Sight Dominates Sound

Both professional musicians and untrained individuals were given clips of various performers in top international music competitions.

Some were given full video with sound, some were given just audio recordings, and some were given silent video of the performances. Participants were then asked to guess which performers had won the competitions. And oddly enough...

The actual competition winners were only correctly identified by those who were randomly assigned the silent videos.

We are such visual creatures.

And yet, it's often the musical direction that makes or breaks a tv show for me.

DanaC;873972 wrote:

And yet, it's often the musical direction that makes or breaks a tv show for me.

when the music disagrees with what your eyes make you sure of.

I heard about this the other morning on NPR's Morning Edition.

With the additional tidbit:

Not Just Good Looks

Now, if the judges weren't going on the music, what was the X factor? Good looks? In a separate analysis, Tsay found it wasn't about superficial looks.

"I wouldn't necessarily say that this is indicative of superficial judgment," Tsay says. "There is something about visual information that is better able to convey cues such as passion or involvement or creativity. These elements are very much a part of high-quality performance."

In fact, Tsay's study is only the latest to show that people's judgments on all manner of issues are shaped by what they see. We know we shouldn't judge books by their covers, but marketers know we do anyway. Economists and political psychologists have found that voters can predict the winners of elections when they watch videos of the candidates — with the sound off.

"There is a very real gap between what people say they value — what people truly believe they value — and what is actually being used in these important evaluations," Tsay says.

That's a useful reminder — for the next time we judge other people, and the next time other people judge us.

italics mine.

Hello Labs. Far too long time no see :kisspink:

I dunno if I am all that visual.
My favourite comedies could all be on radio with almost no amendments.
I respond to cadence and intonation, repetition and delivery as opposed to slapstick, pratfalls and mugging for the camera (biased much?)

Then again I'm not a huge fan of music.
It's the lyrics that grab me. Classical music is a closed book and in opera it's about the singers.

Digression:
I was both weirded out and captivated by the Silent Singer in Pyschoville.
It was a character so alien and yet so familiar. When the backstory was realised I did worry he would start appearing to me.

[ATTACH]45220[/ATTACH]

We'll never know, because they don't tell us who won.

Guess it goes into the bullshit pile.

:yelsick:

As usual when I read something like this:

"I demand your methodological"

If that were true, one would also expect the video&audio people to correctly identify the winners.

But that's the thing--everyone says the audio is what matters most to them, both judges and laypersons. And when laypersons can hear the audio, they are not able to agree with the judges on who the winner is, presumably because they are distracted by a variety of audio-related nuances. It is only when a person can't hear the audio that they are magically able to distill out what it is the judges are (apparently) really judging on.

Anyone who finds this sort of thing interesting should love the book "Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely. His other books are next on my reading list.

Love this stuff. Tends to bring your ego down a notch or 12 when you realize you aren't in control like you *think* you are... :cool:

Do we know the judges are hearing?