Close
Articles today i learned (til)

To Vibe or Not to Vibe

April 26, 2022

We’ve all been there: your friends pass you the aux cord at a party and you play your favorite songs only to be met with sighs and groans or –even worse– silence. These are some bangin’ tunes that make you smile. Why do others find those same songs to be boring or “not their cup of tea?” When we like a certain song, dopamine is released into the brain and makes us feel happy or euphoric. This causes us to like a song a little more than your friends and makes you want to listen to more songs in that genre. But what causes our brain to release this chemical? Psychology may provide the answer regarding the inner machinations of the human mind. 

Jon Lieff, MD via grok.com.au

Our Emotions:

Music affects us in three major ways: it serves as a nice distraction, stimulates internal curiosity, and can affect our emotional state. For example, people might listen to music to destress or have as background noise– meanwhile, other people could use those same songs to hype themselves up for a workout. These differences lead us to choosing different genres and songs.

Music is also interpretive and allows us to choose our own meaning and significance for a certain song. This subjectivity allows different people to determine that in different ways. The same line that means nothing to you may make your friend very emotional. Take your favorite song: is there any reason why you really appreciate the song? Do you associate an emotion with the song? This may be a reason as to why there isn’t a favorite universal genre or song. Since music typically appeals to the emotions, people may associate a certain feeling with a song and grow attached to it. For instance, some of my favorite songs are those that I’ve listened to with my friends and raved about or the ones that my former piano teacher introduced me to. 

Identity:

In addition to personal emotions, our perceptions of others and ourselves also influences our taste in music. People have often used music as a way to express themselves and their identity. Because of that, people have associated some songs with certain archetypes of people. According to one study that asked participants to map certain traits to genres, they associate genres like pop and country were more extroverted. On the other hand, jazz and classical were thought of as more reflective.

ResearchGate, 2016

Culture:

Our preferences for certain songs may also be cultural. If we’re exposed to a lot of a certain type of music, we may lean towards more songs that contain those same elements. There are two forms of chords: consonant and dissonant. Consonant chords contain frequencies that are different enough that they don’t seem to clash. Meanwhile, dissonant chords sound a bit more chaotic for lack of better terms. Western music (like pop) usually contains a lot of consonant chords, and Americans have a strong preference for these sounds. However, some other cultures do not show that same, strong preference.

Statistica 2021

Whether it be because of what we were exposed to growing up or our self-identity, music tends to distinguish us from others. Although not much research has been done to see if it is truly connected to our personalities, we still manage to label people according to the music they listen to. Perhaps the real question is if the songs we vibe to influences if people vibe with us.

Resources:

Anne Trafton, Anne. “Why We like the Music We Do.” MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 13 July 2016, https://news.mit.edu/2016/music-tastes-cultural-not-hardwired-brain-0713.

Chamorro-Premuzic, TomasPsychology. “The Psychology of Musical Preferences | Psychology Today.” Psychology Today, 14 Jan. 2011, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mr-personality/201101/the-psychology-musical-preferences.

Clark, Katelyn, et al. “Why Do We like (or Dislike) Certain Music?” Grok, 30 Jan. 2021, https://grokonline.com.au/2021/01/31/why-do-we-like-or-dislike-certain-music/.

Tags:
0Likes
About Author

Hey there! My name is Savanna and I'm a Computer Science major (people + intelligence concentrations) and a Spanish minor at Georgia Tech. I'm super interested in UI/UX design and graphic design as well. I spend my free time trying to find new music or doodling in my notebooks.

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Sleeping Position Matters
today i learned (til)
Why Does Hot Water Freeze Faster?
today i learned (til)
ChatGPT’s Auto-Biography
Articles
Are You Smiling Under Your Face Mask?

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.