Kind of interesting, definitely more of a popsci piece. I take issue with this line Very weird assumed causality. I don't think guitar skills make someone hornier, they're just expressing latent...
Kind of interesting, definitely more of a popsci piece. I take issue with this line
This discrepancy suggests that while guitar skills might enhance a musician’s mating motivation, they don’t always lead to greater mating success.
Very weird assumed causality. I don't think guitar skills make someone hornier, they're just expressing latent energy through dedication to a hobby.
But this zinger made me laugh. It definitely applies to the majority of hobbies men pick up.
“Heterosexual men who play extreme metal guitar do not seem to be doing it to attract women, as has been suspected about musicians of other genres,” DeLecce told PsyPost. “Instead, it seems they are trying to impress and/or intimidate other heterosexual men with their skills.”
I consider it a classic shitpost research paper - survey based, using way more advanced statistics than is needed, and forming kinda ridiculous hypotheses to point out absurdities in research. In...
I consider it a classic shitpost research paper - survey based, using way more advanced statistics than is needed, and forming kinda ridiculous hypotheses to point out absurdities in research. In short, it's the thing you do in your free time at a lab because it's amusing and it keeps you occupied while you're waiting on other stuff necessary to do your job. Sometimes it inspires real research, because you find an interesting connection, but mostly it's just a really niche kind of satire that I personally love.
It seems to me like this sort of thing is what causes psychology to be generally regarded as unserious as a field by a lot of people though, and I’m sure there are a lot of knock on effects of...
It seems to me like this sort of thing is what causes psychology to be generally regarded as unserious as a field by a lot of people though, and I’m sure there are a lot of knock on effects of that that cause pretty serious harm.
I mean, putting my shoes of someone who plays in a metal band, if I read this article and think “so they think the only reason I do this thing that I love is to try to intimidate other men so I can get laid?”, I’m most likely going to be less likely to seek psychological help if I’m feeling mentally unwell.
Like it’s all well and good to just engage in insane quackery for fun, but when you publish stuff like this it kinda robs the field of a lot of credibility.
I might suggest that if you read that article and came to the conclusion that the researcher thinks the only reason you're doing something is one single motivation, you haven't read the article...
I might suggest that if you read that article and came to the conclusion that the researcher thinks the only reason you're doing something is one single motivation, you haven't read the article very well. It's full of words like "this suggested" and "potential connection" and "tend to" and "might be" and finally this line:
It is also important to note that this was an exploratory study, so far more additional research is required before any firm conclusions about motivations to play extreme metal guitar can be made.
As far as I can make out Dr DeLecce is a serious and respected researcher, doing serious research at a proper university, and this paper was published in a serious journal. It's a bit unfair to brand her work "insane quackery" just because it sounds a bit funny on the surface.
I don't think it matters how much they attempt to couch the obvious subtext: this bizarre study is premised on a factually incorrect and stereotypical view of metal music. I've said this on...
It's full of words like "this suggested" and "potential connection" and "tend to" and "might be"
I don't think it matters how much they attempt to couch the obvious subtext: this bizarre study is premised on a factually incorrect and stereotypical view of metal music.
I might suggest that if you read that article and came to the conclusion that the researcher thinks the only reason you're doing something is one single motivation, you haven't read the article very well
I've said this on another comment, but I couldn't imagine any other type of artist, say a graphic artist or even other types of musicians having their motivations examined in terms of "intersexual competition" and "mating success" regardless of whether or not it's thought to be their only motivation.
It would be plainly obvious in any other case that the artist is passionate about their art. It requires a subconscious reliance on a particular stereotype to have the study not seem patently absurd on the surface to the average person.
This is precisely why it's satire. We use this kind of language in science for scientific papers on animals, but its supremely weird language to be using on humans for something completely normal,...
I couldn't imagine any other type of artist, say a graphic artist or even other types of musicians having their motivations examined in terms of "intersexual competition" and "mating success" regardless of whether or not it's thought to be their only motivation.
This is precisely why it's satire. We use this kind of language in science for scientific papers on animals, but its supremely weird language to be using on humans for something completely normal, such as being good at guitar. But you're not a researcher in the field, so you're unlikely to either come across this paper and you're not immersed in this somewhat bizarre dance that we have to do so you probably won't appreciate the humor.
It feels like a fun observation in the same vein as "guys start going to the gym so they can pick up women, but end up pretty much exclusively impressing other gym bros"
It feels like a fun observation in the same vein as "guys start going to the gym so they can pick up women, but end up pretty much exclusively impressing other gym bros"
For anyone who enjoys this sort of thing BAHfest has some similar silly science vibes. People make an absurd hypothesis, then justify it as best they can.
For anyone who enjoys this sort of thing BAHfest has some similar silly science vibes. People make an absurd hypothesis, then justify it as best they can.
As someone who goes to punk/hardcore and metalcore shows frequently (roughly a show a month) and has two friends who play guitar (one in a punk band, one in a metalcore band), the premise of this...
As someone who goes to punk/hardcore and metalcore shows frequently (roughly a show a month) and has two friends who play guitar (one in a punk band, one in a metalcore band), the premise of this study is both insulting and absurd.
