http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/02/music-transcendental.html

More Scruton on music.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/07/dr-peterson-andthe-reporters

Groupthink + journalism < Jordan Peterson

Yesterday, I listened to a lot of music from the British folk-prog group Renaissance. The group had a rabidly fanatic cult following on the East Coast back in the 1970s, and Renaissance recorded a classic live album from their performances (3 nights) at Carnegie Hall. The group featured an amazing singer, Annie Haslam, who has an unequaled talent for bringing out the emotion of a lyric. One of their signature tracks is "Mother Russia", which is loosely based on the career of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. So.....picture yourself as an idealistic young man or woman in the 1970s and early 1980s living in NYC or maybe even a cosmopolitan section of St. Louis that was in those days known as a haven for resettled Russian Jews. You like classical music, but you're wild for this new thing happening....this progressive-rock sound. Then....you hear this band, Renaissance, and this song, "Mother Russia". There's this Romantic orchestral arrangement that segues into an acoustic guitar-driven song with plaintive lyrics:

Red blood, white snow;
He knows frozen rivers won't flow.
So cold, so true;
Mother Russia, he cries for you.

Amazingly moving. The crowd at Carnegie Hall went insane with rapture. It still chokes up that idealistic young man from St. Louis.

(I should have posted this over in BFK's Music Corner. Honestly, I didn't intend to get this deep....)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/theres-an-inverse-piano-in-your-head/

Why does this not surprise me?

Curator of Butterflies, by Big Big Train https://g.co/kgs/vfC4MS

Simply one of the saddest, yet most beautiful songs I've heard. This goes out to Koringhus, and to all those yearning for......

Quote from: BeardFisher-King on May 29, 2018, 07:24:06 pm

From David Reich's article:

"If scientists can be confident of anything, it is that whatever we currently believe about the genetic nature of differences among populations is most likely wrong."

From my reading of the Reich article, I'm confident that he would take issue with your absolutist stance on what genetic science does or does not support, Tleilaxu.

Maybe he's a racist too then.

Just to be clear, do you believe that there is a genetic basis for the difference between black and white intelligence?

You need to formulate your questions with more care. There is no "black" intelligence. There is no "white" intelligence. Try again.

I will say, as a layman, that I believe intellectual capacity/aptitude is hereditary in some degree. That would seem to be a non-controversial statement, but in a time where Sam Harris gets labelled as a racist apparently because he failed to distance himself sufficiently from Charles Murray, who is apparently beyond the pale, perhaps it is not.

It's pretty clear from David Reich's article and from his work that scientists are currently finding genetic differences among various population groups. What these differences amount to, I haven't a clue. But Reich did note the much more significant biological (and, hence, genetic) differences between men and women. More landmines, I'm afraid. Is David Reich "sexist" as well as "racist", Tleilaxu?

The problem is just that in this age of (mis)information there's a lot of people who invoke the science card to justify political/ideological agendas. They say it's all in the science, all in the genetics, to justify e.g. their beliefs in women having specific gender roles. David Reich showcased some nice examples in his article.

When you refer to those people that use the "science" card to justify political/ideological agendas, would that group include climate change alarmists? If not, why not?

Tleilaxu, you didn't "call out" Sam Harris as a racist. "Calling out" would require some evidence, wouldn't it? You just made an unsupported allegation. You said, "Also, Sam Harris is a racist." End scene.