Pentatonix and Trying a Little A Cappella Arranging Myself

Yesterday, I blogged about Pentatonix. I'm sure many people, like myself, have been inspired by their work to try our hands at a cappella arranging. I'm working on an arrangement of my own at the moment, which I hope to share at some point (once I finish and record it, of course).

Part of the research involved in writing a good a cappella arrangement is doing a lot of listening: listening to the songs one is arranging, listening to other a cappella arrangements, and finally, listening to experts. That's why I decided yesterday evening to finally sit down and start reading Deke Sharon and Dylan Bell's book, A Cappella Arranging.

Deke Sharon is responsible for the a cappella arrangements in Pitch Perfect and was a producer of The Sing Off (where Pentatonix got its start), and Dylan Bell is an arranger and producer, producing for instance the Swingle Singers' amazing album Ferris Wheels, one of my absolute favorite a cappella albums (seriously, listen to this arrangement of Annie Lennox's"No More I Love Yous", from that album).

The book is full of words of wisdom, not just for would-be a cappella arrangers, but for musicians in general. The sixth chapter is especially relevant for all musicians, by dispelling five myths about music. For instance, that difficult-to-execute music is good, simple music is bad, and there is a hierarchy of music falling between those two extremes. Instead, they say that music is like food - it nourishes us and if it does that, it's good. Eating only one type of food forever, no matter how exquisite, would get boring. The same is true with music:

If you like pop music, don't consider it a guilty pleasure. Keep your ears and mind open: Bach may fill you with a sense of wonder, Led Zeppelin may get your motor running, and Josh Groban may make you weep. Dump the good/bad baggage and embrace it all.

One thing from the book that really resonated with me is how the act of breaking music apart is similar to an engineer disassembling a machine:

Like a budding engineer who takes apart an engine to see how it is built, there is no better way to understand the inner workings of an arrangement [than transcription]. Pick a song you like and an arrangement you respect, then use the process of transcription to figure out what makes it great.

They recommend that arrangers have 3 characters or personalities when they work: the Dreamer (raw, unbridled talent, all art, not much editing), the Editor (who takes the Dreamer's work and, well, makes it work), and the Critic (who finds the weak spots and brings them to light so the Dreamer can dream up something new and/or the Editor can rework it).

This book is a great opportunity to peak under the hood at two great a cappella arrangers.

Pentatonix: Making A Cappella Cool Again

If you've never heard of Pentatonix, you don't know what you're missing. This 5-person group does a cappella arrangements of popular songs, and they're amazing. The group - which started as a trio - first formed 5 years ago yesterday (they found bass, Avi, through a friend, and Kevin, their amazingly talented vocal percussionist through YouTube), and the next day (5 years ago today), they auditioned for The Sing Off.

I had the pleasure of seeing them in concert last August, when they opened for Kelly Clarkson. I believe I tried taking pictures from that night, but they didn't really turn out. It was an amazing show and I was thrilled when they performed one of my favorites of their arrangements:

Their newest album, released in October of last year, debuted at number 1 on the US Billboard 200. Up to now, that would be unheard of for an a cappella group, though you could argue (as many have) that their success can be partially credited to the popularity of shows like Glee and movies like Pitch Perfect. (And you could argue, in return, that Pentatonix helped set the stage for shows like Glee and movies like Pitch Perfect to become popular.) The album also features mostly original content, rather than arrangements of popular songs. (I just bought the album the other day, and haven't had the chance to listen just yet, but I will this week!)

If you haven't already done so, check out Pentatonix's YouTube channel:

The Human Mind

Of course, there's always SMBC's commentary on the human mind:

Changes, Unpredictability, and Distress

There are a lot of changes coming up on the horizon for me. I won't go into them, but I will say that knowing I don't have much control over some of these changes is causing a bit of stress. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that I dislike believing I have no control over what happens to me or in relation to me. A recent study from Psychological Science offers some explanation.

The study looked at children, half of who were described as high in social reticence (shyness) and half described as low. This was based on measures obtained over a 5-year period (between ages 2 and 7). At age 11, children participated in an fMRI study that included a virtual school task. Children created an avatar and personal profile, and were introduced as new students in a virtual school. The children also learned about their fellow students, so for many they knew ahead of time to expect friendly or mean interactions from them. However, some were unpredictable; the children didn't know what kind of interactions they would have with these students. Children were given response options:

To establish an interactive context that modeled how participants might react to real-world experiences, we asked them to respond to positive or negative social evaluation using a button box (5 s). When the row of six response options appeared at the bottom of the screen, participants used the left and right buttons to navigate to their preferred response and a third button to make their selection. Response options were positive (“You’re nice,” “That’s nice”), negative (“That’s mean,” “You’re mean”), sarcastic (“Thanks!!!”), or avoidant (⦸). The selected option then appeared on the screen for purported peers to see or was omitted in the case of avoidant responses (2 s).

