Subjective vs Objective

Thanks. I don’t think what you shared is incompatible with what I said. Musicians’ brains develop that gray and white matter as a result of years of listening to different aspects of music that non-musicians don’t listen to/for or think about. What I mean by the physiological processes being identical is that the processes, or rules if you will, that dictate how brains develop are the same species-wide. Experiences, such as being a musician, guide and shape the results of those processes. The brains of world class athletes are also wired differently than non-athletes, etc. At birth, everyone’s brain is much closer to being the same. But, our lived experiences result in the rules of their development going in different and unique directions and thus ending in configurations that can look very different person to person.

Does this clear up the meaning?

2 Likes

Yes, to a degree. At birth and before, there are still signficant differences. There is so much more to abilities than exposure/training. Some non-musicians have perfect pitch. Some highly-trained musicians are tone-impaired. Training absolutely makes signficant changes but DNA competes well to training in many ways. I totally get what you are saying but the science is not totally aligned with your assertions. The bottom line is that the effects of nature and nurture are real.

Thanks for the discussion. This is good debate. :slight_smile:

I agree with you about it being a nature AND nurture thing. By saying closer at brith I was trying to efficiently state that brains are not identical at birth, there are definitely differences embedded in our DNA, but that the differences become more profound with development.

Yes! The brain is an amazing thing! You’re getting into more technical statements. I was attempting to allude to this kind of thing, in layman’s terms (for lack of better expression) when I talk about ranges and also that our brains’ makeups are not static. They are always making new connections and changing the combinations of parts that “fire together” in response to a stimulus.

I’m not actually arguing with any of your points. I was trying to get the basics across as to why I find the framing of “subjective VS objective” unhelpful.

Thanks for your toughts as well :beers:

1 Like

I getcha now. Sorry that I was arguing about a distinction without much of a difference. :beers: to more discussions with you.