55]
Minniemay Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/07/09
Posts: 1702
Loc: CA
If your teacher is only giving you verbal instructions about physical gestures, it's no wonder you have difficulty translating the information. Physical gestures require physical instruction (demonstration and hands-on assistance).
_________________________
B.A., Piano, Piano Pegagogy, Music Ed.
M.M., Piano

Top
#1734314 - 08/16/11 01:10 PM Re: Academic Research [Re: Minniemay]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11706
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: Minniemay
If your teacher is only giving you verbal instructions about physical gestures, it's no wonder you have difficulty translating the information. Physical gestures require physical instruction (demonstration and hands-on assistance).

What I was thinking.

What I know about music, learning begins by doing, and what we feel in our bodies and sense in our ears teach us. Concepts arise out of that. That's how children learn - they do stuff. We adults are able to conceptualize. I think that some teachers explain and describe because of our intellectual maturity, and just because it is natural to do with a fellow adult. I don't think that works well.

I think that a student's responsibility lies in letting the teacher knows he doesn't understand / can't get at what he's been instructed to do. It is the teacher's responsibility to convey what he wants to teach differently - not for the student to tie himself into a pretzel trying to figure it out.

I'd also add that a simple, well designed instruction, has to be followed just as simply. The results from doing will be what they are. If we analyze and intellectualize it then we lose that clarity and won't get those results. But there has to be something for us to follow, otherwise how can we?

Top
#1734416 - 08/16/11 03:39 PM Re: Academic Research [Re: Minniemay]
painter55 Offline
Full Member

Registered: 01/17/11
Posts: 101
Loc: New Mexico
Yes, of course, she demonstrates the movements she describes.
_________________________
Painter55 (Bobby in New Mexico)
Yamaha U3

Working on:
*Clementi 36/1
*Haydn Hob XVI/1
*Bach BWV 846

Top
#1737443 - 08/21/11 01:13 AM Re: Academic Research [Re: MadForBrad]
polyphasicpianist Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/21/11
Posts: 1238
Originally Posted By: MadForBrad
Conclusion to the article you provided. Now not only was this not a study therefore not science but it completely negatives your idea that there is a consensus. So here it is from the abstract.


Conclusions.  The JSM's readers should recognize that there are several biological factors in MH. However, these findings do not seem to be able to explain all cases of homosexuality. Some others may be due to particular environmental factors. The issue is complicated and multifactorial, suggesting that further research should be undertaken to produce the final answer to the question raised in this Controversy section. Jannini EA, Blanchard R, Camperio-Ciani A, and Bancroft J. Male homosexuality: Nature or culture? J Sex Med 2010;7:3245–3253.


I will assume your dealings with other matters are just as sloppy and leave it there. You argue a concept , cognitive process, without using the actual accepted definition of your concept. I can't debate a issue when you are conflating the meaning of the terms being used. I am quite interested in anything related to the functioning of the brain but you lack a fundamental understanding of basic physiology and psychology.


First of all you have failed to critically read the abstract (which it seems is all you read).

The very first statement of the conclusion says: "The JSM's readers should recognise that there are several biological factors in MH." Take special note of the word "biological."

Second, The very next sentence says "However, the current findings do not explain all evidence." In other words, the current body of biological evidence does not explain all cases of homosexuality. This does not mean that further biological explanations are not possible and you cannot conclude on the basis of it that a socially learned theory is correct. All it means is there are questions that are unaccounted for. You are commiting the fallacy of appealing to ignorance, i.e. on the basis of no current biological evidence for certain cases of HM, you are concluding that HM must be learned. Logic simply does not work that way.

Third, you should have read the article and not just the abstract. If you did this you would have noticed (at least) two things. The first of which is the fact that there is an overwhelming body of evidence supporting the biological viewpoint. Granted this does not explain every possible aspect of HM, but the wealth of evidence is undeniable, as the Controversy editior points out in the review's first paragraph: "we can immediately answer the first question in the title: yes definitively, homosexuality is natural."
The second thing you would have noticed is that, contrary to the biological stance, there is no evidence to support the nurture hypothesis. This is acknowledged by the controversy editor on page 3247. Furthermore, attempts at trying to find evidence have been largely failures. If HM is learned, as you seem to suggest, then it should be possible to unlearn it. Which no, scientifically rigourous, study has succeeded in showing.