Shy children experienced more distress than non-shy children. You might expect that they experienced distress when receiving negative comments. In actuality, they experienced it when receiving it from unpredictable peers. In fact, they experienced distress in anticipation of any interaction with an unpredictable peer.

Knowing something negative is going to happen is much less distressing than when you have no idea what to expect.

The Cube Personality Test

If you've been on Facebook the last few days, you've probably at least seen links to the so-called "cube personality" test. A video from Buzzfeed reveals that it is a "Japanese psychology game" meant to reveal hidden aspects of your personality:

Because I'm sure people will ask what I pictured: the cube was quite large and clear, and sitting on the ground. The ladder was leaned against it. The horse was chilling by the cube, without a saddle or reins. I pictured 3 flowers, along the bottom of the cube. And the storm in the brewing background was a sand storm. So according to the test, I have a big ego, I'm open, grounded, and am available to support my friends. I like wild relationships (wild horse), want 3 kids, and I'm seriously stressed out. According to the test, anyway.

What I'm curious about is: how many of you got something similar? The instructions are full of cues, such as asking if the ladder is leaning on the cube. That question may have influenced me to picture the ladder against the cube. In fact, any of the questions throughout the video probably influenced the final picture in my mind of the various objects. And all of that happened so quickly and at such a nonconscious level, I may not have even realized it was happening, believing instead that was how I pictured the scene all along.

We would call these leading questions. And a lot of research says they have a strong impact on memory. Our memory is very fluid, and new information can have a strong impact on memory. One of the top researchers on this topic is Dr. Elizabeth Loftus. In one of the most famous studies on the topic, Dr. Loftus and John Palmer tested the "confabulation effect" - where the wording of the question could change the memory of the event. Participants watched clips of automobile accidents.

They were later asked questions about the crash they viewed, including one question where the verb was manipulated: "About how fast were the cars going when they (smashed / collided / bumped / hit / contacted) each other?" They found that the estimated speed varied by which verb was selected: "smashed" - 40.8 mph, "collided" - 39.3 mph, "bumped" - 38.1 mph, "hit" - 34 mph, and "contacted" - 31.8 mph.

In a second experiment, they added one more piece of misinformation. They used only two verbs, "hit" and "smashed", plus one control condition using neither. But they also asked people if they saw broken glass. Though there was no broken glass on the ground after the accident, over 19% of participants reported that they saw broken glass. And participants were more likely to report seeing broken glass if the question about speed included the word "smashed" (32% of people in the "smashed" condition reported broken glass, compared to 14% in the "hit" condition and 12% in the control condition) - because if the cars were going fast, there would probably also be broken glass.

As I've said before, memory is tricky. When you start asking questions, especially leading questions, the memory will probably change. Whether the "pure" version of the Cube personality test (without the leading questions) is accurate, I don't know. In fact, it may actually be a pickup artist trick. But the version linked above, and the version that has been circulating, really won't tell you much about your personality.

So picture whatever kind of cube/horse/ladder/storm you want.

Opinion Polls, Psychological Reactance, and One NYT Writer's Psychological Analysis of Trump Supporters

My friend over at The Daily Parker shared this story with me yesterday: an analysis of the resentment toward the establishment experienced by Trump supporters, or what the author calls "The Anti-P.C. Vote". The article touches on many important psychological concepts, and is definitely worth a read.

For one, the author, Thomas Edsall, discusses Trump supporters' negative views on immigration, and comments that opinion polls suggest that people favor immigration. In trying to explain this disconnect, he reached out to Lefteris Anastasopoulos, who explained the problem may be with how the polls are conducted. Opinion polls often ask broad questions about issues, such as "Do you support increased immigration to the United States?" or "Do you support amnesty for undocumented immigrants?"

Anastasopoulos argues that, when broad questions are used, people respond in more politically correct ways. I would take this one step farther and suggest that, when broad questions are used, people use their preconceived notions of what is typical or desired to fill in the missing pieces of the question, and then respond to the question based on that specific situation they have in mind. A great in-depth analysis of this issue can be found in one of my favorite books, Commonsense Justice by Norman Finkel. This book had a strong influence on me and the direction of my dissertation research.