"Man, I bet the only reason anyone is into that crap is to try to pick up chicks." It feels like the kind of premise my grandfather would come up with.
People like the music.
People like the scene.
People like the art.
Pursuing success at any art form is usually the end goal itself, not a means to an end. Musicians are passionate about music. I couldn't imagine framing, say, painting in terms of "intrasexual competition" and "mating success."
I've been a metalhead since I was 15 and guitar player since 21 (I'm 37 now) and I can't imagine people taking this seriously. You know why you like metal, who cares what any silly article says?
I've been a metalhead since I was 15 and guitar player since 21 (I'm 37 now) and I can't imagine people taking this seriously.
You know why you like metal, who cares what any silly article says?
It's not like we metalheads are strangers to prejudice. At one point, you just start ignoring it. (I still find papers like that amusing. Someone took the time to write them. I also wrote a term...
It's not like we metalheads are strangers to prejudice. At one point, you just start ignoring it. (I still find papers like that amusing. Someone took the time to write them. I also wrote a term paper on themes in Swedish melo death at uni and enjoyed it a lot. I still wouldn't claim it was highly scientific...)
Kind of interesting, definitely more of a popsci piece. I take issue with this line
Very weird assumed causality. I don't think guitar skills make someone hornier, they're just expressing latent energy through dedication to a hobby.
But this zinger made me laugh. It definitely applies to the majority of hobbies men pick up.
I consider it a classic shitpost research paper - survey based, using way more advanced statistics than is needed, and forming kinda ridiculous hypotheses to point out absurdities in research. In short, it's the thing you do in your free time at a lab because it's amusing and it keeps you occupied while you're waiting on other stuff necessary to do your job. Sometimes it inspires real research, because you find an interesting connection, but mostly it's just a really niche kind of satire that I personally love.
It seems to me like this sort of thing is what causes psychology to be generally regarded as unserious as a field by a lot of people though, and I’m sure there are a lot of knock on effects of that that cause pretty serious harm.
I mean, putting my shoes of someone who plays in a metal band, if I read this article and think “so they think the only reason I do this thing that I love is to try to intimidate other men so I can get laid?”, I’m most likely going to be less likely to seek psychological help if I’m feeling mentally unwell.
Like it’s all well and good to just engage in insane quackery for fun, but when you publish stuff like this it kinda robs the field of a lot of credibility.
I might suggest that if you read that article and came to the conclusion that the researcher thinks the only reason you're doing something is one single motivation, you haven't read the article very well. It's full of words like "this suggested" and "potential connection" and "tend to" and "might be" and finally this line:
As far as I can make out Dr DeLecce is a serious and respected researcher, doing serious research at a proper university, and this paper was published in a serious journal. It's a bit unfair to brand her work "insane quackery" just because it sounds a bit funny on the surface.
I don't think it matters how much they attempt to couch the obvious subtext: this bizarre study is premised on a factually incorrect and stereotypical view of metal music.
I've said this on another comment, but I couldn't imagine any other type of artist, say a graphic artist or even other types of musicians having their motivations examined in terms of "intersexual competition" and "mating success" regardless of whether or not it's thought to be their only motivation.
It would be plainly obvious in any other case that the artist is passionate about their art. It requires a subconscious reliance on a particular stereotype to have the study not seem patently absurd on the surface to the average person.
This is precisely why it's satire. We use this kind of language in science for scientific papers on animals, but its supremely weird language to be using on humans for something completely normal, such as being good at guitar. But you're not a researcher in the field, so you're unlikely to either come across this paper and you're not immersed in this somewhat bizarre dance that we have to do so you probably won't appreciate the humor.
Ah, Poe's Law strikes again.
Have you considered that Poe only created this law to impress and/or intimidate other heterosexual men with his skills.
Sounds like a great candidate for an Ig Nobel Prize this year!
It feels like a fun observation in the same vein as "guys start going to the gym so they can pick up women, but end up pretty much exclusively impressing other gym bros"
For anyone who enjoys this sort of thing BAHfest has some similar silly science vibes. People make an absurd hypothesis, then justify it as best they can.
As someone who goes to punk/hardcore and metalcore shows frequently (roughly a show a month) and has two friends who play guitar (one in a punk band, one in a metalcore band), the premise of this study is both insulting and absurd.
"Man, I bet the only reason anyone is into that crap is to try to pick up chicks." It feels like the kind of premise my grandfather would come up with.
People like the music.
People like the scene.
People like the art.
Pursuing success at any art form is usually the end goal itself, not a means to an end. Musicians are passionate about music. I couldn't imagine framing, say, painting in terms of "intrasexual competition" and "mating success."
I've been a metalhead since I was 15 and guitar player since 21 (I'm 37 now) and I can't imagine people taking this seriously.
You know why you like metal, who cares what any silly article says?
It's not like we metalheads are strangers to prejudice. At one point, you just start ignoring it. (I still find papers like that amusing. Someone took the time to write them. I also wrote a term paper on themes in Swedish melo death at uni and enjoyed it a lot. I still wouldn't claim it was highly scientific...)