I could go on about the maternal immune hypothesis, the fraternal birth order effect, sexually antagonistic selection, brain structure homologies between homosexual men and heterosexual women, or even maternal genomic imprinting, but I won't because I am certain you are familiar with all of that.

Honestly though, I can't figure out why you are so vitriolic towards me. I have had a look back at my previous posts and I think, perhaps, it has something to do with my mistake in saying "homosexuality is exclusively a genetic phenomenon." The internet tends to bring out the most hyperbolic in people, and what I should have said is that homosexuality is predominately a biological phenomenon. So if this margin of error is what you have been so heartless in trying to point out then I concede the argument in your favour. However, your position (and you can correct me if I am wrong) seems to be one which holds either a complete rejection to the biological point of view or one which places a much larger emphasis on learning than the standard corpus of nature theories permit, both of which, in light of the evidence, are completely untenable positions to hold.

Top
#1737454 - 08/21/11 01:52 AM Re: Academic Research [Re: painter55]
MadForBrad Offline
Full Member

Registered: 08/11/11
Posts: 202
Loc: LA / Montreal
no , it says it doesn't explain evidence. You sure seem to know how to complicate what is rather simple. Current findings do not explain evidence means there is no substantial conclusion ergo no consensus. It really is not that hard and hardly worth the novel you just wrote .

I did read the article. It does not provide any hint of the consensus you seem to think exists.

I have not posited any theory. You also misquote me stating I said homosexuality is learned and that i claim it isn't natural. Rather frustrating to have a discussion when you don't seem to listen. I only replied to your haste reply to which you found what I said shocking because the scientific community has spoken. They haven't. They are not even close. There is no real consensus and that is all i've stated. This is what your article also states in a round about way,

So just stop. You are quite annoying and I wonder perhaps you can put a mute on that particular cognitive process ? Either do a phd in the field you seem to read so much yet retain so little or perhaps refrain from playing scientist as you have some difficulty in being objective basing arguments on articles that are not studies and so on.


Edited by MadForBrad (08/21/11 02:06 AM)

Top
#1737494 - 08/21/11 03:43 AM Re: Academic Research [Re: MadForBrad]
polyphasicpianist Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/21/11
Posts: 1238
Originally Posted By: MadForBrad
I only replied to your haste reply to which you found what I said shocking because the scientific community has spoken. They haven't. They are not even close. There is no real consensus and that is all i've stated. This is what your article also states in a round about way,


So what precisely is your argument? That I am wrong and the preponderance of evidence doesn't support biology as the main controlling factor in homosexuality? And that there is currently a stalemate between scientists in the so-called nature and nurture view? Is that what you are suggesting?


Originally Posted By: MadForBrad
perhaps refrain from playing scientist as you have some difficulty in being objective basing arguments on articles that are not studies and so on.


Maybe these will humble you.

Bailey, J. M. & Pillard, R.C. (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation.

Bailey, J. M., Pillard, R. C., Neale, M. C., & Agyei, Y. (1993). Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women.

Whitam, F. L., Diamond, M., & Martin, J. (1993). Homosexual orientation in twins: A report on 61 pairs and three triplet sets.

Bailey, J. M., Dunne, M. P., & Martin, N. G. (2000). Genetic and Environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample.

Pool, R. (1993). Evidence for homosexuality gene.

Bocklandt, S., Horvath, S., Vilain, E., & Hamer, D. H. (2006). Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men.

Mustanski, B. S., Dupree, M. G., Nievergelt, C. M., Bocklandt, S., Schork, N. J., & Hamer, D. H. (2005). A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation.

Blanchard, R. (2004). Quantitative and theoretical analyses of the relation between older brothers and homosexuality in men.

