Jump to content

Entertainment tastes and intelligence

Eponine

By Eponine,
in General Chatter

Recommended Posts

Eponine Council Member

Eponine

Posted
Posted

I was re-reading Ted Chiang's Stories of Your Life and Others. His story Understand is about a man who becomes extremely intelligent due to a new drug given after severe brain damage (the whole story can be read here: http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/under.htm). Chiang said his idea for the story came from talking to his college roommate.

But what would it be like, my roommate wondered, to find meaning and order in everything you saw? To me that suggested a kind of heightened perception, which in turn suggested superintelligence. I started thinking about the point at which quantitative improvements -- better memory, faster pattern recognition -- turn into a qualitative difference, a fundamentally different mode of cognition.

As the protagonist is becoming more intelligent, at one point, he turns down an invitation to a movie with a name that I guess was supposed to imply mindless entertainment because he's going to see a one-woman play. "...it's a stream-of-consciousness piece, and it alternates between four different meters; iambic's only one of them."

It's definitely a common idea that there's smart person entertainment and dumb person entertainment. Smart people listen to Mozart and read Proust; dumb people read Twilight and watch Real Housewives. And it's equally obvious that people don't always fall into those stereotypes.

It seems to me that there is probably a difference in what people are able to appreciate. If you had exceptional pattern recognition skills, you would probably be able to hear the different meters in the above example, while someone with poor pattern recognition and lack of poetic education might not recognize the differences at all. Likewise, someone whose intelligence manifested itself in a large vocabulary would be able to appreciate literature that someone with a small vocabulary might find simply frustrating. But I'm not convinced that appreciation would necessarily constitute enjoyment.

Is there any validity to the idea that having greater intelligence (in specific, better pattern recognition) would lead to a change in entertainment tastes? If your IQ went up 10 points, would you start enjoying different things? Is there an actual significant difference in people's tastes due to their intelligence (however you choose to measure that)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kalbear Council Member

Kalbear

Posted
Posted

I think there's a difference between entertainment that is smart and entertainment that required specific knowledge. One of the reasons that pop culture is so accessible is because it requires essentially only self referential value. All the in jokes are jokes you're already part of. The so called smart entertainment has a lot of references to more obscure works, like the above.

That being said, I do think there are entertainments that are more rewarding to smarter folks than others. Works that force the participant to engage, works that have multiple levels of interpretation, that sort of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sci-2 Council Member

Sci-2

Posted
Posted

I don't know. I know division managers and people gifted in mathematics who read Twilight or just watch regular TV shows.

I find when someone tries people try to one up other people by what they consume for entertainment, I assume the person is covering for some major insecurities.

The worst offenders are people who brag about reading "literature". I mix in lit-fic with my other reading, and I think it's just one thing people can do to entertain themselves. It works parts of your brain, but so does rock climbing, solving logic puzzles, wood carving, or growing stuff in your backyard.

I started Proust last week by the way, just to see what the fuss was about. Cool stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Raidne

Guest Raidne

Posted
Posted

I am 100% certain that people who have a high score on Simon-Baron Cohen's Systemizing Quotient (SQ) scale have more sophisticated taste in entertainment. This scale correlates with people who do well in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM professions). I honestly doubt that there is a single person in existence who scores in the 51-80 range that can also stand to watch Real Housewives.

But SQ is not equivalent to intelligence as we assess it other people, although it must be somewhat correlated to IQ?

ETA: Here is the scale, by the way - you're supposed to take it and the Empathy Quotient scale score and figure out where you fall on the E/S graph. In the interest of full disclosure, I am very low on SQ - like, 17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
adamsputnik Council Member

adamsputnik

Posted
Posted

I hadn't seen that 'quiz' before so I decided to have a crack it. Scored 52, which I am not too surprised by. And yes, I read Dickens, abhor reality TV, and have a large and varied selection of baroque chamber music...

But one isn't a very large sample.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
S John Council Member

S John

Posted
Posted

I don't know. I like puzzles and complex strategy games (especially on the computer), I'm interested in science and nature, I like books and TV dramas with intricate plots, and I have a taste for a couple genre's of music that are more technical than what you'd normally get on the radio.

But... I fucking LOVE reality TV. Its undeniable at this point.

Probably 25% of my TV watching is science or nature shows or the docu-drama hybrids that fill a lot of cable channels these days (eg. Pawn Stars, Auction Kings, Storm Chasers, Storage Wars, a variety of silly shows about ghosts, etc) maybe another 25% are what I would consider to be well-written comedies (say.. 30 Rock, Curb Your Enthusiasm), another 25% to dramas (all the deep shit that everyone here on the board loves), but I definitely still reserve at least 1/4 of all my TV entertainment to absolute reality TV trash.

I don't often get too deep into a particular show, and I don't follow any of these closely...... but I won't deny that I'll occasionally sit there and watch an episode of Keeping up with the Kardashians, if its on. I'll watch an episode of Real Housewives, I'll watch the Biggest Loser, I'll watch any number of the trashy shows MTV (Kay recently taught me about the show 'Friend Zone' and that's just a delicious train wreck) or VH1 puts out (Rock of Love, I Love New York, Pick Up Artist, Tool Academy... yea I watched them all).

What can I say, I'm an observer of the human condition. It's great people watching. Its the TV equivalent of plopping down at a sidewalk cafe or a park bench in New York City and watching all kinds of different people go about their lives. The behavior of most people on reality TV is really foreign to the way I conduct myself. Or, for that matter, the way anyone I knows conducts themselves. It's not intellectually stimulating, necessarily, but I think its fascinating. I realize that by watching reality TV I pretty much just feed the ego's of the legions of non-celebrities out there, however I'm not looking at these folks as role models or anything. I'm looking at them like I look at animals at the zoo.

