Are we hardwired for happy vs sad music? I doubt it

Blogger Tales of Whoa says this:

A paper in Psychological Studies showed that newborns, when played music judged by listeners as "happy" or "sad," responded differently -- and that it seems to be independent of tempo ("happy" music generally having a faster rhythm than "sad" music). Newborns listening to the tunes judged as "happy" showed greater focus, calmer facial expressions, reduced heartbeat, and less movement of the hands and feet; "sad" music produced no such effect.

So the hallmarks of a happy piece of music -- things like being in a major key, less harmonic dissonance, and wide pitch contours -- are markers we either learn prenatally, or else are (amazing as it may seem) hard-wired into our neural network.

Color me skeptical, as I tweeted him, and am expanding here.

First, the whole idea that music in a minor rather than a major is sad is culturally learned.

Second, within the West, the major/minor system is only 500 years old. Before that, it was church modes, and classical Greek modes before that. Gregorian chant, in the Catholic tradition, might be called "serene," if one were using emotion words. Neither "happy" nor "sad" need apply. 

And, even beyond that, in modern classical music, dividing major and minor into "happy" and "sad" doesn't exactly square up, and is simplistic enough to exclude other emotions.

Third, even within major/minor, what about the time before equal tuning? Hold on to that.

Fourth, what about non-Western systems with more than, or less than, 12 tones? And without major/minor structures?

The only things I see "hardwired" are tempo, rhythm, and the original Pythagorean ratios, of which only the octave is universal and only the perfect fourth and fifth in modern Western music.

And, we haven't even discussed differences in what is "harmonic" or "dissonant" across all these different musical systems. Or, in the West, what's harmonic today vs 300 years ago.

Grokking the study also shows me it is, first of all, per the above, "WEIRD." Western music only; I assume the "raters" of "happy" vs "sad" are educated. Industrialized, to be in a neonatal ward. Presumably rich and developed.

It also shows me that it's not really double-blinded and other things. And, it's HUGELY "small sample size" with just 32 involved. Two "culls" may have been done for good reasons, but that arguably also eliminated blinding or double-blinding.

Worse yet? In his March 9 post, he arguably undercut himself, while at the same time, more arguably undercutting his musical background by continuing to mainly limit his musical discussion to the modern Western major/minor scale system.

Several pullouts needed. First is from his overview from the study he cites:

(W)hat this team discovered is something startling; there's a tribe in the Amazon which has had no exposure to Western music, and while they are fairly good at mimicking the relationships between pairs of notes, they seemed completely unaware that they were singing completely different notes (as an example, if the researchers played a C and a G -- a fifth apart -- the test subjects might well sing back an A and an E -- also a fifth apart but entirely different notes unrelated to the first two).

Followed by a second from that study:

The results suggest the cross-cultural presence of logarithmic scales for pitch, and biological constraints on the limits of pitch, but indicate that octave equivalence may be culturally contingent, plausibly dependent on pitch representations that develop from experience with particular musical systems.

Then, there's his reaction:

It makes me wonder if our understanding of a particular kind of chord structure isn't hardwired, but is learned very early from exposure

There you go.

I even asked on Twitter if this didn't undercut the piece from January and haven't heard back.

And, I haven't even talked about whether or not there's that great of a degree of emotional constancy across cultures around the world of "happy" vs "sad."

==

Update, March 29: He's at it again, now talking about a study that claims AI has led us to hear amino acids. No such thing. Rather, an AI music program has riffed off the quantum vibrational frequencies of them to create musical notes, then to "interpret" how things such as folding might sound. He admits that himself:

What's cool is that the musical note that represents each amino acid isn't randomly chosen. It's based on the amino acid's actual quantum vibrational frequency. So when you listen to it, you're not just hearing a whimsical combination of notes based on something from nature; you're actually hearing the protein itself.

Since our ears don't hear in the quantum level, we're not hearing the vibrations of proteins.

And, ultimately, technology is not science, so ultimately, this is about technology, not science.

Michael Langlois: The man who led to Jeff Kloha's current job

 Old Concordia Seminary classmate Kloha, as I blogged nearly 3 years ago, with a follow-up to that, due to new details, a few months later, was hired as chief curatorial officer at Hobby Lobby's Museum of the Bible, originally to address the forged pseudo-Dead Sea Scrolls there; his Augean stables work, as I note in the second piece, has since been forcibly expanded beyond that.