Blanchard, R., Cantor, J. M., Bogaert, A. F., Breedlove, S. M., & Ellis, L. (2006). Interaction of fraternal birth order and handedness in the development of male homosexuality.

Read them, and then talk to me.


P.S. The only firm conclusion the article comes to is that the given body of evidence supporting a biological explanation does not account for every type of homosexuality. The stuff it doesn't explain are rare cases of homosexuality like reaction formations against social taboos. But these cases are at the outer extremities of the standard homosexual population and are not representative of the vast majority of its population. I will re-quote the most important sentence by the Controversy editior: "we can immediately answer the first question in the title: yes definitively, homosexuality is natural."

Top
#1737766 - 08/21/11 04:56 PM Re: Academic Research [Re: Monica K.]
John_In_Montreal Offline
Full Member

Registered: 01/21/11
Posts: 402
Loc: Montreal Canada
Originally Posted By: Monica K.
Originally Posted By: painter55
Next, I want to find a way to separate the aural and tactile components. I have a way to do this with my digital piano: I will record my play with the earphones plugged in but not on my head. This will silence the digial piano while I press the keys. I could even do this with eyes closed for total isolation of the tactile component. This will be interesting.



I'll be eager to hear what you think of this exercise. I tried to imagine playing without being able to hear myself, and I think I would be totally, irrevocably lost. eek


I often practice eyes closed, does help a lot with proprioception, keyboard geography, etc.

That would be a very interesting experiment, to record oneself deaf and blind! I think I'm gonna try it also smile At my level, I'm sure a piece of music will be a near disaster burt I think I can pull this off musically with scales and arps. I'll let you know the results.

John
_________________________
"My piano is therapy for me" - Rick Wright.
Instrument: Rebuilt Kurzweil K2500XS and a bunch of great vintage virtual keyboards. New Kurzweil PC3X.

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2

Moderator:  Ken Knapp 
What's Hot!!
HOW TO POST PICTURES on the Piano Forums
-------------------
Sharing is Caring!
About the Buttons
-------------------
Forums Rules & Help
-------------------
ADVERTISE
on Piano World

The world's most popular piano web site.
-------------------
PIANO BOOKS
Interesting books about the piano, pianists, piano history, biographies, memoirs and more!
(ad) HAILUN Pianos
Hailun Pianos - Click for More
ad (Casio)
Celviano by Casio Rebate
Ad (Seiler/Knabe)
Seiler Pianos
Sheet Music
(PW is an affiliate)
Sheet Music Plus Featured Sale
(125ad) Dampp Chaser
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver
(ad) Lindeblad Piano
Lindeblad Piano Restoration
New Topics - Multiple Forums
has anyone tried the Focal alpha 50s or 65s for monitoring?
by dire tonic
1 minute 20 seconds ago
2015 Concerto Competition "Theodor Leschetizky" NY
by Piano World
6 minutes 13 seconds ago
Valletta International Piano Competition, Velletta, Malta
by Piano World
9 minutes 54 seconds ago
Cleveland International Piano Competition
by Piano World
13 minutes 41 seconds ago
International Junior Piano Competition & Festival
by Piano World
20 minutes 25 seconds ago
Who's Online
148 registered (accordeur, ajames, A Guy, anamnesis, 42 invisible), 1588 Guests and 17 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
76376 Members
42 Forums
157889 Topics
2318792 Posts

Max Online: 15252 @ 03/21/10 11:39 PM
(ads by Google)

Visit our online store for gifts for music lovers

 
Help keep the forums up and running with a donation, any amount is appreciated!
Or by becoming a Subscribing member! Thank-you.
Donate   Subscribe
 
Our Piano Related Classified Ads
|
Dealers | Tuners | Lessons | Movers | Restorations | Pianos For Sale | Sell Your Piano |

Advertise on Piano World
| Subscribe | Piano World | PianoSupplies.com | Advertise on Piano World | Donate | Link to Us | Classifieds |
| |Contact | Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter | Press Room |


copyright 1997 - 2014 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission