If your child listens to classical music:
- The Haydn Effect: Child is witty and quick on his feet, quite often bringing a grin to the faces of those around him. Despite this he exhibits remarkable humility.
- The Bach Effect: Child memorizes Scripture and says his prayers every day; may overwhelm listeners with his speech.
- The Handel Effect: Much like the Bach Effect; in addition, the child may exhibit dramatic behavior.
- The Beethoven Effect: Child develops a superiority complex and is prone to violent tantrums; is a perfectionist.
- The Liszt Effect: Child speaks rapidly and extravagantly, but never really says anything important
- The Bruckner Effect: Child speaks very slowly and repeats himself frequently. Gains a reputation for profundity.
- The Grieg Effect: This child is quirky yet cheery. May be prone toward Norwegian folklore.
- The Wagner Effect: Child becomes a megalomaniac. Speaks for six hours at a stretch.
- The Schoenberg Effect: Child never repeats a word until he has used all the other words in his vocabulary. Sometimes talk backwards or upside-down. Eventually people stop listening to him. Child blames them for their inability to understand him.
- The Ives Effect: Child develops a remarkable ability to carry on several separate conversations at once.
- The Stravinsky Effect: Child is prone to savage, guttural and profane outbursts that lead to fighting and pandemonium in preschool.
- The Shostakovich Effect: Child only expresses themselves in parent-approved ways.
- The Cage Effect: Childs says exactly nothing for 4 minutes and 33 seconds. Preferred by 9 out of 10 classroom teachers.
- The Glass Effect: Child repeats one word over, and over, and over, and over....
I actually believe artists and scientists think very similarly. Complex, abstract thought? They both have that down. It’s all about where that thinking takes you after that.
Words cannot describe how much I love this post.
I hate that the two are talked about as oppositional things. Science and art are bros, to the point where the debate still rages about which preceded the other. We don’t fight, we’re not enemies, we need each other. Ask an artist what they focus on, anatomy, light, color, depth. Do you know what that really is? Biology, theories of visual perception, and physics. The number of artistic movements that were literally started because of a new scientific discovery is staggering. Hell, to gain legitimacy, early photographers did their utmost to appear to be artists, because they knew otherwise, photography would just be viewed as an illegitimate gimmick.
I cannot tell you how much I despise this idea that science and art are at oppositional ends of the spectrum. You can not have art without the tools made by science (stylus, paper, ink, paint, video, anything), and you cannot have science without the explanations granted by art (written word, illustrations, diagrams, charts, anatomical models, medical comics). I literally once had someone tell me a video game could never be art because it involved science…well guess what, so did DaVinci’s works, so did the Impressionists, so did every artist ever. Even when you break it down to pure, raw abstraction, composition is simply math.
Science is art, art is science. Stop acting like one is pure intellect and the other pure emotion. Its an absurd binary, and frankly, it does not really exist.