And, who is Michael Langlois? A very interesting, very dynamic biblical textual scholar who first demonstrated those pseudo-DSS, and at many places besides Museum of the Bible, were forgeries.

He's been profiled by Smithsonian. The "very interesting" goes back way before his modern academics, starting with growing up in a Pentecostal family in France.

His tools include high-tech digital photography and other things to enhance writing on ancient documents, which given how ancient they are, include stelae and ostraca, not just parchment or papyrus.

Speaking of stelae? I disagree with his take on the Mesha. It may, or may not, be "beth David" that is at the missing end of line 31. And, what if it is? Greek myth refers to a "house of Atreus." Did such a literal person exist? Possibly, possibly not. If he did, we don't know anything about him.

In sort, Copenhagen or semi-Copenhagen interpretations of the Former Prophets aren't dead.

Bookwyrm: The not-quite-new kid on the book reading block

 Last year I joined Storygraph. I had been considering it even before Amazon gave me the Mafia horse's head in bed treatment and I eventually deleted my Amazon account, leaving me with nothing but Goodreads, solely owned by Amazon.

I had seen Storygraph mentioned by one of my Goodreads friends shortly before this denouement, which gave me the push to join it.

And now, on his blog, friend Brett Welch mentions he has joined Bookwyrm as well. I asked him at that moment what he liked about it, then when I went to its website I already had the answer.

It's "decentralized," a la Mastodon. In fact, it touts that, and its connection to Mastodon. (And, that's Brett's primary reason for joining.)

Well, with Smelling Musky making Mastodon (and other sites, like Post/News) more interesting (and I may join Post/News), I already know something about Mastodon. Per the late Leo Lincourt, a "node" friend who connected me and Brett, I joined Mastodon when it first launched. I found the decentralization "clunky" then and also, per the different moderation standards of different servers, didn't think to check — and didn't really realize it was something good to check — which server I joined.

Given that my reading, in the nonfiction world, ranges from biblical criticism and occasional pop-ish philosophy, through serious "pop" science (Ed Young, Frans de Waal), through serious history (especially WWI and the US Civil War) to biography, but then on to modern culture and cultural sociology, but then on to a variety of sports books? Stops in Anasazi studies and other things are also in the mix.

I don't want a "federated" books site. Sounds like too much hassle. Besides, I haven't yet fully explored all I can do with Storygraph. And, Storygraph offers enough options itself, as well as not being owned by Yellow Satan, that I really don't have need for a third site. Also, since Bookwyrm touts "coding," its more wonky than I need. (Storygraph has a feedback page that is more friendly than that of Goodreads, and I've used it.)

As for Bookwyrm touting its "integration" with Mastodon? I'd rather post a link to a review than integrate two different social media accounts.

Also, Bookwyrm has one big shortcoming, from what I can tell, and that is Goodreads' biggest shortcoming outside being owned by Amazon. From what I can tell without having joined, it does NOT offer fractional star reviews. A book with 21 reviews and no fractional-star reviews? Yeah, they were all imported, but I see noting, including the screengrab on Bookwyrm's front page, that would indicate those reviews can be tweaked into fractional stars or that fresh reviews can be done with fractional stars. Also, Bookwyrm, per its "about" page and "Mouse" history as admin, is more than 2 years old and is now slipstreaming in the new popularity of Mastodon and other "federated" social media. Storygraph is newer, offers other new things, and while not geeky, part of its pitch is in supporting non-Amazon, preferably non-chain, and especially minority-owned bricks and mortar bookstores.

(Note: A longer, differently edited, version of this piece appeared at my main blog.)

The "new" WRR? OK so far, no more

If you missed it, I blogged last year about the Dallas/Denton NPR station taking over management of WRR, the classical radio station for the area, owned by the city of Dallas, and also Texas' oldest radio station.

Here's a few thoughts and observations two weeks into the takeover becoming official. If I think any are good or bad, beyond just different, I'll say so.