I think that's the big problem that most people have with reality TV culture, that young people are going to look up to figures like Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian simply because they are on television, or that these fools are getting rich in the first place, but I can assure you that I'm watching it precisely because I think they are out-of-touch at best, and complete morons at worst. And who needs intellectual stimulation 24/7? Sometimes you just want to vegetate mentally. Reality TV is brain candy. Delicious brain candy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eponine Council Member

Eponine

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I am 100% certain that people who have a high score on Simon-Baron Cohen's Systemizing Quotient (SQ) scale have more sophisticated taste in entertainment. This scale correlates with people who do well in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM professions). I honestly doubt that there is a single person in existence who scores in the 51-80 range that can also stand to watch Real Housewives.

But SQ is not equivalent to intelligence as we assess it other people, although it must be somewhat correlated to IQ?

ETA: Here is the scale, by the way - you're supposed to take it and the Empathy Quotient scale score and figure out where you fall on the E/S graph. In the interest of full disclosure, I am very low on SQ - like, 17.

Damn. I got a 39 and I have a master's in math and work as a programmer. Maybe made a wrong turn somewhere.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have never seen a single episode of Real Housewives and could not tell you anything about the show except what can be deduced from the name.

My IQ was the same at age 10 and 30 and yet I stopped watching iCarly and started watching the Daily Show.

Something like this is kind of why I was thinking increasing your IQ wouldn't lead to a fast change in tastes. After all, no one is practicing pattern recognition more constantly than babies and toddlers, since everything they're experiencing is being put into categories for the very first time. But it's not just aptitude but the actual experiences over time that allows "smarter" forms of entertainment to make sense. So if a person's intelligence could be increased, it seems like he would eventually have a higher ceiling, but it would take him a long time to gain all the insights on a personal level that would allow him to find giving attention to those things entertaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wolverine Council Member

wolverine

Posted
Posted

I am 100% certain that people who have a high score on Simon-Baron Cohen's Systemizing Quotient (SQ) scale have more sophisticated taste in entertainment. This scale correlates with people who do well in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM professions). I honestly doubt that there is a single person in existence who scores in the 51-80 range that can also stand to watch Real Housewives.

But SQ is not equivalent to intelligence as we assess it other people, although it must be somewhat correlated to IQ?

ETA: Here is the scale, by the way - you're supposed to take it and the Empathy Quotient scale score and figure out where you fall on the E/S graph. In the interest of full disclosure, I am very low on SQ - like, 17.

42 and I teach high school math. I only took the Systemizing one. My wife loves reality TV. Trash like The Bachelor and The Kardashians. I think the shows can be addicting for people but if I watch The Bachelor on DVR alone, I fast forward to the end and see who was booted, thats it. No way I would let her DVR the Kardashians.

Shows like The Bachelor seem to assume the audience has no short term memory. They show the same f'ing clips over and over. I do like nature and science shows but that, with sports, would be the extent of reality shows I choose to watch. Maybe a little storage wars, ax-men, or american pickers once in a great while. As far as reading goes it is almost exclusively fiction.

My whole life I have been told I was smarter than average and any testing certainly indicated that. The learning and intelligence of many of the people on these message boards certainly humbles me though. I am only pointing this out to try explain my feeling on what I choose as entertainment, particularly reading. I make a conscious effort to choose reading that I think will teach me something or will have some kind of impact on me. I still read things like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and enjoy it, but I don't feel the impetus to continue a series like that even though I found the books "entertaining." Sometimes this type of entertainment just feels so hollow to me afterwards (another example would be The da Vinci Code). I choose to read books that I know are not as entertaining as others may be because they offer something else that appeals to me.

So I get what someone was saying above. Maybe I am a snob inside and think some entertainment isn't worth my time because I think I am smarter than the people who really love it. It is really complicated to think about. Does liking mindless drivel mean you are less intelligent? I laughed my ass off at movies like The Hangover and shows like tosh.O.

EDIT: Did the empathy test and got a 32. Maybe I have aspergers. Where is this graph where you match up the two? It is a little difficult taking the surveys, particularly the second, subconsciously knowing where your answer will place you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Arbor Gold Council Member

Arbor Gold

Posted
Posted

Glad you started this thread, Ep. This kind of thing frustrates me when it comes up in threads, like the correlation between entertainment preference and intelligence is always so straightforward. I know a lot of really smart people who watch a lot of dumb shit. My best friend is currently doing a NYT crossword puzzle and watching Housewives. I'm not overly intelligent but I like PBS programming as well as Teen Mom, and I record Jeopardy! every day. I read books with magic and dragons in them. I like Arcade Fire and I like Justin Timberlake. My sister is one of the smartest women I know and she watches the Kardashians.

*shrug*

ETA: I also love Syfy channel original movies. I feel sorry for folks who didn't love Jersey Shore Shark Attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kalbear Council Member

Kalbear

Posted
Posted

I'm 100% convinced that Raidne's wrong; the folks I know who score high on STEM scores tend to like what we'd refer to as fairly lowbrow entertainment. They might also like higher stuff, but I know as many who are addicted to things like soap operas as I do those who love Pynchon. Microsoft tends to be a pretty big haven for those types, and you'll never find a more wretched hive of folks who love Star Wars, Legos and stupid memes.

I didn't try to say that those with high intelligence will only like certain things. I think that's wrong. I do think certain things can only really be enjoyed by those willing to work hard at it and catch a lot of the second and third meanings, but that doesn't mean everyone wants to enjoy things at that level all the time - nor does it mean something that is deep is also something that is entertaining.

BTW, since it wasn't linked - here's the quiz. (ETA: first quiz was wrong)

And FYI, I got a 63.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...