Talk:Mozart effect

message: I started aggregating research studies related to music, cognitive neuroscience, and more if anyone wishes to include more research on my blog at http://wwww.wikyblog.com/CynthiaWunsch. I don't feel comfortable editing this page to include them but they are there with abstracts and citations if anyone thinks any are worth adding.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.70.37 (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Source of more research studies

message: For the record: The New York Times article I cite, "Georgia's Governor Seeks Musical Start for Babies," Kevin Sack, The New York Times, January 15, 1998 p. A12, quoting Zell Miller, actually quotes him as saying:
:"No one questions that listening to music at a very early age affects the spatial, temporal reasoning that underlies math and engineering and even chess." 
"Spatial, temporal reasoning" with a comma doesn't make sense. On the other hand, researchers and popularizers frequently use the term "spatial-temporal reasoning" or "spatio-temporal reasoning" in connection with the "Mozart effect." It is so plausible that Miller said "spatial-temporal" and that it was mis-transcribed by ear as "spatial, temporal" that I'm going to make the correction. Or corruption, as the case may be.
Yeah, I know... it's a recognized principle of textual analysis that the version of a text that doesn't make sense is much more likely to be the authentic one than the version that does. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: OK, I'm correcting the New York Times... on the basis of guesswork

message: I believe the article needs cleanup in order to resemble the formal tone expected from a real encyclopedic article. 
It should be better organized in sections (in the current article, the section "Don Campbell's 1997 book, trademark, and subsequent promotion" should be merged into the History section to provide a more clear message). 
I also think the article needs to be expanded with the sources cited in the References section, especially this one: *Kenneth M. Steele
:And to clarify the respective shares of Tomatis and Campbell. --Pjacobi 21:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've attempted cleanup, and added sections for each researcher's findings with refs., so that readers can judge for themselves and going for a neutral point of view.  I think the article still needs some help.  Feedback is welcome.  ♫ Cricket02 23:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: The section "Limitations of the effect" all seems to be Point of View to me and Original Research.  I have removed it and copying here for reference.  ♫ Cricket02 23:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See below. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed section

message: Provided a lead and so removed the tag.  The lead will need to be changed as the rest of the article is updated though, particularly when the controversy is included in the body of the article--Vannin (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: lead

message: I propose a re-ordering:
1. Tomatis
2. Rauscher and Shaw's study, combining the part under research with the other section.
3. Popularization as in Campbell's book
4.  Consequences - governor of georgia etc
5.  criticism.
I think not only with this make it more wiki style, it will make it a more interesting read --Vannin (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a plan.  Glad to see this article improved. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Cricket - thanks for the encouragement!  I've re-ordered the material, and I think this will make it easier to go through each section to improve it further--Vannin (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking much better.  The section "Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine" has to do with the epilepsy factor so maybe that section can be removed and worked into the text instead?  ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense--Vannin (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-order

message: "Limitations of the effect" is legitimate; it's referenced, it is an accurate statement of what researchers have said about the nature of the effect. It is important that Rauscher herself has stated that the popular version of the theory is a misconception.
It falls into the category of "facts about opinions," which have always been acceptable. Rauscher is a reliable source for her own opinions, and Rausher's opinions are relevant to the subject matter.
I'm restoring part of an early version of the lead paragraph, because the phrase is used in multiple senses. The genuine research version is that it can evoke short-term enhancement of limited kinds of mental functioning. The popular version is that it enhances intelligence. And the extraordinarily wide-ranging claim of Don Campbell is that it enhances just about everything but the kitchen sink. The fact that the term has been trademarked, ridiculous and regrettable as it is, needs to be mentioned, and early in the article.
Now, anyone you can find a reliable source that says that the popular meaning is a misuse of the term, and that Don Campbell's meaning is beyond misuse... or if there is a restrictive definition of the term in a dictionary of psychology or the like... that should be added. But the term is widely used in the broader senses, and that fact shouldn't be removed.
:Note: I just found a definition in a dictionary of neurology and cited it. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoring some earlier material

message: I recommend that people not attempt to describe scientific articles, and should never edit existing descriptions, unless they have considerable background with, and preferably experience publishing in, peer reviewed scientific journals. Otherwise, the entry just looks unprofessional. For example, the description beginning "Another experiment that agrees with the claim was made by Bellarmine College. To make sure the Mozart effect was consistent, The Department of Psychology at Bellarmine College tested the spatial reasoning of the participants in...." should be rewritten by someone who knows that research, and can write using a conventional scientific style (this is not intended as a harsh criticism of who ever wrote that description - just a suggestion that it needs work). I have edited the description of the Thompson, Husain, and Schellenberg (2001) study (which was somehow written as Tomson, 2001) so that it has fewer errors and is consistent with the conventions of scientific writing, but some of the other descriptions also need revising. Be very selective about what to include. There are thousands of studies of the Mozart effect; but only the influential ones should be mentioned. If you type in the name of the article in google scholar and it comes up with a "citations" of fewer than at least 5, then I don't think it should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomps95 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Describing scientific articles 

message: I have posted a bibliography of   Intelligence Citations for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research and to suggest new sources to me by comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing 

message: This article is another proof that Wikipedia is not a reliable resource.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.231.74 (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: Several of the citations listed are obtainable only through seeking membership in a professional society, or through purchase of restricted items.  It seems that the goal of Wiki should be to have citations as easily available as possible, to as many people as possible.  This would argue against the use of sources available only for a fee or through restricted sources.  If an on-line link doesn't go directly to a copy of the source, or provide sufficient information to obtain that source from a library, I would suggest that such links be deleted and/or replaced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccessible Citations 

message: It may be obvious, but it still is point of view and original research. The fact is, that it also has an obvious appeal to those who do not even know this music (Rauscher, quoted here, p. 73).
What the hell has poor Ludwig to do with all this? --Actormusicus (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious appeal