• There are no ads, but programming is being "sponsored," just like an NPR station.
• So far, "The Trusted Lab" is a sponsor, but we're not having CBD gummies and cannabis pseudoscience shoved in our faces. 
• Bill McLaughin's "Exploring Music" is gone. Dang. In turn, he was a "dang" after Karl Haas died.
  
• Symphonic broadcast block is still there. Assume it's the same symphonies, but don't know. EDIT: Well, maybe it's not; earlier this week, I heard Matt Rogers talking between 8 and 9 p.m. during the "Dinner Concert." And, I misread one image on their slider. They're doing a "concert hall" on Mondays only and just DFW venues. I flip both ways on this; years ago, WRR didn't do the symphonic broadcasts, but they DID (IIRC) do some thematic work during the evening hours.
  
• Dunno about Peter van de Graaff. (Update that at 12:02 a.m. Sunday, Jan. 15; he is no longer being carried. The new overnight person, at least late night Saturday, is Melanie Renate from Minnesota Public Radio. She's MUCH younger; was it monetary? She's personable, but she's not as suave as Peter.) In either case, can't her playlist be fed into WRR so that the "playing now" remains current throughout the night? And, is the cancellation of the symphony broadcasts also monetary?
  
• As of right now, there are no other "thematic blocks," contra my suggestions. 
• Scratch that; there IS children's-related classical programming Saturday mornings, a great alternative to the old financial shows, and a smart one.
  
• "Pipe Dreams" has been moved to 8 a.m. Sunday, which as commenters have noted on WRR's Facebook page, is a really clueless WTF time slot. It's when Christian organists are all at church! OTOH, maybe it's seen as replacing the church services which are, fortunately, gone.
  

But, the "thematic blocks" may happen soon. WRR long-timer Kurt Rongey is back with the station, as assistant programming director, and is supposed to be at work on lineup overhaul details.

And a kudo, because this takes work. They've got their playlists for a day listed online, as in listed in advance.  (This update was Jan. 25, 10 p.m., and it was already filled out until midnight.)

Beyond sponsorships, will KERA pledge drives appear quarterly on WRR, speaking of?

That seems likely. Scott Cantrell wrote several months ago about the possibility of the takeover, including noting how much debt the station was racking up, and the struggles against online classical music. Pledge drives were mentioned. That would probably explain why most of the symphony broadcasts have been cut, and other syndicated broadcasting either cut or replaced.

A new sheriff at r/AcademicBiblical: badge enamored, or on the spectrum?

 First, "badge enamored" is more suave than "mini-Nazi." And, perhaps, somewhat nicer.

Second, "on the spectrum" is "on the spectrum."

OK ...

Early-mid November, current moderators at r/AcademicBiblical put out a call for additional mods.

A few days later, Nov. 22 to be precise, I had multiple notices, all from the same person (who gave said notices to many others as well) that we weren't being "academic" in citations even on short observations.

(Sidebar: I started this post back in late 2022. Updates expanding beyond the new mod most in question are below, as there's perhaps some degree of questionability elsewhere.)

I had a back and forth with him, and the neo-Nazi angle comes from him assuming, and this time the old pun about "assume" is seemingly true on his side, that I don't know what I'm talking about. 

Screengrab:

OK, it got more interesting yet on exchange on another flagged comment by him. I had made reference to a brief Wiki entry, about a particular word used to describe "Judaism" in Hasmonean and early Christian times, and the question as to, similar to today, it was ethnic only, or also religious. Within that page, Jewish scholar Shaye J.D. Cohen had thoughts, to which I was referring, and was told that "shorthand" wasn't good enough.  So, I did a direct quote, with his book's name, then snarked after that.

 Second screengrab:

And, it's that exchange that led me to think "on the spectrum" rather than "neo-Nazi." He just doesn't get the snark. That's very clear. (That said, the two appellations aren't mutually exclusive.)

Naugirth the Nazi is also at it at r/AskBibleScholars. I didn't directly respond to him, but subresponded to myself:

Or? Maybe Naugrith the Nazi, besides or an addition to also being on the spectrum, still lives in his parents' basement. See this Quora thread for how much of a cesspool mods can be. 

And, per a "meet the new mods" post there, he confirms the Nazi part. Yes, you do, starting with writing longer than most and doing it in your own format. I've bolded the most relevant points.:

Why did you want to be a mod here? 

