5 ms·

The blogger draws some questionable conclusions here. He says, "If music is a positive superstimulus for some aspect of speech perception, then this implies th

The blogger draws some questionable conclusions here. He says, "If music is a positive superstimulus for some aspect of speech perception, then this implies that music is perceived as being a 'better speech than speech.'" But that's not really the case. For example, junk food has been called a superstimulus compared with regular food. It stimulates us to eat it more strongly than the more nutritious fare our appetite evolved for, and thereby replaces regular food, to our detriment. It's not that it's better, simply that it's more stimulating, to the point of usurping the correct stimulant. Music is a negative superstimulus in the sense that it causes the listener's brain to put less effort into processing the meaning of something. He continues: "If this is the case, then speakers would be expected to exploit this perception by making their speech more musical in any situation where they are speaking and they want their speech to have more effect on the listener. But this doesn't happen." To which I would say, in the first instance, that this is a very narrow view of how a superstimulus works. Porn has been called a superstimulus (being more pleasurable to some and usurping the role of physical sex.) But, according to this blogger, I can disprove that by asserting, "Porn can't be a superstimulant because if it were, people would routinely make themselves sexy to others by inviting them to watch porn videos." But secondly I disagree that people never make their speech musical for added effect. Think about when your parents would call you as a child. "MAR-LOW...come take out the GAR-BAGE" in a sing-song voice for added effect. Furthermore, music can entirely take the place of speech to provide a more stimulating environment. Many people would judge a party where music is playing to be more stimulating and pleasurable than a party where there is just conversation taking place. But that aside, what he says is true that people don't generally sing to each other in the place of normal speech. But that's true for the same reason that people don't normally recite limericks to each other in the place of normal speech. Songs (and limericks) are not meant to be forms of spontaneous communication. I also question the whole concept of a "negative superstimulus." He calls music a "worse speech than speech." But that's nothing special, it's how superstimuli typically work. In usurping the normal stimulant, they have a negative effect, or at least, lack the full range of beneficial effects that the normal stimulant would have. And finally, using spontaneity as a measure of the effectiveness of communication, let's concede that point, for the sake of argument. Isn't everything that music lacks also lacking in the written word? In spoken prose and poetry? Essentially, in any non-spontaneous form of communication? In that case, why single out music? I mean, what he's calling "music" is music+lyrics, in any case. Is he asserting that reciting the lyrics without the accompanying music would enable listeners to ascertain the truth value? Or that just the accompanying music, without the lyrics, is not a ("negative") superstimulant?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Flankk 5y ago
The fact that mothers use a singsong voice is actually very interesting. Mothers also sing to their babies. I didn't really understand the argument that speech isn't musical. It's very musical, hence why talking in a monotone voice is so jarring. You can in fact compose music from speech by transcribing the rhythm and shape of the tones. Some research has been done into the grammar of music but I don't think there is much progress there. I am fascinated by it but it honestly seems like reading tea leaves.
munificent 5y ago
Maybe the author's writing style is too terse for you, but I really think you are missing the boat on what he's saying. > It's not that it's better, simply that it's more stimulating, to the point of usurping the correct stimulant. By "better" he means exactly more positively stimulating. He's not saying it's morally superior. Our brains do instinctively perceive junk food as "better" than other food. That's why it takes so much willpower to not eat it all the time. It's why we "crave" it. > But, according to this blogger, I can disprove that by asserting, "Porn can't be a superstimulant because if it were, people would routinely make themselves sexy to others by inviting them to watch porn videos." I don't think this analogy holds together. If they are watching porn, they aren't finding you sexy any more than sitting a Big Mac on the plate next to the blanched kale makes the latter any more appealing. We do see that people increasingly take cues from porn and expect their real sexual partners to behave that way and have completely unrealistic, unhealthy expectations of what actual sex is like. > Many people would judge a party where music is playing to be more stimulating and pleasurable than a party where there is just conversation taking place. Yes, but the whole point is why? Why don't we attend parties with no background sound? That makes it easier to hear the people you are conversing with, which is clearly superior. Or, if it's because our brain enjoys the stimulus of speech, why don't we put on podcasts and documentaries during our parties? > But that's true for the same reason that people don't normally recite limericks to each other in the place of normal speech. Songs (and limericks) are not meant to be forms of spontaneous communication. Right. And if they aren't that... why do they exist? > I mean, what he's calling "music" is music+lyrics, in any case. Is he asserting that reciting the lyrics without the accompanying music would enable listeners to ascertain the truth value? Or that just the accompanying music, without the lyrics, is not a ("negative") superstimulant? He mentions lyrics, but his claim is not specific to lyrical music. He's asserting that music lyrics without music (i.e. spoken word) encourages the user to listen to it and think critically about its truth value instead of just implicitly taking it in. The more a piece of audio is musical and not lyrical, the less it triggers that response and the more comfortable we are simply perceiving it uncritically and emotionally.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Flankk 5y ago

The fact that mothers use a singsong voice is actually very interesting. Mothers also sing to their babies. I didn't really understand the argument that speech isn't musical. It's very musical, hence why talking in a monotone voice is so jarring. You can in fact compose music from speech by transcribing the rhythm and shape of the tones. Some research has been done into the grammar of music but I don't think there is much progress there. I am fascinated by it but it honestly seems like reading tea leaves.

munificent 5y ago

Maybe the author's writing style is too terse for you, but I really think you are missing the boat on what he's saying. > It's not that it's better, simply that it's more stimulating, to the point of usurping the correct stimulant. By "better" he means exactly more positively stimulating. He's not saying it's morally superior. Our brains do instinctively perceive junk food as "better" than other food. That's why it takes so much willpower to not eat it all the time. It's why we "crave" it. > But, according to this blogger, I can disprove that by asserting, "Porn can't be a superstimulant because if it were, people would routinely make themselves sexy to others by inviting them to watch porn videos." I don't think this analogy holds together. If they are watching porn, they aren't finding you sexy any more than sitting a Big Mac on the plate next to the blanched kale makes the latter any more appealing. We do see that people increasingly take cues from porn and expect their real sexual partners to behave that way and have completely unrealistic, unhealthy expectations of what actual sex is like. > Many people would judge a party where music is playing to be more stimulating and pleasurable than a party where there is just conversation taking place. Yes, but the whole point is why? Why don't we attend parties with no background sound? That makes it easier to hear the people you are conversing with, which is clearly superior. Or, if it's because our brain enjoys the stimulus of speech, why don't we put on podcasts and documentaries during our parties? > But that's true for the same reason that people don't normally recite limericks to each other in the place of normal speech. Songs (and limericks) are not meant to be forms of spontaneous communication. Right. And if they aren't that... why do they exist? > I mean, what he's calling "music" is music+lyrics, in any case. Is he asserting that reciting the lyrics without the accompanying music would enable listeners to ascertain the truth value? Or that just the accompanying music, without the lyrics, is not a ("negative") superstimulant? He mentions lyrics, but his claim is not specific to lyrical music. He's asserting that music lyrics without music (i.e. spoken word) encourages the user to listen to it and think critically about its truth value instead of just implicitly taking it in. The more a piece of audio is musical and not lyrical, the less it triggers that response and the more comfortable we are simply perceiving it uncritically and emotionally.