In the book, Finkel discusses why people as a whole may support a certain policy - such as hate crime legislation - but then, when serving as a juror on a case, balk at the severity of sentencing that they may attempt to find the defendant guilty of a lesser crime or even, in rare cases, find the defendant not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt. The latter case is referred to as "jury nullification." The reason for this disconnect, Finkel argues, is in how opinions are elicited in polls - with broad questions. He found that when specific examples are given to show a typical case (which differs greatly from the extreme examples people have in mind when responding to polls), support goes down.

Another explanation offered for Trump supporters is psychological reactance, which I've blogged about previously, as well as during the April A-Z. Basically, psychological reactance occurs when you feel your sense of free will is threatened; when you feel forced into behaving a certain away, you rebel and do something else (even the opposite) simply to prove that you have free will. Again, Edsall reached out to a psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, to get additional information and application of this concept:

Haidt applies this to the 2016 election: "Translated to the Trump phenomenon, I would say that decades of political correctness, with its focus on “straight white men” as the villains and oppressors — now extended to “straight white cis-gendered men” — has caused some degree of reactance in many and perhaps most white men."

In both the workplace and academia, Haidt argues, "the accusatory and vindictive approach of many social justice activists and diversity trainers may actually have increased the desire and willingness of some white men to say and do un-PC things."

In this atmosphere, according to Haidt: "Trump comes along and punches political correctness in the face. Anyone feeling some degree of anti-PC reactance is going to feel a thrill in their heart, and will want to stand up and applaud. And because feelings drive reasoning, these feelings of gratitude will make it hard for anyone to present arguments to them about the downsides of a Trump presidency."

Not only are Trump supporters perhaps experiencing reactance, but Trump gives them an outlet for that reactance. So rather than having the outcomes of reactance on the small-scale and in specific situations, supporters can direct that feeling toward a larger cause that they perceive will bring about widespread changes.

As a psychologist, I very much enjoyed Edsall's analysis of the issue. As a citizen, I'm terrified.

Bad Science Journalism by Example

The other day, a friend shared the following story: Chocolate makes you cleverer: A 40-year psychological study proves that the sweet treat can boost our grey matter. Of course, as with many scientists, I cringe when I hear the word "prove" because we don't actually prove anything in our research. We generate hypotheses and gather evidence that would allow us to support or refute our hypothesis. We prove nothing, even if we find evidence to support our hypothesis, because the hypothesis could be incorrect. We may think the explanation is one thing but find out it is something different that we didn't even consider or gather evidence about. In fact, I blogged about this pretty extensively here.

So of course, I clicked on the article, thinking it might be an example of bad science journalism.

I had no idea how right I was.

The story is about a longitudinal study of cognitive ability on over 1,000 people in New York State. Yes, it is a 40-year study, but no, the chocolate part was not examined over 40 years. The researchers decided to look at eating patterns in the 6th wave of the study, which began in 2001. Additionally, they didn't even begin collecting the data to find out if chocolate has any relationship to cognitive ability:

The researchers incorporated a new questionnaire – gathering all sorts of information about dietary habits – into the sixth wave of their data collection, which spanned the five years between 2001 and 2006 (there have been seven waves in all, each conducted in five-year intervals). And they revealed an interesting pattern. “We found that people who eat chocolate at least once a week tend to perform better cognitively,” says Elias. “It's significant – it touches a number of cognitive domains.”

Later on, they talk about some analyses they performed to determine direction of causality - whether chocolate consumption causes improved cognitive ability or whether people with higher cognitive ability happen to like chocolate more. They found support for the former, which lends some credence to their claim. But still, the researchers are quick to caveat their results:

“It's nearly impossible to talk about causality with our design,” says Elias. “But our study definitely indicates the direction is that chocolate consumption affects cognitive ability.”

While this is not a "40-year study that proves chocolate makes you smarter," there does appear to be something here worthy of investigation. For instance, they authors used only two levels of chocolate consumption: never/rarely versus once a week or more. So these results don't tell us how much chocolate is beneficial - or whether there are diminishing returns. They also didn't look at type of chocolate consumed - white, milk, or dark. Still, this is a correlation they were not exactly looking for, so there's a danger of p-hacking.

In the meantime, how can you apply these results to your life? Probably the best conclusion is the one the researchers shared:

“I think what we can say for now is that you can eat small amounts without guilt if you don't substitute chocolate for a normal balanced healthy diet,” Elias says.