I’ve loved this sub since I joined reddit many moons ago and it’s encouraged me and challenged me to educate myself about the subject as much as possible, just so I can participate in these discussions. I’m delighted to be able to contribute to this superb resource. And to do what I can to clean up this den of ignorance and depravity (but not too much – to badly paraphrase Luther’s prayer). Also I heard there was cake. 

What’s your attitude about moderation? 

I think it’s important to be clear and consistent. The existing Rules are clear but I recognise they are sometimes inconsistently enforced. I hope to be able to provide an extra pair of hands to ensure they can always be consistently and responsibly applied. I generally believe in being fair, generous, and considerate, and prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. Everyone makes mistakes, and I’m always open to being corrected by my fellow mods or listening to any (polite) request for reconsideration. But ultimately I believe this kind of sub works best when all comments are informed, respectful, objective, and well-sourced, so my goal is to encourage that as much as I can.

The bolding in the second graf is ... not so true. 

Add to it this Dec. 3 post from the moderators about tweaking the sub's commenting rules. Both the fact that he was appointed — or elbowed his way forward — to making the presentation, some of his particular response comments, AND that he's the only one of the mods to be responding are all "interesting."

Let's add further. On the synoptic problem, dude is a proto-Marker, down to supporting Delbert Burkett's ideas of two of them.

Sidebar: Although mine is rusty, it's "interesting" that NONE of the mods has a graduate degree from the biblical studies world, at least ones that are active mods.

And, relevant to the header and the first sidebar at top? After Christmas, and especially into the new year, all the new mods were dropping the delete hammer hard. There's posts where half the comments have been deleted.

Anyway, I've mulled in the back of my mind creating some sort of subreddit on my own. Maybe I'll follow through. 

And, I did, and got banned shortly thereafter. 

The anonymous comment with the "bro" that I've approved? I suspect it's from one of the mods. As I posted on my own Reddit home page and that subreddit I started as well? He was indeed snide and condescending per the screengrabs above. And, I didn't think of reporting him at the time, because I figured it would have done no good, as I told said mod in a Reddit message.

==

Update, April 28: One of the new mods (before or after I was banned I'm not sure) claims that the rule on "cite your academic sources" was made applicable to lower-level comments more than a year ago. News to me. The poster says, "delete it then," and BobbyBobbie the mod says: "That's the neat part; I already did." A junior Naugrith and another Nazi. And, by their feed, a general idiot on religious issues, as well as a massive Nazi on comment-deletion at Academic Biblical.

And, on AskAChristian, about justifying her morals, after accusing an agnostic or atheist of circular reasoning, this circular reasoning of hers: 

How do I justify their existence? I thought it would have been pretty obvious: they are expressions of God's will and binding upon all moral creatures as the inheritors of a system, not the creator of it. 

Whether or not this creates any supposed dilemma is besides the point. The mere existence of them is supported by theism, and imo unable to be grounded under atheism.

got a rebuke and a block (along with an accusation of being more a Nazi than Naugrith, calling her a 1930s partisan of a Central European state). It's also "interesting" that the atheist to whom she was responding, their comment is now deleted. Such TOLERANCE!

 

My year in books 2022

 Thanks to a library card at the nearest large library, I smashed my Goodreads reading challenge with room to spare. Take a look at what was on my list. I re-read one hugely formative book on the issue of free will and several new books on biblical criticism issues.

Top blogging of 2022

An annual roundup of the most read blog posts of the past year. Not all were new to the past three months.

No. 1, "Libertarian pseudoskeptical pseudoscience," about Brian Dunning above all, but also the Novella brothers, Steve Pinker and others, from 2010, most certainly isn't new, but remains very true.

No. 2, "Do you have free will? Is that even a discussable issue?" also from 2010, is an extensive look at a critical area of philosophy.

No. 3, "Texas science ed director resigns over ID-creationist pressure" is even older, from 2007. I suspect it's gained new life due to the recent book bans plaguing public school and community libraries here in Tex-ass.

No. 4, "Antichrist vs the man of lawlessness vs the beast ..." was given new life by me when I posted this New Testament criticism piece to the Academic Biblical subreddit.

No. 5, "No true empiricist? Like no true Scotsman?" from this past year, was a takedown of British philosopher Julian Baggini, whether Scottish or not, over his alleged, but not actual, taking to task of Scottish philosopher David Hume over Hume's racism.

No. 6 is another oldie but goodie, "Say goodbye to History for Atheists." Note to Tim O'Neill: David Kertzer's newest book is yet more reason O'Neill needs to STFU on his attempts to defend the papacy against anti-semitism.

No. 7, "Did Biblical Edom exist? ...", from this past year, talked about the latest in biblical archaeology, and the latest in Israeli biblical archaeology, and the Zionism that appears to be behind some of that, and the Zionism that appears to be behind some of the reporting about it, as the ellipsis points lead you to read the full thing.

No. 8: "Coronavirus, philosophy, the noble lie, and the problem with Dr. Fauci (and his defenders)," written in the middle of 2020, and updated more than once, is indeed about "St. Anthony of Fauci," as I've taken to calling him, and his largely "Blue Anon" defenders, in the face of the big Platonic noble lie he told about masks early in the pandemic (and various less Platonic and less noble likes after that).

No. 9, "Split the log and I am there: Reflections on the Gospel of Thomas and beyond," was inspired by high-country hiking in the Rockies last summer. It includes photography of something that was part of a "secular spiritual experience," multilingual punning and more.

No. 10, "The great ahistoricity of Acts and radical thoughts about Paul's demise," is the third on this list from the past year and is exactly what its title says.

The case against Delbert Burkett's proto-Mark claims, part 3 — minor agreements and theology

   I recently read Delbert Burkett’s “The Case for Proto-Mark.” That was after someone on the AcademicBiblcal subreddit recommended his previous book, “Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark,” where he first broaches his idea of TWO Proto-Marks.

 

I wound up two-starring the book, as described two weeks ago here on site.

This is the second of a couple of more extensive posts on issues I found with the book. It's partially in notes form, not full sentences. It's rough version. The first review part is here. The second is here.

This is a sidebar from my original notes on his book. It's based on a conversation at Reddit/s r/AcademicBiblical, and relates to Marcan priority in general. The conservation was based on my posting a copy of my original review.

Specifically, it's about how Marcan priority of any sort deals with omissions by both Matthew and Luke, as well as a brief look at major additions by both of them, as a preview of the issue of minor agreements of additional material. Both, per the header, are discussed in terms of (systematic) theology.

First, the minor agreements of omissions. In terms of pericopes, not just phrases, there's actually only four, as listed at Wikipedia's subpage within its Marcan priority page.

Of the four?

Parable of the Growing Seed? The Triple Tradition has a more advanced idea in the Parable of the Sower.

Healing of the deaf mute? I see this as most likely due to not accepting the Markan "messianic secret." And, yes, I have no problem with two authors independently reaching the same editorial judgment in this case. Ditto on healing of the blind man at Bethsaida, on both the likely reason for its omission and the independent editorial judgment.

The young man naked at Gethsemane, though it fueled thought related to Clement of Alexandria's Secret Mark letter? I see nothing theological there, one way or the other.

Minor omissions of Mt/Lk? Narrative material. Most of it much more minor than Bartimaeus. The "lectio difficulor" is actually another example of Mt/Lk expanding on/developing/changing Mt theology for a more "advanced" Christology. (Related: On the names issue, it's not just Bartimaeus, per a response to my interlocutor there.)

Now, the "major semi-agreements," if you will — above all, the birth and resurrection material.

This all goes back to Griesbach and his claim that Mark saw Jesus as "just a teacher" for an explanation of why Mark omitted so much Mt/Lk material if he wasn't first. If one rejects Markan priority, whether or not accepting a straight two-source theory, you HAVE TO, as I see it, attack the theological angle of Mt/Lk expanding on Mark. You HAVE TO. You have to undercut their main reason for doing this. I don't know how much more directly and simply to put it.

There's the somewhat but not really closely related issue of a general tendency toward expansion of gospels, including the non-canonical ones, as they get later and later away from Jesus, something I've noted before. As Ehrman says in multiple books of his, a lot of what a lot of Christians think they know about Jesus' birth is from the Proto-Evangelion, for example. This isn't set in stone, it's a general tendency. But, with that, it serves as circumstantial corroboration.